greater haig fras rmcz post-survey site reportrandd.defra.gov.uk/...greaterhaigfrasrmcz...v6.pdf ·...

Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 31 Version 6

September 2015

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 31. Title: Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Defra Project Code: MB0120 Defra Contract Manager: Carole Kelly Funded by: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Marine Science and Evidence Unit Marine Directorate Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Authorship Anna Downie Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Joanna Murray Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Louise Brown Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Stefan Bolam, Robin Law and Markus Diesing for reviewing earlier drafts of this report.

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the report’s content. Although the data provided in this report have been quality assured, the final products - e.g. habitat maps – may be subject to revision following any further data provision or once they have been used in SNCB advice or assessments.

mailto:[email protected]

Cefas Document Control Title: Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey and Evidence Delivery Group

Date submitted: September 2015

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Joanna Murray, Anna Downie, Louise Brown

Quality control by: Stefan Bolam and Robin Law

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (10/09/2015)

Version: V6

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Anna Downie, Joanna Murray, Louise Brown

13/11/2014 First draft for internal QA 1


19/11/2014 Revised draft following internal QA 2


08/12/2014 Revised draft following additional internal QA

3


10/03/2015 Revised following external reviewers’ comments

4


15/06/2015 Revised following 2nd round external reviewers’ comments

5


09/09/2015 Revised following Defra comments 6

Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ i

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iv

1 Executive Summary: Report Card ................................................................. 1

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation ...... 1

1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation .................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ ............................... 2

2 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Location of the rMCZ ..................................................................................... 3

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation .................................................... 4

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection ........... 5

2.4 Survey aims and objectives .......................................................................... 6

3 Methods ........................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition ............................................................................... 7

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition .................................................................... 8

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map ....................................................... 10

3.4 Quality of the updated map ......................................................................... 13

4 Results ........................................................................................................ 14

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map .......................................... 14

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ........................................ 14

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 17

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 17

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 18

4.6 Species FOCI identified .............................................................................. 19

4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...................................... 20

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 20

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed .......................................... 21

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 22

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ............................................... 22

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI .......................................................... 22

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ................................................. 23

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 23

References ............................................................................................................... 24

Data sources ............................................................................................................ 26

Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 27

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. ..................................... 27

Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................ 28

Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ....................... 29

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ..................................... 30

Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol. .................................................... 31

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 33

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (Cend10/12) ......................................................... 33

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ......................................................... 42

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ................................. 44

Appendix 4. Species list ....................................................................................... 45

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 58

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 61

Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ..................... 66

Appendix 8. Example images for habitat FOCI .................................................... 68

Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .... 5

Table 2. Habitat FOCI which was present in this rMCZ but not proposed for designation. ....................................................................................................... 5

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .............. 5

Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry. ................................ 11

Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. .............................................. 18

Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ......................................................... 19

Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ....................................................... 20

Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ. ................................................... 4

Figure 2. Area cover from different sources of acoustic data. Survey Block 1: 2011 SAC Survey; Survey Block 2: 2012 SAC Infill Survey; Survey Block 3: 2012 Site Verification Survey; Survey Block 4: 2014 Gardline Survey. .............................. 8

Figure 3. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ.. .. 9

Figure 4. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 14

Figure 5. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. ................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 6. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 7. Habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ and ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ identified. ................................................................ 19

Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Greater Haig Fras recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ). The site is being considered for inclusion in a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters, designed to meet conservation objectives under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Prior to the dedicated survey, the site assessment had been made on the basis of ‘best available evidence’, drawn largely from historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the area. The purpose of the survey was to provide direct evidence of the presence and extent of the broadscale habitats (BSH) and habitat ‘FOCI’ (Features of Conservation Importance) that had been detailed in the original Site Assessment Document (SAD) (Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

This Executive Summary is presented in the form of a Report Card comparing the characteristics predicted in the original SAD with the updated habitat map and new sample data that result from two surveys of the site conducted by Cefas in July 2012 and Gardline Geosurvey in March 2014. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI.

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation

Feature Extent according

to SAD (2011)

Extent according to

updated SAD1

Extent according to updated

habitat map

Accordance between updated SAD and

updated habitat map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH)

Presence Extent

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock2 688.98 km2 144.51 km2 26.73 km2

-117.78 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 413.46 km2 337.47 km2 N/A N/A

A5.2 Subtidal sand 316.79 km2 150.13 km2 261.32 km2 +111.19 km2

A5.3 Subtidal mud 236.39 km2 89.54 km2 220.54 km2 +131.01 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 115.79 km2 80.65 km2 N/A N/A

A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments3 529.25 km2 418.12 km2 390.17 km2 -27.95 km2

Habitat FOCI

None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Species FOCI

None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 The new survey described in this report covers 1028.95 km2, amounting to ~50% of the rMCZ area. The updated SAD figures given are those from the SAD habitat map clipped to the extent of the survey data.

2. This is the extent of Moderate energy circalittoral rock not included in the existing SAC, thus proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation. 3 It was not possible to make the distinction between coarse and mixed sediments in the new habitat map. Consequently, they are presented as a habitats complex.


1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation

Feature Extent according to

SAD

(2011)

Extent according to

updated SAD1

Extent according to

updated habitat map

Accordance between updated SAD and

updated habitat map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH)

Presence Extent

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 0 km2 0 km2 0.29 km2 +0.29 km2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock2 263.82 km2 225.24 km2 129.70 km2 -95.54 km2

A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock 0 km2 0 km2 N/A N/A

Habitat FOCI

Subtidal Sands and Gravels3 730.25 km2 487.60 km2 N/A N/A

Mud Habitats in Deep Water4 0 km2 0 km2 220.54 km2 +220.54 km2

Species FOCI

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 The new survey described in this report covers 1028.95 km2, amounting to ~50% of the rMCZ. The updated SAD figures given are those from the SAD habitat map clipped to the extent of the survey data. 2 This feature is already protected within an overlapping cSAC. The area here represents the area cover of Moderate energy circalittoral rock inside the existing cSAC. 3 Habitat FOCI not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation as it is considered that any conservation requirements for ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ will be met by the listed broadscale habitats. This is the corrected extent calculated by combining extents for subtidal coarse sediment and subtidal sand. 4 The area given here includes 69.39 km2 of the ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ habitat FOCI. Note: The habitat FOCI ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ is simultaneously a separate habitat FOCI as well as a sub-category of the ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI.

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ

Some apparent trawl marks were observed on the multibeam backscatter in the northern half of the rMCZ. Several wrecks are present within the boundaries of the rMCZ (Appendix 3).


2 Introduction

In accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the UK is committed to the development and implementation of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The network will incorporate existing designated sites (e.g., Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) along with a number of newly designated sites which, within the English territorial waters and offshore waters of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be termed Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). In support of this initiative, four Regional MCZ Projects were set up to select sites that could contribute to this network because they contain one or more features specified in the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG; Natural England and the JNCC, 2010). The Regional MCZ Projects proposed a total of 127 recommended MCZs (rMCZs) and compiled a Site Assessment Document (SAD) for each site. The SAD summarises what evidence was available for the presence and extent of the various habitat, species and geological features specified in the ENG and for which the site was being recommended.

Due to the scarcity of survey-derived seabed habitat maps in UK waters, these assessments were necessarily made using ‘best available evidence’, which included historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the areas concerned.

It became apparent that the ‘best available evidence’ on features for which some sites had been recommended as MCZs was of variable quality. Consequently, Defra initiated a number of measures aimed at improving the evidence base, one of which took the form of a dedicated survey programme, implemented and co-ordinated by Cefas, to collect and interpret new survey data at selected rMCZ sites. This report provides an interpretation of the survey data collected jointly by Cefas and the JNCC and Gardline Geosurvey personnel at the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ site during July 2012 and March 2014, respectively.

2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Greater Haig Fras rMCZ, which contains the Haig Fras SAC and extends to the local limit of the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), is approximately 2,040 km2 in area, lying about 75 nautical miles (140 km) west of Lands End (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Location of the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation

The Greater Haig Fras rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) criteria to broadscale habitats, and its added ecological importance. For a detailed site description see ‘Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations’ (Lieberknecht et al., 2011) and ‘The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance’ (Natural England and the JNCC, 2010).

2.2.1 Broadscale habitats proposed for designation

Five broadscale habitats were included in the recommendations for designation at this site (Table 1). See Annex 1 for full list of broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.


Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

EUNIS code & Broadscale Habitat Spatial extent according to the SAD

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 688.98 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 413.46 km2

A5.2 Subtidal sand 316.79 km2

A5.3 Subtidal mud 236.39 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 115.79 km2

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ was also indicated in the SAD to be present within the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ (Table 2). However, this habitat FOCI is not included in the list of draft conservation objectives for this site as it is considered that any conservation requirements will be met by the listed broadscale habitats. It should be noted that the spatial extent for this habitat FOCI stated in the SAD appears to have been miscalculated as 1371.79 km2. The correct spatial extent (derived from combining the estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment and the subtidal sand) is 730.25 km2. The corrected value will be used in this report when comparing the SAD and the updated habitat map.

Table 2. Habitat FOCI which was present in this rMCZ but not proposed for designation.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 730.25 km2*

* This is the corrected value calculated using the combined estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment and subtidal sand broadscale habitats stated in the Site Assessment Document.

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

No ‘Low or limited mobility species’ and no ‘Highly mobile species’ FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this rMCZ (Table 3). The full list of these species FOCI is presented in Annexes 3 and 4.

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

Species FOCI

Low or limited mobility species FOCI

None

Highly mobile species FOCI

None

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection

Prioritisation of rMCZ sites for further evidence collection was informed by a gap analysis and evidence assessment. The prime objective was to elevate the confidence status for as many rMCZs as feasible to support designation in terms of the amount and quality of evidence for the presence and extent of broadscale habitat features and habitat FOCI and, where possible, species FOCI. The confidence status was originally assessed in the SADs according to Technical Protocol E (Natural England and the JNCC, 2012).


The confidence score for the presence and extent of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI reported for the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ was Low/Moderate (Lieberknecht et al. 2011; JNCC and Natural England, 2012). This site was therefore prioritised for additional evidence collection.

2.4 Survey aims and objectives

Primary Objectives

To collect acoustic and groundtruthing data to allow the production of an updated map which could be used to inform the presence of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI, and allow estimates to be made of their spatial extent within the rMCZ.

Secondary Objectives

To provide evidence, where possible, of the presence of species FOCI listed within the ENG (Annexes 3 and 4) within the rMCZ.

To report evidence of human activity occurring within the rMCZ found during the course of the survey.

It should be emphasised that surveys were not primarily designed to address the secondary objectives under the current programme of work.

Whilst the newly collected data will be utilised for the purposes of reporting against the primary objectives of the current programme of work (given above), it is recognised that these data will be valuable for informing the assessment and monitoring of condition of given habitat features in the future.


3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition

Multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data were available from four acoustic surveys. A full coverage multibeam survey over Haig Fras (Block 1, Figure 2) was carried out between 27th March and 5th April 2011 on the RV Cefas Endeavour, cruise code CEND02c11, using a 300 kHz EM3002D multibeam echosounder. For full details see Curtis et al. (2012). Further acoustic data were acquired at the site between the 5th and 12th of July 2012 on the RV Cefas Endeavour, cruise code CEND10/12, using two Kongsberg multibeam systems run simultaneously. The EM3002D system used on the 2011 survey was again deployed in order to maximise consistency between the backscatter data from the two surveys. The newer, more advanced, EM2040 system was also used, and was the preferred instrument for deriving bathymetric data. This was operated at 200 kHz to prevent interference with the 300 kHz frequency of the EM3002D system. The Haig Fras SAC ‘Infill’ part of the survey (Coggan, 2012) acquired full coverage multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data between the two main 2011 acoustic blocks (Block 2, Figure 2). The Greater Haig Fras rMCZ site evaluation survey (Coggan, 2013), covering the rMCZ to the north of the Haig Fras SAC, acquired MBES data in single line corridors spaced five kilometres apart, as well as collecting opportunistic data whilst transiting between ground truthing stations. These transits between sampling stations were planned in a way that ensured they followed a different orientation to the main acoustic survey lines (Block 3, Figure 2). Further full coverage multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data were collected south of the Haig Fras SAC (Block 4, Figure 2) under contract by Gardline Geosurvey on board MV Vigilant, between 11th February and 28th March 2014. Data were collected using a hull mounted EM2040 dual head multibeam echo sounder (Gardline Geosurvey, 2014). All bathymetric data were collected and processed in accordance with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys - Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). Processing of the backscatter data was undertaken using the software package QPS FM Geocoder Toolkit (FMGT) to produce fully compensated and corrected backscatter mosaics that were exported in floating point geotiff format for further analysis.


Figure 2. Area cover from different sources of acoustic data. Survey Block 1: 2011 SAC Survey; Survey Block 2: 2012 SAC Infill Survey; Survey Block 3: 2012 Site Verification Survey; Survey Block 4: 2014 Gardline Survey.

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

Ground truth data were available from three surveys; the Haig Fras SAC survey in 2011, the Haig Fras infill survey in 2012 and the MCZ site verification survey in 2012. The Haig Fras 2011 survey consisted of 9 stations with underwater camera tows and the 2012 Haig Fras infill survey consisted of 11 grab stations and 8 stations with underwater video. Ground truth data were obtained from these surveys to map the area around Haig Fras Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in 2011. Details of methodology used can be found in Barrio Frojan et al. (2014).

During the dedicated 2012 MCZ site verification survey, ground truth samples were collected from 53 stations which were positioned within the sedimentary habitats using a triangular lattice grid overlaid on the Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map. Benthic grabs were used at all stations to collect sediments and infauna. An underwater camera system was deployed at 23 stations to collect video and still images of the seabed (Figure 3; Appendix 1).


Figure 3. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

Sampling equipment comprised a 0.1 m2 mini Hamon grab fitted with a video camera, the combined gear being known as a ‘HamCam’. This allowed an image of the undisturbed seabed surface to be obtained immediately before each grab sample was taken. On recovery, the grab was emptied into a large plastic bin and a representative sub-sample of sediment (approx. 0.5 litres) taken for Particle Size Analysis (PSA). The remaining sample was photographed and sieved over a 1 mm mesh sieve to collect the benthic fauna. Fauna were preserved in buffered 4% formaldehyde for later processing ashore.

Within the broadscale habitat areas identified in the SAD, two camera systems were used, one mounted on a towed sledge and the other in a drop-frame. Deployments were made at a subset of stations sampled using the grab. The frequency of use of the camera systems was informed by the type of sediment obtained in the grab sample. Where this was consistent with the BSH predicted in the SAD, the camera was deployed at approximately every third station. Where the grab sample was not consistent with the predicted BSH, the camera was used at every station. The camera images helped to characterise the surficial sediments and associated epifaunal communities. The total number of camera deployments for each BSH varied depending on the uniformity of the habitat and its spatial extent.

The camera systems were able to collect both video and still images. A 4-point laser scaling device was used to provide a reference scale in the video and stills images. Set-up and operation followed the MESH ‘Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques’ (Coggan et al.,


2007). Video was recorded simultaneously to a Sony GV-HD700 DV tape and a computer hard drive. A video overlay was used to provide station metadata, time and GPS position (of the vessel) in the recorded video image.

Camera tows lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, being towed at ca. 0.5 knots (ca. 0.25 m s-1) across a 100 m ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling station. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals and opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered. Video and still images were analysed following an established protocol developed and used by Cefas (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; see Annex 5).

For further detail on ground truth sample collection see the ‘Greater Haig Fras rMCZ Survey Report’ (Coggan, 2013).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map

All new maps and their derivatives have been based on a WGS84 datum. A new habitat map for the site was produced by analysing and interpreting the available acoustic data (as detailed above) and the ground truth data collected during the three surveys of this site, mentioned above. The process is a combination of two approaches, statistical modelling and image analysis, as described below.

The object-based image analysis (OBIA) is a two-step approach consisting of segmentation and classification (Blaschke, 2010), implemented in the software package eCognition v9.0.1. Raster layers were segmented into objects (sections of the image with homogeneous characteristics across layers included in the segmentation). For each of these objects, mean values of the primary acoustic data layers and selected derivatives were calculated and extracted at point sample locations for statistical analysis. Rules used to split objects into habitat types in the classification step were determined by applying Conditional Inference Tree analysis (CI; Hothorn et al., 2006) to the sample data. CI combines recursive binary partitioning with conditional inference procedures, embedding statistical tests into each classification split. The statistical analyses were carried out in the statistical programming environment R (R Development Core Team, 2012).

Stage 1. Data Preparation

Prior to analysis, the bathymetry and backscatter data were each mosaicked onto a common grid at 2 m resolution. This data preparation results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 2 m x 2 m grid cell and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process. Backscatter data from different sources were all standardised to the values in one layer, using linear models trained on data in overlapping areas, before being mosaicked into a single layer.

Stage 2. Derivatives calculated

A range of derivatives, as detailed in Table 4, representing topographic attributes of the sea floor were calculated from the bathymetry layer.


Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry.

Derivative Description

Slope The slope in degrees using the maximum change in elevation of each cell and its 8 neighbours

Roughness Calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum value of each cell and its 8 neighbours

BPI Bathymetric position index (Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 3, 5, 25 cells

Aspect Expressed as eastness and northness (Wilson et al., 2007)

Stage 3. Segmentation

Segmentation divides the image into meaningful objects, based on their spectral and spatial characteristics. The resulting objects can be characterised by their various features, such as layer values (mean, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.), texture and many others.

Segmentation was carried out using the multiresolution segmentation algorithm in eCognition. This is an optimisation procedure that starts with an individual pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels to form an object. The process continues until a threshold value for a ‘scale’ parameter, determining the variability allowed in the objects, is reached. The threshold is determined by the operator. The goal of the segmentation is to create meaningful objects that represent areas of homogeneous values in the map image. The size of the objects is influenced by the ‘scale’ parameter mentioned above and the heterogeneity of the image. For a fixed value of the scale parameter, a homogeneous area of seabed will have larger objects than a heterogeneous area. Likewise, for a fixed seabed heterogeneity, larger values of the scale parameter produce larger objects than smaller values.

The input layers used in segmentation were bathymetric roughness and backscatter strength. Bathymetric roughness is useful in identifying outcropping bedrock, known to be present at the site, whilst backscatter strength is indicative of sediment types. The final segmentation was carried out at the pixel level with the scale parameter set at 5, creating segmentation Level 2. A copy of the segmentation, labelled Level3, was further simplified by merging all objects with bathymetric roughness values that differ by less than 0.1 from neighbouring objects. This allowed better representation of the rock over the main Haig Fras feature.

For each of the objects created, mean values (e.g. the mean backscatter value for the grid cells lying within the object) of the primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives (Table 4) were calculated, along with Grey Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) texture values of homogeneity and entropy for bathymetry and backscatter. These object-feature mean values were exported as a GIS shapefile and extracted at the location of each of the ground truth samples (video stills and grab samples) to provide an analysis dataset for classification.

Stage 4. Classification

The distribution of values for bathymetry, its derivatives and backscatter, in the broadscale habitat classes found in ground truth data, were analysed to find the variables that best distinguished habitat classes. Data from video and still images were used to characterise the circalittoral rock BSH, and PSA data from grab samples the subtidal sediment BSH observed in the area.


CI analysis (Hothorn et al., 2006) was used to identify the acoustic variables that most successfully differentiated between the observed broadscale habitats in the groundtruthing datasets, and to establish the best cut-off values for those variables for classification of OBIA objects. The ground truth data used in the analysis consisted of 67 PSA samples and 585 video stills. Broadscale habitats observed in ground truth data included ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’.

The broadscale habitat classes ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ were characterised by highly rugose bottom topography (object mean rugosity > 0.18), with the energy level determined by depth as indicated by the ground truth data (split at 70 m depth). Rock was classified for both Level 2 and level 3 segmentations. The Level 3 segmentation allowed better delineation of the main Haig Fras feature, but introduced more error in the areas dominated by sedimentary habitat. Consequently, the final map is a composite of Level 2 and Level 3 classified objects, with ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ derived from Level 3 over the main Haig Fras feature, and the remaining area derived from Level 2. Any rock objects with a BPI25 below 0.001 (flat or concave topography) were further removed and merged with surrounding objects.

High reflectivity (> -22.4 dB) coupled with low rugosity was found to indicate ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. The remaining lower rugosity, low reflectivity area was classified into ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ based on a depth gradient observed in mud content (split at 103 m depth). It was not possible to differentiate between the coarse and mixed sediments, which were mapped as a complex ‘A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. Mapping ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’ as a separate category was also not possible, although it was present in a number of video tows. The rock has very low relief and the reflectivity does not differ from ‘coarse’ and ‘mixed’ sediment. Consequently, any attempt to delineate the rock included too much noise from the bathymetry to be justified.

Three habitat FOCI were observed in the ground truth data, namely ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’, ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ and ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’. It was not possible to map ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ due to the inability to separate ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ from ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. The habitat FOCIs ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ and ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ were however distinguished from each other by a bathymetric boundary; ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ were only observed below the depth of 113 m, and ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ occurred primarily above this depth. The area classified as the BSH ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ was split to the habitat FOCIs ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ and ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ along the 113 m depth boundary.

In order to remove artefacts caused by edge effects and other noise on the rasters, all polygons smaller than 100 m2 were appended to the neighbouring polygon with which they shared the longest boundary in both polygon datasets.


3.4 Quality of the updated map

The technical quality of the updated habitat map was assessed using the MESH ‘Confidence Assessment’ Tool1, originally developed by an international consortium of marine scientists working on the MESH (Mapping European Seabed Habitats) project. This tool considers the provenance of the data used to make a biotope/habitat map, including the techniques and technology used to characterise the physical and biological environment, and the expertise of the people who had made the map. In its original implementation, it was used to make an auditable judgement of the confidence that could be placed in a range of existing, local biotope maps that had been developed using different techniques and data inputs, but were to be used in compiling a full coverage map for north-west Europe. Where two of the original maps overlapped, that with the highest MESH confidence score would take precedence in the compiled map.

Subsequent to the MESH project, the confidence assessment tool has been applied to provide a benchmark score that reflects the technical quality of newly developed habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100 but, as the current rMCZ exercise requires the mapping of broadscale physical habitats not biotopes, it excludes the need for biological data. In the absence of biological data, the maximum score attainable for a purely physical map is 88.

In applying the tool to the current work, none of the weighting options were altered; that is, the tool was applied in its standard form, as downloaded from the internet.

1http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 19/11/2014]

http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html


4 Results

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map

The SAD habitat map (Figure 4) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap (McBreen, 2011). For further detail see Lieberknecht et al. (2011).

Figure 4. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document.

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data

The updated habitat map, resulting from an integrated analysis of the survey data collected during the 2011 and 2012 SAC surveys and the 2012 MCZ site verification survey is presented in Figure 5.

The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples from the two SAC surveys and the MCZ site verification survey are presented in Appendix 4. A total of 36 epifaunal taxa were recorded in the 9 video samples from the 2011 SAC survey and a total of 133 infaunal (11 samples) and 36 epifaunal species (8 videos) from the 2012 Haig Fras infill SAC survey. A total of 326 infaunal (from 53 samples) and 70 epifaunal taxa (from 23 samples) were recorded in the samples from the MCZ site verification survey.

A summary of the particle size analysis of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 11 stations at which a sample was obtained during the Haig Fras SAC infill survey, coarse sediment was recorded at 5 stations, sand at 3 and mixed at 3. Of the 56 stations at which a sample was obtained during the MCZ site verification survey,


coarse sediment was recorded at 8 stations, sand at 9 stations, mud at 33 stations and mixed sediments at 6 stations.

The analysis of the seabed video and stills is summarised in Appendix 6. Example images taken during the survey of the BSHs and habitat FOCI recorded in the video analysis are given in Appendices 7 and 8, respectively.


Figure 5. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data.


4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

This map attained a score of 79 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 6), which is considered to be good, given that the maximum possible score for a purely physical map is 88.

Figure 6. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map.

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified

The large rocky reef feature in the centre of the rMCZ site consists of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. All of the high energy rock (0.29 km2) and most of the moderate energy rock (129.70 km2), is already included within the SAC. Only 26.73 km2 of additional ‘4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ was identified outside the SAC boundary.

The rMCZ surrounding the reef is made up of ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ (261.32 km2), ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ (220.74 km2) and ‘A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ (390.17km2). Coarse/mixed sediments and sand occur in a matrix of bedforms surrounding the outcropping bedrock, whilst mud habitat is largely concentrated in the deeper parts of the rMCZ. An additional broadscale habitat, ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’, was observed in video tows at several locations north of the Haig Fras SAC. The low energy rock consists both of low lying exposed bedrock and cobble and boulder reef, but the lack of bathymetric expression makes it impossible to map and, hence, estimate its extent.


Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ.

Broadscale Habitat Type (EUNIS Level 3)

Extent according to updated SAD1

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat map

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 0 km2 0.29 km2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock* 225.24/144.51 km2 * 129.70/26.73 km2

A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock** 0 km2 N/A

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 337.47 km2 N/A

A5.2 Subtidal sand 150.13 km2 261.32 km2

A5.3 Subtidal mud 89.54 km2 220.54 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 80.65 km2 N/A

A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments 418.12 km2 390.17 km2 1 The new survey described in this report covers 1028.95 km2, amounting to ~50% of the rMCZ. The updated SAD figures given are those from the SAD habitat map clipped to the extent of the survey data.

* Values given are extent inside/outside current SAC boundary. Only the extent outside the SAC boundary is proposed for designation in the MCZ.

** Although Low energy circalittoral rock was recorded in video stills at several locations in the northern half of the site, it was not possible to map separately, and is included in the coarse/mixed sediment classification.

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The SAD estimates that approximately 25% of the rMCZ area is covered by the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI, although it was not included as a feature for designation, as it was considered that any conservation requirements would be met by the listed broadscale habitats (Lieberknecht et al., 2011). The area extent of sands and gravels could not be estimated in the new map because coarse sediment (gravels) could not be distinguished from mixed sediments from the backscatter signature. In the deeper part of the site the mud observed on video tows was clearly burrowed, and the sea-pen Virgularia mirabilis was observed during a number of tows. Mud in the shallower eastern half of the site appears sandier and no burrowing megafauna or sea-pens were observed. The habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is a wide category including most mud habitats below depths of 20m. The habitat FOCI ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ is simultaneously a sub-category of the ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI as well as a habitat FOCI in its own right. Consequently, ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ are also by default ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’. When determining extent at this site, the deeper mud with extensive burrowing and sea pens has been classified to the ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ habitat FOCI, with a calculated extent of 69.39 km2. The remaining mud habitat has been classified as ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI, with a calculated extent of 151.15 km2 (Figure 7; Table 6). Consequently the total area of ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is 220.54 km2.


Figure 7. Habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ and ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ identified.

Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI Extent according to

updated SAD1

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat

map

Subtidal Sands and Gravels1 487.60 km2* N/A

Mud Habitats in Deep Water2 0 km2 220.54 km2 1 ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ are observed at the site. It has not been possible to estimate their extent due to the lack of distinction between coarse and mixed sediments. 2 The area given here includes 69.39 km2 of the ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ habitat FOCI. Note: The habitat FOCI ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ is simultaneously a separate habitat FOCI as well as a sub-category of the ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI.

* This is the corrected value calculated using the combined estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment and subtidal sand broadscale habitats stated in the Site Assessment Document.

4.6 Species FOCI identified

No species FOCI were observed in the survey data. Shells of the species FOCI Atrina fragilis (incorrectly listed in the ENG as Atrina pectinata and not listed as part of the proposals for designation of this site) were identified during three video tows collected during the survey (Figure 3; Table 7), although they were presumed dead due to condition and position on the sediment surface. The list of species identified from grab and video samples collected during the three surveys is presented in Appendix 4.


Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Species FOCI Previously recorded within

rMCZ Identified during evidence

gathering survey

Low or Limited Mobility Species FOCI None recorded None recorded

Highly Mobile Species FOCI None recorded None recorded

4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)

4.7.1 Acoustic data

The acoustic data utilised for production of the updated habitat map were collected under the Civil Hydrographic Programme. Therefore, acquisition and processing of the bathymetry data complied with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys-Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). The accompanying multibeam backscatter data were processed and/or products reviewed by specialist Cefas staff to ensure these data were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretations and production of the updated habitat map.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) of sediments

PSA was carried out by Ken Pye Ltd. following standard laboratory practice and the results checked by specialist Cefas staff following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011). Results of the PSA are shown in Appendix 5.

4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs

Infaunal samples were processed by Thomson Unicomarine Ltd following standard laboratory practice and results checked following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis

Video and photographic stills were processed by Envision Mapping Ltd in accordance with the guidance documents developed by Cefas and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) for the acquisition and processing of video and stills data (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; summarised in Annex 5).

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map

The quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be High (MESH assessment tool). A source of potential misclassification of habitats arises from the location of ground truthing samples in relation to habitat types.

The survey has provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence of the mapped habitats. However, as it is impractical (and undesirable) to sample the entire area of the site with grabs and video, there is a chance that a BSH or FOCI


may exist within the site but has not been recorded, especially if it was limited in extent. ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’, although observed to be present, could not be mapped separately and contributes towards the total area of ‘A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. Ship movement (heave and roll) during survey caused artefacts in the bathymetry. These artefacts were occasionally identified as rock during the analysis. The resultant contribution of these artefacts to the area estimate for ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ is not large enough to significantly affect the reliability of the map.

The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale habitats depicted on the map should be regarded as indicative, not definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt. Rather, it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a transitional boundary. In contrast, the mapped boundaries are abrupt and have been placed using best professional judgment. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI.

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed

Trawl marks were observed on the multibeam backscatter in the northern half of the rMCZ. Five previously identified and charted wrecks are visible in the multibeam bathymetry for this site, as shown in Appendix 3.


5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2011-2014 surveys have confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ that were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2011-2014 surveys have also confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’. These BSHs were not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ on the updated habitat map is 0.29 km2. This was not identified in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ on the updated habitat map is 156.43 km2, of which 26.73 km2 is outside the current SAC boundary. This is 213.32 km2 less than its extent in the SAD habitat map overall and 117.78 km2 less outside the SAC boundary.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’ could not be calculated.

The spatial extent of the BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ could not be calculated separately. Their combined extent on the updated habitat map is 390.17 km2. This is 27.95 km2 less than their combined spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ on the updated habitat map is 261.32 km2. This is 111.19 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ on the updated habitat map is 220.74 km2. This is 131.21 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence

The 2011-2014 surveys have confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ that was reported to be present, although not


included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2011-2014 surveys have confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ and ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ at this site. These habitat FOCI were not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ could not be calculated.

The total spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ on the updated habitat map is 220.54 km2, of which 69.39 km2 is ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’. Neither was identified in the SAD habitat map.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species

No live ‘Low or limited mobility’ species FOCI were recorded during the survey. However, dead remains of the species FOCI Atrina fragilis (incorrectly listed in the ENG as Atrina pectinata) were identified at three video stations

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI

No highly mobile species FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2012 dedicated survey. These observations are consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed

Trawl marks were observed on the multibeam backscatter in the northern half of the rMCZ. Several previously charted wrecks are present within the boundaries of the rMCZ (Appendix 3).


References

Astrium (2011). Creation of a high resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the British Isles continental shelf: Final Report. Prepared for Defra, Contract Reference: 13820. 26 pp.

Barrio Frojan, C., Diesing, M. and Curtis, M. (2014). Haig Fras SCI Mapping. JNCC Project Report. 42pp.

Blaschke, T. (2010). Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 65, 2-16.

Coggan, R., Mitchell, A., White, J. and Golding, N. (2007). Recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques. www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf [Accessed 11/11/2014]

Coggan, R. and Howell, K. (2005). Draft SOP for the collection and analysis of video and still images for groundtruthing an acoustic basemap. Video survey SOP version 5, 10 pp.

Coggan, R. (2012). Haig Fras ‘Infill Survey’ Report. Cefas project Report for JNCC, Project ref: C5785A, Report Ref: HF-SAC/xx/AB/07-12. 43 pp.

Coggan, R. (2013). Greater Haig Fras rMCZ survey report. 90 pp.

Curtis, M., Diesing, M. and Stephens, D. 2012. Haig Fras SAC Mapping. Cefas Project Report C5596.

Gardline Geosurvey (2014) Lot 6 – Greater Haig Fras V1.1. 359 pp.

Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. and Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15, 651–674.

Isaaks, E. and Srivastava, R. (1989). An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics, Oxford University Press.

JNCC (in prep.). Video/Stills Camera Standard Operating Procedure for Survey and Analysis: for groundtruthing and classifying an acoustic basemap, and development of new biotopes within the UK Marine Habitat Classification. JNCC Video and Stills Processing SOP v2. 6 pp.

JNCC and Natural England (2012). Marine Conservation Zone Project: JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine Conservation Zones. Peterborough and Sheffield. 1455 pp.

Lieberknecht, L.M., Hooper, T.E.J., Mullier, T.M., Murphy, A., Neilly, M., Carr, H., Haines, R., Lewin, S. and Hughes, E. (2011). Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations. A report submitted by the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England. http://findingsanctuary.marinemapping.com/ Final report as one document (PDF, 43MB) - 14 September 2011 version [Accessed 11/11/2014].

http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf

http://findingsanctuary.marinemapping.com/


Lundblad, E. R., Wright, D. J., Miller, J., Larkin, E. M., Rinehart, R., Naar, D. F., Donahue, B. T., Anderson, S. M. and Battista, T. (2006). A benthic terrain classification scheme for American Samoa. Marine Geodesy 29, 89-111.

Mason, C. (2011). NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis.

McBreen, F., Askew, N., Cameron, A., Connor, D., Ellwood, H. and Carter, A. (2011). UKSeaMap 2010: EUNIS model Version 3.0. UKSeaMap 2010: predictive mapping of seabed habitats in UK waters. JNCC report, No. 446. Available on line from http:/jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukseamap [Accessed 10/09/2015].

Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK.

Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2012). SNCB MCZ Advice Project-Assessing the scientific confidence in the presence and extent of features in recommended Marine Conservation Zones (Technical Protocol E)

R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org [Accessed 11/11/2014]

Wilson, M.F.J., O’Connell, B., Brown, C., Guinan, J.C. and Grehan, A.J. (2007). Multiscale terrain analysis of multibeam bathymetry data for habitat mapping on the continental slope. Marine Geodesy 30, 3-35.

Worsfold, T.M., Hall., D.J. and O’Reilly, M. (2010). Guidelines for processing marine macrobenthic invertebrate samples: a processing requirements protocol version 1 (June 2010). Unicomarine Report NMBAQCMbPRP to the NMBAQC Committee. 33 pp. http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf [Accessed 11/11/2014]

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukseamap

http://www.r-project.org/

http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf

http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf


Data sources

All enquiries in relation to this report should be addressed to the following e-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Annexes

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.

Broadscale Habitat Type EUNIS Level 3 Code

High energy intertidal rock A1.1

Moderate energy intertidal rock A1.2

Low energy intertidal rock A1.3

Intertidal coarse sediment A2.1

Intertidal sand and muddy sand A2.2

Intertidal mud A2.3

Intertidal mixed sediments A2.4

Coastal saltmarshes and saline reed beds A2.5

Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms A2.6

Intertidal biogenic reefs A2.7

High energy infralittoral rock* A3.1

Moderate energy infralittoral rock* A3.2

Low energy infralittoral rock* A3.3

High energy circalittoral rock** A4.1

Moderate energy circalittoral rock** A4.2

Low energy circalittoral rock** A4.3

Subtidal coarse sediment A5.1

Subtidal sand A5.2

Subtidal mud A5.3

Subtidal mixed sediments A5.4

Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment A5.5

Subtidal biogenic reefs A5.6

Deep-sea bed*** A6

* Infralittoral rock includes habitats of bedrock, boulders and cobble which occur in the shallow subtidal zone and typically support seaweed communities ** Circalittoral rock is characterised by animal dominated communities, rather than seaweed dominated communities *** The deep-sea bed broadscale habitat encompasses several different habitat sub-types, all of which should be protected within the MPA network. The broadscale habitat deep-sea bed habitat is found only in the south-west of the MCZ project area and MCZs identified for this broadscale habitat should seek to protect the variety of sub-types known to occur in the region.


Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG.

Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI)

Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)**

Cold-Water Coral Reefs ***

Coral Gardens***

Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations***

Estuarine Rocky Habitats

File Shell Beds***

Fragile Sponge and Anthozoan Communities on Subtidal Rocky Habitats

Intertidal Underboulder Communities

Littoral Chalk Communities

Maerl Beds

Horse Mussel (Modiolus modiolus) Beds

Mud Habitats in Deep Water

Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities

Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Beds

Peat and Clay Exposures

Honeycomb Worm (Sabellaria alveolata) Reefs

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs

Seagrass Beds

Sheltered Muddy Gravels

Subtidal Chalk

Subtidal Sands and Gravels****

Tide-Swept Channels

* Habitat FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’ and the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’. ** Only includes ‘natural’ beds on a variety of sediment types. Excludes artificially created mussel beds and those which occur on rocks and boulders. *** Cold-Water Coral Reefs, Coral Gardens, Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations and File Shell Beds currently do not have distributional data which demonstrate their presence within the MCZ project area. **** Subtidal Sands and Gravels are considered to be adequately protected by its component habitat features subtidal sand and/or subtidal coarse sediment, and is no longer included within MCZ designations.


Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG.

Group Scientific name Common Name

Brown Algae Padina pavonica Peacock’s Tail

Red Algae Cruoria cruoriaeformis

Grateloupia montagnei

Lithothamnion corallioides

Phymatolithon calcareum

Burgundy Maerl Paint Weed

Grateloup’s Little-Lobed Weed

Coral Maerl

Common Maerl

Annelida Alkmaria romijni**

Armandia cirrhosa**

Tentacled Lagoon-Worm**

Lagoon Sandworm**

Teleostei Gobius cobitis

Gobius couchi

Hippocampus guttulatus

Hippocampus

Giant Goby

Couch’s Goby

Long Snouted Seahorse

Short Snouted Seahorse

Bryozoa Victorella pavida Trembling Sea Mat

Cnidaria Amphianthus dohrnii

Eunicella verrucosa

Haliclystus auricula

Leptopsammia pruvoti

Lucernariopsis campanulata

Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis

Nematostella vectensis

Sea-Fan Anemone

Pink Sea-Fan

Stalked Jellyfish

Sunset Cup Coral

Stalked Jellyfish

Stalked Jellyfish

Starlet Sea Anemone

Crustacea Gammarus insensibilis**

Gitanopsis bispinosa

Pollicipes

Palinurus elephas

Lagoon Sand Shrimp**

Amphipod Shrimp

Gooseneck Barnacle

Spiny Lobster

Mollusca Arctica islandica

Atrina pectinata

Caecum armoricum**

Ostrea edulis

Paludinella littorina

Tenellia adspersa**

Ocean Quahog

Fan Mussel

Defolin’s Lagoon Snail**

Native Oyster

Sea Snail

Lagoon Sea Slug**

* Species FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’, the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’ and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. ** Those lagoonal species FOCI may be afforded sufficient protection through coastal lagoons designated as SACs under the EC Habitats Directive. However, this needs to be assessed by individual regional projects.


Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG.

Group Scientific name Common Name

Teleostei Osmerus eperlanus

Anguilla

Smelt

European Eel

Elasmobranchii Raja undulata Undulate Ray

* Species FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’, the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’ and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.


Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol.

The purpose of the analysis of the video and still images is to identify which habitats exist within a video record, to provide semi-quantitative data on their physical and biological characteristics and to note where one habitat changes to another. A minimum of 10% of the videos should be re-analysed for QA purposes.

Video Analysis

The video record is initially viewed rapidly (at approximately 4x normal speed) in order to segment it into sections representing different habitats. The start and end points of each segment are logged, and each segment subsequently subject to more detailed analysis. Brief changes in habitat type lasting less than one minute of the video record are considered as incidental patches and are not logged.

For each segment, note the start and end time and position from the information on the video overlay. View the segment at normal or slower than normal speed, noting the physical and biological characteristics, such as substrate type, seabed character, species and life forms present. For each taxon record an actual abundance (where feasible) or a semi quantitative abundance (e.g. SACFOR scale).

Record the analyses on the video pro-forma provided (paper and/or electronic), which is a modified version of the Sublittoral Habitat Recording Form used in the Marine Nature Conservation Review (MNCR) surveys.

When each segment has been analysed, review the information recorded and assign the segment to one of the broadscale habitat (BSH) types or habitat FOCI listed in the Ecological Network Guidance (as reproduced in Annexes 1 and 2 above). Note also any species FOCI observed (as per Annex 3 above).

Stills analysis

Still images should be analysed separately, to supplement and validate the video analysis, and provide more detailed (i.e. higher resolution) information than can be extracted from a moving video image.

For each segment of video, select three still images that are representative of the BSH or FOCI to which the video segment has been assigned. For each image, note the time and position it was taken, using information from the associated video overlay.

View the image at normal or greater than normal magnification, noting the physical and biological characteristics, such as substrate type, seabed character, species and life forms present. For each taxon record an actual abundance (where feasible) or a semi quantitative abundance (e.g. SACFOR scale).

Record the analysis on the stills pro-forma provided (paper and/or electronic), which is a modified version of the Sublittoral Habitat Recording Form used in the MNCR surveys. Assign each still image to the same BSH or habitat FOCI as its ‘parent’ segment in the video.


Taxon identification

In all analyses, the identification of taxa should be limited to a level that can be confidently achieved from the available image. Hence, taxon identity could range from the ‘life form’ level (e.g. sponge, hydroid, anemone) to the species level (e.g. Asterias rubens, Alcyonium digitatum). Avoid the temptation to guess the species identity if it cannot be determined positively from the image. For example, Spirobranchus sp. would be acceptable, but Spirobranchus triqueter would not, as the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.


Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (Cend10/12)

Date Cruise Stn No. Stn Code Gear Latitude Longitude

04/07/2012 Cend10/12 1 CTD CTD 50.56800 -0.57800

04/07/2012 Cend10/12 2 SOL MB Calibration MB2 50.56810 -0.57878

04/07/2012 Cend10/12 2 EOL MB Calibration MB2 50.59606 -0.61572











05/07/2012 Cend10/12 6 CTD CTD 50.29600 -7.73900

05/07/2012 Cend10/12 7 SOL AC107 MB2 50.29600 -7.73887

05/07/2012 Cend10/12 7 SOL AC107 SS7 50.29600 -7.73887

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 7 EOL AC107 MB2 50.22771 -8.17700

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 7 EOL AC107 SS7 50.22771 -8.17700

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 8 CTD CTD 50.18400 -8.18700

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 9 SOL AC108 MB2 50.18422 -8.18696

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 9 SOL AC108 SS7 50.18422 -8.18696

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 9 EOL AC108 MB2 50.21766 -8.12996

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 9 EOL AC108 SS7 50.21766 -8.12996

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 10 SOL AC109 MB2 50.16344 -8.06956

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 10 EOL AC109 MB2 50.15189 -8.14073

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 11 SOL AC108 SS7 50.18474 -8.18423

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 11 EOL AC108 SS7 50.19574 -8.11578

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 12 SOL AC108_Transit MB2 50.23038 -8.13841

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 12 EOL AC108_Transit MB2 50.26163 -8.20441

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 13 SOL AC106 MB2 50.27077 -8.14595

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 13 EOL AC106 MB2 50.38988 -7.35435

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 13 SOL AC106 MB2 50.39008 -7.42388

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 13 EOL AC106 MB2 50.39575 -7.35435

06/07/2012 Cend10/12 14 SOL AC105 MB2 50.43247 -7.37107

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 14 EOL AC105 MB2 50.30168 -8.20285

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 15 AC104 CTD 50.35100 -8.13900

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 16 SOL AC104 MB2 50.35140 -8.13926

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 16 EOL AC104 MB2 50.47471 -7.35884

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 17 SOL AC103 MB2 50.50071 -7.44688

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 17 EOL AC103 MB2 50.41497 -7.99547

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 17 SOL AC103 MB2 50.41803 -7.99496

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 17 EOL AC103 MB2 50.45550 -7.99386

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 18 SOL AC102 MB2 50.45621 -7.98733

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 18 EOL AC102 MB2 50.50073 -7.70589



07/07/2012 Cend10/12 18 SOL AC102 MB2 50.49728 -7.70271

07/07/2012 Cend10/12 18 EOL AC102 MB2 50.27684 -7.73449

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 40 CTD CTD 50.16100 -8.07000

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 41 GHF75 HC 50.16149 -8.06985

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 41 GHF75 HC 50.16320 -8.06987

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 42 GHF78 HC 50.15215 -8.13819

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 43 SOL GHF78 CS 50.15081 -8.13921

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 43 EOL GHF78 CS 50.15158 -8.13881

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 44 SOL GHF78_T_77 MB2 50.15550 -8.14420

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 44 EOL GHF78_T_77 MB2 50.18110 -8.18890

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 45 SOL GHF77-T MB2 50.18260 -8.18880

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 45 EOL GHF77-T MB2 50.18700 -8.18430

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 46 SOL GHF77-T-AC108 MB2 50.18598 -8.17789

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 46 EOL GHF77-T-AC108 MB2 50.17985 -8.21467

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 47 SOL AC108-350 MB2 50.17852 -8.20272

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 47 EOL AC108-350 MB2 50.19277 -8.11436

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 48 SOL AC108-700 MB2 50.18783 -8.12522

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 48 EOL AC108-700 MB2 50.17507 -8.20398

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 49 GHF77 HC 50.18447 -8.18689

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 50 SOL GHF77 CS 50.18470 -8.18652

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 50 EOL GHF77 CS 50.18399 -8.18720

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 51 SOL GHF77-T-73 MB2 50.20375 -8.17915

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 51 EOL GHF77-T-73 MB2 50.23024 -8.16557

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 52 GHF73 HC 50.22773 -8.16734

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 53 SOL GHF73 CS 50.22749 -8.16763

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 53 EOL GHF73 CS 50.22692 -8.16856

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 54 SOL GHF73-T-74 MB2 50.22402 -8.16732

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 54 EOL GHF73-T-74 MB2 50.19470 -8.11742

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 55 GHF74 HC 50.19527 -8.11824

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 56 SOL GHF74 DC 50.19536 -8.11763

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 56 EOL GHF74 DC 50.19535 -8.11907

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 57 GHF70 HC 50.20646 -8.05012

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 58 SOL GHF70-T-69 MB2 50.21005 -8.05539

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 58 EOL GHF70-T-69 MB2 50.23990 -8.10210

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 59 GHF69 HC 50.23822 -8.09864

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 60 SOL GHF69-T-68 MB2 50.23943 -8.10098

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 60 EOL GHF69-T-68 MB2 50.27152 -8.14940

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 61 GHF68 HC 50.27038 -8.14841

08/07/2012 Cend10/12 62 SOL GHF68_T_67 MB2 50.27169 -8.15270

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 62 EOL GHF68_T_67 MB2 50.30507 -8.20102

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 63 GHF67 HC 50.30251 -8.19745

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 64 GHF61 HC 50.31347 -8.12881

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 65 SOL GHF61 CS 50.31367 -8.12895

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 65 EOL GHF61 CS 50.31503 -8.12854

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 66 SOL GHF61-T-62 MB2 50.31334 -8.12322

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 66 EOL GHF61-T-62 MB2 50.27984 -8.07740

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 67 GHF62 HC 50.28150 -8.07986

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 68 SOL GHF62-T-63 MB2 50.28022 -8.07633



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 68 EOL GHF62-T-63 MB2 50.24776 -8.02890

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 69 GHF63 HC 50.24927 -8.03090

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 70 SOL GHF63-T-64 MB2 50.24912 -8.02852

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 70 EOL GHF63-T-64 MB2 50.21521 -7.97926

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 71 GHF64 HC 50.21741 -7.98217

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 72 SOL GHF 64-T-58 MB2 50.21853 -7.97978

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 72 EOL GHF 64-T-58 MB2 50.26263 -7.96114

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 73 GHF58 HC 50.26039 -7.96250

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 74 SOL GHF58 CS 50.26007 -7.96260

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 74 EOL GHF58 CS 50.25879 -7.96206

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 75 SOL GHF 58-T-57 MB2 50.25731 -7.96128

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 75 EOL GHF 58-T-57 MB2 50.29494 -8.01359

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 76 GHF57 HC 50.29239 -8.01123

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 77 SOL GHF57 to GHF56 MB2 50.29238 -8.01432

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 77 EOL GHF57 to GHF56 MB2 50.32609 -8.06399

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 78 GHF56 HC 50.32445 -8.05983

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 79 SOL GHF57 CS 50.29278 -8.01195

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 79 EOL GHF57 CS 50.29291 -8.01270

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 80 SOL GHF57 DC 50.29293 -8.01135

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 80 EOL GHF57 DC 50.29202 -8.01197

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 81 SOL GHF56-GHF51 MB2 50.30344 -8.00818

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 81 EOL GHF56-GHF51 MB2 50.33560 -7.99169

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 82 GHF51 HC 50.33573 -7.99163



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 84 GHF52 HC 50.30354 -7.94313



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 86 GHF53 HC 50.27124 -7.89373

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 87 GHF48 HC 50.28207 -7.82582



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 89 GHF47 HC 50.31433 -7.87471

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 90 SOL GHF047 CS 50.31386 -7.87487

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 90 EOL GHF047 CS 50.31577 -7.87435



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 92 GHF46 HC 50.34652 -7.92365



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 94 GHF45 HC 50.37856 -7.97225

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 95 SOL GHF45 CS 50.37810 -7.97258

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 95 EOL GHF45 CS 50.37942 -7.97187

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 96 GHF45 CTD 50.37947 -7.96438



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 98 GHF38 HC 50.42157 -7.95281





09/07/2012 Cend10/12 100 GHF39 HC 50.38985 -7.90425





09/07/2012 Cend10/12 102 GHF40 HC 50.35775 -7.85466



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 104 GHF41 HC 50.32552 -7.80596

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 104 GHF41 HC 50.32549 -7.80596

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 105 SOL GHF41 DC 50.32524 -7.80573

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 105 EOL GHF41 DC 50.32558 -7.80717



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 107 SOL GHF42 DC 50.29307 -7.75645

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 107 EOL GHF42 DC 50.29317 -7.75776

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 108 GHF42 HC 50.29316 -7.75776



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 110 GHF35 HC 50.33622 -7.73727



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 112 GHF34 HC 50.36776 -7.78679

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 113 SOL GHF34_T_GHF33 MB2 50.36998 -7.79091

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 113 EOL GHF34_T_GHF33 MB2 50.40190 -7.83777

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 114 GHF33 HC 50.40014 -7.83461

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 115 SOL GHF33 DC 50.40022 -7.83478

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 115 EOL GHF33 DC 50.40059 -7.83593

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 116 SOL GHF33 - GHF32 MB2 50.40292 -7.84036



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 116 EOL GHF33 - GHF32 MB2 50.43432 -7.88690

09/07/2012 Cend10/12 117 GHF32 HC 50.43237 -7.88377



09/07/2012 Cend10/12 119 GHF31 HC 50.46459 -7.93339

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 120 GHF23 HC 50.47565 -7.86445



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 122 GHF24 HG 50.44332 -7.81547



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 124 GHF18 HG 50.48656 -7.79560



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 126 GHF19 HG 50.45429 -7.74680



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 128 GHF13 HG 50.49714 -7.72712

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 128 GHF13 HG 50.49767 -7.72654

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 128 GHF13 HG 50.49722 -7.72654

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 129 SOL GHF13 CS 50.49726 -7.72680

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 129 EOL GHF13 CS 50.49723 -7.72468



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 131 GHF14 HG 50.46531 -7.67788



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 133 GHF15 HG 50.43297 -7.62895



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 135 GHF16 HG 50.39977 -7.58014

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 136 SOL GHF16 CS 50.40065 -7.58090



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 136 EOL GHF16 CS 50.40176 -7.58213

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 137 GHF21 HG 50.38957 -7.64898

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 137 GHF21 HG 50.38957 -7.64897

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 137 GHF21 HG 50.38967 -7.64904

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS MB2 50.34977 -7.72001

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS SS7 50.34977 -7.72001

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS MB2 50.40190 -7.27008

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS SS7 50.40190 -7.27008

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS MB2 50.40028 -7.71515

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS SS7 50.40028 -7.71515

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS MB2 50.32900 -7.71400

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS SS7 50.32900 -7.71400

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS MB2 50.34000 -7.71000

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS SS7 50.34000 -7.71000

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS MB2 50.21140 -7.42600

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS SS7 50.21140 -7.42600

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS MB2 50.40050 -7.71500

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 SOL AS SS7 50.40050 -7.71500

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS MB2 50.36400 -7.71500

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 138 EOL AS SS7 50.36400 -7.71500

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 9138 SOL GFF26-T-GHF20 MB2 50.14600 -7.70000

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 9138 EOL GFF26-T-GHF20 MB2 50.42447 -7.69750

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 139 GHF20 HG 50.42202 -7.69804

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 140 GHF25 HG 50.41119 -7.76643

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 141 SOL GHF25 CS 50.41120 -7.76724

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 141 EOL GHF25 CS 50.41196 -7.76446

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 142 GHF25 CTD 50.41188 -7.75706

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 143 SOL GHF25 - GT01 MB2 50.40490 -7.73460

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 143 EOL GHF25 - GT01 MB2 50.39504 -7.71531



10/07/2012 Cend10/12 144 GT01 HG 50.39577 -7.71625

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 145 GT02 HG 50.39407 -7.71560

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 146 SOL GT01-02 CS 50.39489 -7.71606

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 146 EOL GT01-02 CS 50.39354 -7.71543

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 147 GT03 HG 50.38769 -7.71241

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 147 GT03 HG 50.38749 -7.71254

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 148 SOL GT03-04 DC 50.38760 -7.71283

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 148 EOL GT03-04 DC 50.38680 -7.71390

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 149 GHF26 HG 50.37897 -7.71741

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 9150 SOL GHF26-T-GT05 MB2 50.34550 -7.71740

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 9150 EOL GHF26-T-GT05 MB2 50.37250 -7.71830

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 150 SOL GT05-06 DC 50.37346 -7.71904

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 150 EOL GT05-06 DC 50.37262 -7.71832

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 151 SOL GT07-08 DC 50.36108 -7.71459

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 151 EOL GT07-08 DC 50.36023 -7.71578

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 152 GT08 HG 50.36020 -7.71588

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 152 GT08 HG 50.36034 -7.71570

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 153 GT07 HG 50.36065 -7.71455

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 153 GT07 HG 50.36090 -7.71435

10/07/2012 Cend10/12 154 GT09 HG 50.35653 -7.71243

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 155 SOL GT09 CS 50.35783 -7.71495

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 155 EOL GT09 CS 50.35877 -7.71661

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 156 SOL GT09 - GHF08 MB2 50.37414 -7.70528

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 156 EOL GT09 - GHF08 MB2 50.47766 -7.60746

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 157 GHF08 HC 50.47583 -7.60945

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 158 SOL GHF_08 CS 50.47564 -7.60946

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 158 EOL GHF_08 CS 50.47697 -7.61000



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 160 GHF09 HC 50.44327 -7.56018

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 160 GHF09 HC 50.44323 -7.56034





11/07/2012 Cend10/12 162 GHF10 HC 50.41136 -7.51169

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 162 GHF10 HC 50.41136 -7.51167

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 162 GHF10 HC 50.41141 -7.51181



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 164 GHF11 HC 50.37852 -7.46252

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 164 GHF11 HC 50.37848 -7.46246

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 165 SOL GHF11 CS 50.37899 -7.46351

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 165 EOL GHF11 CS 50.37988 -7.46517

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 166 GHF07 HC 50.38986 -7.39440



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 168 GHF06 HC 50.42211 -7.44333



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 170 GHF_05 HC 50.45430 -7.49184



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 172 GHF04 HC 50.48676 -7.54052

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 173 GHF01 HC 50.49709 -7.47120

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 174 SOL GHF01 CS 50.49704 -7.47153

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 174 EOL GHF01 CS 50.49755 -7.47355



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 176 GHF02 HC 50.46510 -7.42251



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 178 SOL BLOCK3 MB2 50.43130 -7.36110

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 178 EOL BLOCK3 MB2 50.41530 -7.45410

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 178 SOL BLOCK3 MB2 50.41510 -7.44560



11/07/2012 Cend10/12 178 EOL BLOCK3 MB2 50.43330 -7.32770

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 179 GHF03 HC 50.43254 -7.37452

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 180 CTD CTD 50.42570 -7.37175

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 181 SOL HFS MB2 50.42570 -7.37175

11/07/2012 Cend10/12 181 EOL HFS MB2 50.06380 -8.14347

Key: CTD; Conductivity, Temperature, Depth meter – MB2; Multibeam– SS7 – HC; HamCam – CS;

Camera sledge – DC; Drop Camera - HG; Hamon Grab, EOL - End of Line; SOL – Start of Line


Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys


Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ


Appendix 4. Species list

Species list for grab samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples x 100’.

2012 SAC infill survey (n=11 samples)

Taxa % Occurrence

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Cerianthus lloydii 18

Edwardsia claparedii 9

RIBBON WORMS

NEMERTEA 91

NEMATODA 36

PEANUT WORMS

Aspidosiphon muelleri 36

Golfingia margaritacea 9

SEGMENTED WORMS

Lumbrineris gracilis 82

Aponuphis bilineata 73

Dasybranchus 73

Glycera lapidum (agg) 64

Notomastus 64

Glycera oxycephala 55

Goniadella gracilis 55

Spiophanes kroyeri 55

Poecilochaetus serpens 45

Aonides paucibranchiata 45

Chaetozone christiei (Type B) 45

Galathowenia oculata 45

Polycirrus 45

Glycera rouxii 36

Glycinde nordmanni 36

Goniada maculata 36

Chone 36

Pisione remota 27

Eulalia mustela 27

Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 27

Polygordius 27

Owenia fusiformis 27

Ampharete lindstroemi 27

Pistella lornensis 27

Parathelepus collaris 27

Grania 27

Sthenelais limicola 18

Ophiodromus pallidus 18

Sphaerosyllis taylori 18

Eunereis longissima 18

Aglaophamus rubella 18

Scoletoma magnidentata 18

Aricidea simonae 18


Taxa % Occurrence

Dipolydora coeca (agg) 18

Laonice bahusiensis 18

Magelona minuta 18

Aphelochaeta "species A" 18

Chaetozone christiei 18

Chaetozone zetlandica 18

Tharyx killariensis 18

Mediomastus fragilis 18

Peresiella clymenoides 18

Scalibregma celticum 18

Scalibregma inflatum 18

Serpulidae 18

Hydroides norvegica 18

Harmothoe extenuata 9

Harmothoe glabra 9

Malmgrenia arenicolae 9

Malmgrenia ljungmani 9

Pseudomystides limbata 9

Anaitides lineata 9

Eumida sanguinea 9

Sige fusigera 9

Glycera alba 9

Glycera fallax 9

Glyphohesione klatti 9

Syllis "species G" 9

Syllis parapari 9

Hyalinoecia tubicola 9

Protodorvillea kefersteini 9

Aricidea laubieri 9

Cirrophorus branchiatus 9

Apistobranchus tullbergi 9

Spiophanes 9

Spiophanes bombyx 9

Clymenura 9

Euclymene "species A" 9

Praxillella affinis 9

Ophelia celtica 9

Ophelina cylindricaudata 9

Sabellaria spinulosa 9

Amphicteis gunneri 9

Sabellides octocirrata 9

Sosane sulcata 9

Terebellides stroemi 9

Paramphitrite tetrabranchia 9

Jasmineira caudata 9

CRUSTACEANS

COPEPODA 45

Urothoe elegans 27

Atylus vedlomensis 27

Harpinia antennaria 18


Taxa % Occurrence

Bathyporeia elegans 18

Euspira pulchella 18

Phaxas pellucidus 18

Xenocoeloma alleni 9

MYODOCOPIDA 9

Westwoodilla caecula 9

Hippomedon denticulatus 9

Ampelisca spinipes 9

Cheirocratus intermedius 9

Animoceradocus semiserratus 9

Gnathiidae (female) 9

Gnathia oxyuraea 9

Ione thoracica 9

DECAPODA (zoea) 9

Callianassa subterranea 9

Callianassa subterranea (juv) 9

Paguridae (juv) 9

MOLLUSCS

Vitreolina philippi 9

Cylichna cylindracea 9

Palliolum tigerinum (juv) 9

Myrtea spinifera 9

Lucinoma borealis (juv) 9

Kurtiella bidentata 9

Abra nitida 18

Abra prismatica 18

Timoclea ovata 18

Corbula gibba 9

BRYOZOANS

Pentapora fascialis 45

Microporella ciliata 36

Disporella hispida 27

Escharella ventricosa 18

Tubulipora 9

Amphiblestrum flemingii 9

Scrupocellaria scruposa 9

Cellaria 9

Escharella immersa 9

Schizomavella auriculata 9

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 9

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

SPATANGOIDA (juv) 55

Amphiura filiformis 36

Echinocardium flavescens 36

Amphiuridae (juv) 9

Amphipholis squamata 9

Echinocyamus pusillus 9

CHORDATA

Branchiostoma lanceolatum 9


2012 MCZ site verification survey (n = 53 samples)

Taxa % Occurrence

FORAMINIFERA

Astrorhiza 8

Astrorhizidae (Type A) 2



CNIDARIA 9

Campanulariidae 6

Edwardsiidae 6

Edwardsia claparedii 6

Lovenella clausa 4

Campanulina pumila 2

Leuckartiara octona 2

Clytia hemisphaerica 2

Virgularia mirabilis 2

ACTINIARIA 2

FLATWORMS

TURBELLARIA 9

RIBBON WORMS

NEMERTEA 81

NEMATODA 15

ENTOPROCTS

Loxosomella varians 26

ARROW WORMS

Sagittidae 4

PEANUT WORMS

Aspidosiphon muelleri 26

Thysanocardia procera 17

Phascolion strombus 9

Nephasoma minutum 4

Golfingia margaritacea 2

SEGMENTED WORMS

Dasybranchus 92

Spiophanes kroyeri 75

Galathowenia oculata 70

Terebellides stroemi 62

Lumbrineris gracilis 55

Magelona minuta 55

Glycera rouxii 53

Ampharete lindstroemi 53

Amphicteis gunneri 43

Ampharete falcata 38

Nephtys hystricis 36

Notomastus 36

Praxillella affinis 36

Eclysippe vanelli 34

Polycirrus 34

Abyssoninoe hibernica 28

Aricidea laubieri 28


Taxa % Occurrence

Diplocirrus glaucus 28

Aponuphis bilineata 26

Aonides paucibranchiata 26

Peresiella clymenoides 26

Owenia fusiformis 26

Nephtys 25

Poecilochaetus serpens 23

Laonice bahusiensis 23

Euclymene (Type A) 23

Goniadella gracilis 21

Scoloplos armiger 21

Goniada maculata 19

Nephtys incisa 19

Sige fusigera 19

Chaetozone christiei (Type B) 19

Clymenura 19

Pistella lornensis 19

Glycera oxycephala 17

Nephtys kersivalensis 17

Glyphohesione klatti 17

Spiophanes bombyx 17

Myriochele 17

Ancistrosyllis groenlandica 15

Sthenelais limicola 15

Prionospio multibranchiata 15

Mediomastus fragilis 15

Ophelina cylindricaudata 15

Glycera lapidum (agg) 13

Aglaophamus agilis 13

Eulalia mustela 13

Glycera fallax 11

Pisione remota 11

Harmothoe impar (agg) 11

Dipolydora coeca (agg) 11

Prionospio cirrifera 11

Polygordius 11

Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 9

Sphaerosyllis taylori 9

Marphysa kinbergi 9

Paradoneis lyra 9

Prionospio dubia 9

Pseudonotomastus southerni 9

Amphictene auricoma 9

Streblosoma bairdi 9

Euchone 9

Jasmineira caudata 9

Grania 9

Aphrodita aculeata 8

Glycera unicornis 8

Pseudomystides limbata 8


Taxa % Occurrence

Protodorvillea kefersteini 8

Aricidea catherinae 8

Aphelochaeta (Type A) 8

Prionospio fallax 8

Chone 8

Chone filicaudata 8

Glycera alba 6

Glycinde nordmanni 6

Eunereis longissima 6

Harmothoe glabra 6

Exogone hebes 6

Exogone verugera 6

Aricidea cerrutii 6

Chaetozone setosa 6

Chaetozone zetlandica 6

Monticellina 6

Tharyx killariensis 6

Scolelepis korsuni 6

Scalibregma inflatum 6

Serpulidae 6

Ditrupa arietina 6

Tubificoides amplivasatus 6

Goniada norvegica 4

Nephtys hombergii 4

Anaitides groenlandica 4

Anaitides rosea 4

Harmothoe antilopes 4

Syllis (Type G) 4

Hyalinoecia tubicola 4

Orbinia sertulata 4

Hydroides norvegicus 4

Glycinde nordmanni (epitoke) 2

Podarkeopsis capensis 2

Nephtys cirrosa 2

Nephtys longosetosa 2

Protomystides exigua 2

Harmothoe extenuata 2

Syllides 2

Syllis (Type D) 2

Syllis parapari 2

Lumbrineris latreilli 2

Scoletoma magnidentata 2

Levinsenia gracilis 2

Apistobranchus tullbergi 2

Mesochaetopterus 2

Magelona mirabilis 2

Notoproctus 2

Praxillella gracilis 2

Ophelia borealis 2

Ophelina acuminata 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Sabellides octocirrata 2

Sosane sulcata 2

Terebellidae 2

Amaeana trilobata 2

Eupolymnia nesidensis 2

Nicolea zostericola 2

Parathelepus collaris 2

Phisidia aurea 2

Sabella pavonina 2

Spirobranchus lamarcki 2

Tubificidae 2

CRUSTACEAN

Ampelisca spinipes 57

COPEPODA 49

Urothoe elegans 23

Ampelisca tenuicornis 19

Hippomedon denticulatus 15

Iphinoe serrata 13

Goneplax rhomboides 9

Ampelisca spinifer 8

Siphonoecetes striatus 8

Unciola planipes 8

Themisto compressa 8

Eurydice truncata 8

Eudorella truncatula 8

Alpheus glaber 8

Photis longicaudata 6

Ericthonius (female) 6

Harpinia antennaria 6

Atelecyclus rotundatus 6

Crangon allmanni 6

Melinnacheres steenstrupi 4

Ampelisca diadema 4

Nototropis vedlomensis 4

Leucothoe incisa 4

Tmetonyx 4

Cymodoce truncata 4

Callianassa subterranea 4

Ebalia 4

Processa canaliculata 4

COPEPODA (Type A) 2

Xenocoeloma alleni 2

Pterygocythereis jonesi 2

Lophogaster typicus 2

Ampelisca 2

Haploops 2

Aoridae (female) 2

Bathyporeia gracilis 2

Cheirocratus (female) 2

Cheirocratus intermedius 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Medicorophium affine 2

Gammaropsis maculata 2

Ericthonius fasciatus 2

Ericthonius punctatus 2

Othomaera othonis 2

Maerella tenuimana 2

Perioculodes longimanus 2

Westwoodilla caecula 2

Dyopedos monacantha 2

Urothoe brevicornis 2

Urothoe marina 2

Arcturella dilatata 2

Gnathiidae (female) 2

Gnathia oxyuraea 2

Diastylis laevis 2

Diastylis lucifera 2

Diastyloides biplicatus 2

Euphausiidae 2

DECAPODA 2

DECAPODA (megalopa) 2

DECAPODA (zoea) 2

Galathea nexa 2

Ebalia granulosa 2

Paguridae 2

MOLLUSCS

Corbula gibba 70

Abra nitida 64

Phaxas pellucidus 62

Parvicardium minimum 34

Abra prismatica 28

Thyasira polygona 28

Nucula sulcata 25

Alvania abyssicola 11

Falcidens crossotus 8

Euspira montagui 8

Euspira nitida 8

Mangelia brachystoma 8

Thyasira flexuosa 8

Similipecten similis 6

Chaetoderma nitidulum 4

Epitonium trevelyanum 4

Turritella communis 4

Philine scabra 4

Antalis entalis 4

Palliolum tigerinum 4

Lucinoma borealis 4

Spisula 4

Spisula elliptica 4

Montacutidae (Type A) 4

Tellimya ferruginosa 4


Taxa % Occurrence

Neomenia carinata 2

Leptochiton asellus 2

Eulimella scillae 2

Acteon tornatilis 2

Cylichna cylindracea 2

Retusa umbilicata 2

Pulsellum lofotense 2

Modiolus 2

Acanthocardia echinata 2

Laevicardium crassum 2

Myrtea spinifera 2

Decipula tenella 2

Kurtiella bidentata 2

Azorinus chamasolen 2

Gari costulata 2

Moerella pygmaea 2

Dosinia 2

Timoclea ovata 2

Hiatella arctica 2

Lyonsia norwegica 2

Thracia 2

BRYOZOANS

Triticella flava 2

Schizomavella auriculata 2

Alderina imbellis 2

Phylactella labrosa 2

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 42


Echinocyamus pusillus 38

SPATANGOIDA 34

Amphiuridae 32

Amphiura filiformis 25

Ophiuridae 15

Ophiocten affinis 8

Brissopsis lyrifera 8

Amphipholis squamata 4

Echinocardium flavescens 4

Luidia sarsi 2

Spatangus purpureus 2

ACORN WORMS

Enteropneusta 8

SEA SQUIRTS

Ascidiacea 2

Polycarpa fibrosa 2

CHORDATA

ACTINOPTERYGII (eggs) 8

Branchiostoma lanceolatum 2


Species list for video samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples x 100’.

2011 SAC survey (n=9 samples)

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Porifera 89

Axinella infundibuliformis 78

Cliona celata 33

Polymastia boletiformis 33

Suberites carnosus 11

Halichondria bowerbanki 11


Caryophyllia smithii 100

Nemertesia antennina 89

Urticina felina 56

Corynactis viridis 33

Bolocera tuediae 11

Metridium senile 11

Lytocarpia myriophyllum 11

Alcyonium digitatum 11

Alcyonium glomeratum 11

SEGMENTED WORMS

Serpulidae 22

Filograna 11

Filograna implexa 11

MOLLUSCS

Calliostoma zizyphinum 56

CRUSTACEANS

Munida rugosa 33

Palinurus elephas 22

Paguridae 22

BRYOZOANS

Porella compressa 56

Pentapora foliacea 11


Echinus esculentus 100

Porania pulvillus 100

Luidia ciliaris 89

Henricia oculata 78

Antedon bifida 67

Crossaster papposus 56

Asterias rubens 44

Marthasterias glacialis 44

Ophiocomina nigra 33

Ophiothrix fragilis 11

BRACHIOPODA

Neocrania anomala 100

SEA SQUIRTS


Taxa % Occurrence

Diazona violacea 67

2012 SAC infill survey (n = 8 samples)

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Porifera (Encrusting) 67

Porifera (Erect, small solitary) 67 Polymastia 33 Halichondria 33

Porifera (Erect, massive) 22


Anthozoa 78

Dendrodoa 56

Nemertesia 33

Caryophyllia sp. 33

Mesacmaea mitchelli 22 Corynactis sp. 11 Tubularia indivisa 11

SEGMENTED WORMS Pomatoceros triqueter 78

Sabellidae 33

Annelid (Tube worm casing) 11

CRUSTACEANS

Paguroidea 78

Crustacea 56 Mundia rugosa 44 Crangon Crangon 11

BRACHIOPODA 22

MOLLUSCS

Pectinidae 44

Scaphopoda 33

Mollusc 22

BRYOZOANS

Bryozoa (Turf) 67

Bryozoa (Filamentous) 44 Pentapora fascialis 22

Bryozoa (Foliose) 11

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Ophiothrix fragilis 56

Asteroidea 44

Ophiuroidea 33

Crinoidea 33

Echinodermata 33 Crossaster papposus 22 Henricia oculata 11

CHORDATA

Juvenile Pisces 11

Pisces 11


2012 MCZ site verification survey (n = 23 samples)

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES Porifera 43

Axinellidae 35

Demospongiae 17

Tethyidae 13

Polymastiidae 9

Hymedesmia paupertas 9


Anthozoa 61

Hydrozoa 48

Adamsia carciniopados 22


Actiniidae 17

Parazoanthus anguicomus 13

Cerianthus 9

Sertulariidae 9

Arachnanthus sarsi 4

Halcampoides 4

Pachycerianthus multiplicatus 4

Peachia cylindrica 4

Mesacmaea mitchellii 4

Urticina 4

Virgularia mirabilis 4

SEGMENTED WORMS Serpulidae 22

Salmacina dysteri 17

Polychaeta 13

Annelida 4

Sabella 4

Ditrupa 4

CRUSTACEANS

Pagarus 52

Pagarus prideaux 22

Decapoda 13

Nephrops norvegicus 9

Crangonidae 9

Maja squinado 9

Munida rugosa 9

Goneplax rhomboides 4

Mysidacea 4

Caridea 4

MOLLUSCS Pectinidae 22

Pelecypoda 13

Eledone 4

BRYOZOANS

Bryozoa crusts 39


Taxa % Occurrence Omalosecosa ramulosa 22

Reteporella beaniana 9

Cellaria 4


Porania pulvillus 30

Asteroidea 22

Ophiura 22

Asterias rubens 13

Echinus esculentus 13

Antedon 9

Holothurioidea 9

Luidia ciliaris 9

Echinoidae 9

Stichastrella rosea 4

Spatangoida 4

FISH

Pisces 22

Gadidae 9

Gobiidae 9

Molva 4

Pleuronectidae 4

Rajidae 4

Scophthalmidae 4

Scorpaeniformes 4

Trisopterus 4

Labridae 4

Callionymidae 4

Scyliorhinus 4

Scyliorhinus canicula 4

Gaidropsarus vulgaris 4

SEA SQUIRTS

Ascidia 4


Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition

CEND10/12 2012 SAC infill survey

Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%)

20 HFI01 50.26726 -7.73993 mud and sandy mud A5.2 - Subtidal Sand 0.92 73.96 25.12

19 HFI02 50.26596 -7.73820 mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediments 61.08 33.78 5.15

39 HFI03 50.24883 -7.74978 coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 41.05 57.16 1.80



36 HFI06 50.23949 -7.71534 mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediments 9.24 71.99 18.77


28 HFI09 50.22373 -7.69923 mud and sandy mud A5.2 - Subtidal Sand 2.96 75.11 21.92

29 HFI10 50.22300 -7.69681 coarse sediment A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediments 9.15 83.33 7.52

32 HFI11 50.21665 -7.72064 sand and muddy sand A5.2 - Subtidal Sand 0.13 90.15 9.72

31 HFI12 50.21644 -7.72548 mixed sediments A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 57.37 28.12 14.51


2012 MCZ site verification survey


173 GHF01 50.49709 -7.47120 mud and sandy mud A5.3 - Subtidal Mud 3.47 35.92 60.62

176 GHF02 50.46510 -7.42251 sand and muddy sand A5.2 - Subtidal Sand 0.84 91.88 7.28







160 GHF09 50.44323 -7.56034 coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 16.82 82.23 0.95



128 GHF13 50.49722 -7.72654 mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediments 37.01 25.37 37.62



















Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills

Haig Fras 2011 SAC survey CEND0211

Station Code Latitude Longitude Habitat No. No. of stills EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code

DC01 50.2183 -7.8060 S1 8 A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp

DC01 50.2179 -7.8099 S2 2 A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediment SS.SMx.OMx



DC04 50.2053 -7.9248 S1 3 A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.XFa.CvirCri



DC05 50.2553 -7.6034 S2 3 A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediment SS.SMx.OMx

DC09 50.1265 -8.0280 S1 6 A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp.Bri

DC10 50.1463 -7.7930 S1 3 A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.OSa



DC08 50.2814 -7.6499 S2 3 A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.OSa

DC06 50.3691 -7.5145 S1 3 A4.3 - Low Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.LCR


DC06 50.3697 -7.5131 S3 3 A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.OCS


Haig Fras 2012 SAC infill survey

Station No.

Station Code Latitude Longitude

Habitat No.

No. of stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code

22 HFI_03 50.24683 -7.74963 S1 7

Boulder cobbles and pebbles on coarse sand. Porifera (encrusting, erect and cup) present.

A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment

SS.SCS.OCS

22 HFI_03 50.24681 -7.74949 S2 3

Varying sizes of boulders, cobbles, pebbles and coarse sediment. Anthozoa, Polymastia and encrusting Porifera present.


SS.SCS.OCS

23 HFI_04 50.24494 -7.73508 S1 14

Boulders, cobbles, pebbles and granules on coarse sand. Bryozoans, Porifera, Asteroidea and Anthozoa present.


SS.SCS.OCS

24 HFI_05 50.23863 -7.74496 S1 14

Boulders, cobbles and pebbles on coarse sand. Turf Bryozoa and erect Porifera

present. A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment

SS.SCS.OCS

25 HFI_06 50.23805 -7.71697 S1 3

Slightly rippled coarse sand with shell fragments and patches of pebbles. Sparse fauna. A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.OSa

26 HFI_07 50.23073 -7.72176 S1 14

Various small boulders, cobbles, pebbles, and shell debris on coarse sand. Asteroidea


SS.SCS.OCS

27 HFI_08 50.23229 -7.70901 S1 13 Boulders, cobbles, pebbles and patches of coarse sand. Asteroidea present.


SS.SCS.OCS

30 HFI_09_10 50.22385 -7.69941 S1 18

Coarse rippled sand covered in mosaics of pebbles and shell debris. Asteroidea


SS.SCS.OCS

33 HFI_11_12 50.21644 -7.72085 S1 5 Fine rippled sand with evidence of burrowing worms. Sparse fauna. A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.OSa

33 HFI_11_12 50.21612 -7.72353 S2 5

Cobbles and pebbles on coarse sand. Sparse fauna and empty shells. Paguroidae present.


SS.SCS.OCS


2012 MCZ site verification survey

Station No.


Habitat No.


174 GHF_01 50.49713 -7.47197 1 12 Mud with large burrows and mounds, occasional anemones and cobbles with hydroid/bryozoan turf

A5.3 - Subtidal Mud SS.SMu.CFiMu

158 GHF_08 50.47591 -7.60956 1 10 Mud with burrows and mounds and shell, and empty Dentalium and Ditrupa shells


165 GHF_11 50.37916 -7.46384 1 11 Small waves of sandy mud, with shells in troughs

A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediment

SS.SMx.OMx

129 GHF_13 50.49726 -7.72647 1 4 Small waves of sandy mud, with shell and gravel at crest, fine sediment in troughs, sparse fauna


SS.SMx.OMx

129 GHF_13 50.49724 -7.72574 2 2 Mud with unidentifiable burrowing megafauna


129 GHF_13 50.49725 -7.72526 3 7 Shelly, gravelly, mud, with sparse fauna A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediment

SS.SMx.OMx

136 GHF_16 50.40056 -7.58099 1 13 Sandy fine mud with unidentifiable burrowing megafauna, some shell and very sparse epifauna


141 GHF_25 50.41132 -7.76681 1 9 Sandy fine mud with unidentifiable burrowing megafauna, some shell and very sparse epifauna


141 GHF_25 50.41178 -7.76490 2 7 Small waves fine sandy mud, with shell and gravel at crest, fine sediment in troughs, sparse fauna


SS.SMx.OMx

115 GHF_33 50.40012 -7.83480 1 12 Pebbles, gravel and shell on rippled sandy mud, sparse fauna


SS.SMx.OMx

115 GHF_33 50.40041 -7.83573 2 3 Sandy mud with some shell, with burrows and sparse fauna

A5.3 - Subtidal Mud SS.SMu.CSaMu

105 GHF_41 50.32514 -7.80573 1 14 Bedrock/rock in sand/mud, with sparse faunal turf including sponges, hydroids, bryozoans and anemones

A4.3 - Low Energy Circalittoral Rock

CR.LCR

105 GHF_41 50.32544 -7.80705 2 4 Burrowed sandy mud, with shell and occasional pebbles and cobbles with faunal turf and anemones


SS.SMx.OMx


Station No.


Habitat No.


107 GHF_42 50.29297 -7.75643 1 11 Sandy mud with unidentified burrowing megafauna and sparse epifauna

A5.3 - Subtidal Mud SS.SMu.CSaMu

95 GHF_45 50.37839 -7.97257 1 3 Burrowed sandy mud A5.3 - Subtidal Mud SS.SMu.CFiMu

95 GHF_45 50.37869 -7.97241 2 6

Cobble reef interspersed with burrowed sandy mud, erect sponges, encrusting sponges and bryozoans, hydroids and anemones


CR.LCR

95 GHF_45 50.37937 -7.97202 3 4 Burrowed sandy mud with shell and occasional cobble, pebble and sparse fauna


90 GHF_47 50.31416 -7.87479 1 9 Burrowed sandy mud with some shell and sparse fauna, with patches of cobble/boulder with faunal turf, sponges and anemones


90 GHF_47 50.31520 -7.87450 2 12

shelly gravel on mud, with frequent pebbles, cobbles, boulders and bedrock with faunal turf and urchins, starfish, crustacea and sponges


SS.SMx.OMx

80 GHF_57 50.29293 -8.01119 1 18

Cobble, boulder and some bedrock on sandy mud, with hydroid/bryozoan turf and sponges on rock, with anemones, urchins and cushion stars


CR.LCR

80 GHF_57 50.29214 -8.01172 2 4 Burrowed mud with some sand and shell, very sparse epifauna


74 GHF_58 50.25985 -7.96251 1 12 Fine mud with unidentified burrowing megafauna, sparse epifauna and small fish


65 GHF_61 50.31396 -8.12890 1 15 Fine, sometimes rippled, mud with unidentified megafauna, and very sparse epifauna


53 GHF_73 50.22729 -8.16797 1 12 Fine, sometimes rippled, mud with unidentified burrowing megafauna and very sparse epifauna


56 GHF_74 50.19526 -8.11758 1 13 Fine mud with unidentified burrowing megafauna and no observed epifauna


50 GHF_77 50.18444 -8.18676 1 12 Fine, sometimes rippled, mud with unidentified burrowing megafauna and very sparse epifauna



Station No.


Habitat No.


43 GHF_78 50.15109 -8.13906 1 8 Rippled fine mud with unidentified burrowing megafauna and no observed megafauna


146 GT01-02 50.39493 -7.71651 1 4 Mud with some burrows and very sparse epifauna


146 GT01-02 50.39417 -7.71607 2 4 Small waves of fine sandy mud, with shell and gravel at crest, empty shells and pebbles in troughs, sparse fauna


SS.SMx.OMx

148 GT03-04 50.38750 -7.71285 1 20

Bedrock amongst mud, interspersed with patches of sandy mud with cobbles and boulders. Faunal turf with frequent parazoanthus, axinellidae & porania.


CR.LCR

150 GT05-06 50.37337 -7.71906 1 16

Bedrock covered with silt, interspersed with mud and areas of large boulders. Sponges, bryozoan and hydroid faunal turf, and parazoanthus.


CR.LCR

151 GT07-08 50.36098 -7.71465 1 6 Sparse fauna on circalittoral sandy mud A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.CMuSa

151 GT07-08 50.36050 -7.71537 2 3 Bedrock/boulders/cobbles interspersed with patches of sandy mud. Faunal turf including sponges, hydroids, and bryozoans


CR.LCR

151 GT07-08 50.36039 -7.71553 3 8 Circalittoral sandy mud with occasional boulder


SS.SMx.OMx

155 GT09 50.35801 -7.71527 1 17 Small waves of fine sandy mud, with empty shells and pebbles in troughs, sparse fauna


SS.SMx.OMx


Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats

Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment

Coarse sediments including coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles which are often unstable due to tidal currents and/or wave action.

A5.2 Subtidal sand Clean medium to fine

sands or non-cohesive slightly muddy sands on open coasts, offshore or in estuaries and marine inlets.

A5.3 Subtidal mud Sublittoral mud and cohesive sandy mud extending from the extreme lower shore to offshore, circalittoral habitats.

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments

Sublittoral mixed (heterogeneous) sediments found from the extreme low water mark to deep offshore circalittoral habitats.

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/2500







A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock

Occurs on extremely wave-exposed to exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders subject to tidal streams ranging from strong to very strong.

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock

Mainly occurs on exposed to moderately wave-exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders, subject to moderately strong and weak tidal streams

A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock

Occurs on wave-sheltered circalittoral bedrock and boulders subject to mainly weak/very weak tidal streams.


Appendix 8. Example images for habitat FOCI

Note: images representative only as not taken directly from survey

Habitat FOCI

Description Example Image

Subtidal Sands and Gravels

Sand and gravel seabeds widespread around the UK

Mud Habitats in Deep Water

Mud habitats in deep water (circalittoral muds) occur below 20-30 m. Stable conditions enable the establishment of burrowing megafauna communities.

Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities

Areas of stable muddy seabed, where animals burrow below and sea-pens protrude from the surface

greater haig fras rmcz post-survey site reportrandd.defra.gov.uk/...greaterhaigfrasrmcz...v6.pdf ·...

Documents