Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site...

Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 53 Version 2 April 2016

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 53. Title: Morte Platform 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 Louise Brown Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Stefan Bolam Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Anna Downie and Matthew Curtis, Cefas, for creating 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 reports 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.

Cefas Document Control Title: Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group

Date submitted: April 2016

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Louise Brown, Stefan Bolam

Quality control by: Christopher Barrio Frojan

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (13/04/2016)

Version: V2

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

L Brown and S Bolam

27/01/2016 First draft V1

L Brown and S Bolam

13/04/2016 Revised following external reviewers’comments V2

Morte Platform 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 rMCZ 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 .......................................................................... 5

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

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

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition .................................................................... 7

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map ......................................................... 9

3.4 Quality of the updated map ......................................................................... 11

4 Results ........................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map .......................................... 13

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

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 16

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 16

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 17

4.6 Species FOCI identified .............................................................................. 17

4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...................................... 18

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 18

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed .......................................... 19

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 20

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ............................................... 20

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI .......................................................... 20

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ................................................. 21

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 21

References ............................................................................................................... 22

Data sources ............................................................................................................ 24

Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 25

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. ..................................... 25

Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................ 26

Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ....................... 27

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ..................................... 28

Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol. .................................................... 29

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 1. Survey metadata ............................................................................... 31

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ......................................................... 34

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ................................. 36

Appendix 4. Species list ....................................................................................... 37

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 50

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 52

Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ..................... 55

Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI ................................ 57

Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .... 4

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was 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. ................................ 10

Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. .............................................. 17

Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ......................................................... 17

Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ....................................................... 17

Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Morte Platform rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). ....................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Morte Platform rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). . 8

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 14

Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. Insert maps show the location of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ observations. ................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 16

Corrigendum

In July 2015 Defra declared the following amendments to reporting of Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) in MPAG reports to reflect changes described within Defra MCZ consultation and designation material:

The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat features, subtidal sand and/or subtidal coarse sediment, and is no longer included within MCZ designations.

The species FOCI ‘Stalked jellyfish (Haliclystus auricula)’ is now referred to as ‘Haliclystus species’ for the purpose of MCZ protection, to account for potential presence of Haliclystus octoradiatus that has not been consistently differentiated within scientific records. The

species are therefore considered jointly as an MCZ feature.

The species FOCI ‘Fan mussel (Atrina pectinata)’ should be correctly referred to as ‘Fan mussel (Atrina fragilis)’.

MCZs are no longer considered to be an appropriate tool for the protection of the species FOCI ‘European eel (Anguilla anguilla)’. They have been identified as habitat generalists for which it is particularly difficult to identify unique nursery or foraging grounds due to their wide distribution across coastal and freshwater zones. Conservation and management of European eels is considered to be more effectively achieved through the Eel Regulations and Eel Management Plans.

The species FOCI ‘Sea snail (Paludinella littorina)’ has been removed from Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that it is no longer a FOCI so has been removed as a feature for MCZ designation.

In January 2016 Defra declared the following amendments to reporting of Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) in MPAG reports to reflect changes described within Defra MCZ consultation and designation material:

The habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat features, subtidal mud, and is no longer included within MCZ designations.

Whilst the agreed changes will be reflected in MCZ Post-survey Site Reports written after the declaration, those reports produced prior to August 2015 may still contain references to the above FOCI as they appeared in the original Ecological Network Guidance document (NE & JNCC, 2010).

Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Morte Platform 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 the surveys of the site conducted by the Environment Agency (EA) in March 2012 and Cefas in November 2014. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI.

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

Feature

Extent according to

SAD

Extent according to updated habitat map

Accordance between SAD and updated habitat

map

Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 4.86 km2 3 video stills* N/A N/A

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 14.50 km2 3.11 km2 -11.39 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 6.11 km2 N/A* N/A N/A

Habitat FOCI

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

Species FOCI

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

* Although the BSH classes ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ were observed during the 2012 and 2014 surveys, their extent could not be determined.


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

Feature

Extent according to

SAD

Extent according to updated habitat map

Accordance between SAD and updated habitat

map

Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent

A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments* N/A 22.34 km2 +22.34 km2

A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs** N/A 40 stills

Habitat FOCI

Subtidal Sands and Gravels*** 6.11 km2 N/A N/A N/A

Species FOCI

None observed N/A N/A N/A N/A

* A difference in the acoustic signature between BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ could not be detected. Therefore, the hybrid BSH ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ has been created. ** The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ has been recorded based solely on still images as the exact nature of the biogenic reef could not be confirmed. *** Removed from list of habitat FOCI in July 2015. See Corrigendum. Its extent is the corrected value calculated using the estimated spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ stated in the SAD.

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ

There is evidence of three potential wrecks present within the boundaries of the rMCZ.


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). The first 27 rMCZs were designated in November 2013 and a second tranche of 23 rMCZs in January 2016.

In support of this initiative, four regional 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 projects proposed a total of 127 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 the EA (during March 2012) and Cefas (during November 2014) personnel at the Morte Platform rMCZ.

2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Morte Platform rMCZ is a trapezoid shaped site located approximately 5 km off Baggy Point on the North Devon coast (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Location of the Morte Platform rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation

The Morte Platform 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

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

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

EUNIS code & BSH Spatial extent according to the SAD

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 4.86 km2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 14.50 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 6.11 km2


2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ proposed for designation within the Morte Platform rMCZ (Table 2) has since been removed from the list of FOCI. The full list of habitat FOCI is presented in Annex 2.

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Subtidal Sands and Gravels* N/A

* Removed from list of habitat FOCI in July 2015. See Corrigendum.

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 Occurrence according to SAD

Low or limited mobility species

None proposed N/A

Highly mobile species

None proposed N/A

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 habitats and habitat FOCI and, where possible, species FOCI. The confidence status was originally assessed in the SADs according 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 Morte Platform 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 echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter data were collected at the Morte Platform rMCZ as part of the Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP) in 2002. However, the quality of the backscatter data was not sufficient for habitat mapping purposes. Therefore, another 100% coverage MBES survey was undertaken aboard the RV Cefas Endeavour in November 2014 (Cruise code: CEND 2514). Multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired using the Kongsberg EM2040 system operated at 300 kHz and deployed on the drop keel, which was lowered to its full extent to minimise the influence of poor weather on the acoustic signal.

The raw multibeam bathymetry data were processed using CARIS HIPS. 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). Multibeam backscatter data were processed with Fledermaus Geocoder Toolbox to produce standard floating point (FP) geotiffs. Both bathymetry and backscatter datasets were gridded at 1 m resolution for analysis (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data).

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

Ground truth samples were collected during two surveys using a combination of grab and camera sampling techniques. The grab sampler was used to collect seabed sediments and associated fauna, while the underwater camera was used to collect both video and still images of the seabed (Figure 2; Appendix 1).

The first survey was undertaken by the EA on board the CSV Water Guardian (Cruise code: WGDN0412) in March 2012. For this survey, 45 stations were selected, based on a triangular lattice grid, for sediment sampling and drop camera work. Stations were spaced 0.75 km apart to ensure sufficient samples would be collected from each predicted broadscale habitat within the SAD map. Grab sampling was attempted first at each station and if this was unsuccessful the drop camera was deployed.

The second survey was undertaken on board the RV Cefas Endeavour (Cruise code: CEND2514) in November 2014. Ground truth sampling positions were also based on a 0.75 km spaced triangular lattice grid, but station positions were adjusted, based on the newly acquired MBES data, to improve the success rate of attaining a valid sample. Drop camera tows were undertaken at a subset of these stations (approx. one third of planned ground truth sampling stations) or when the acoustic data suggested the presence of a rocky substrate.


Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Morte Platform rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

In 2012, a Day grab was used during the early part of the survey due to inclement weather and sea conditions. The mini-Hamon grab was adopted during this survey as sea conditions abated, and this grab type was used at all stations during the 2014 survey. On recovery of the mini-Hamon grab, the contents were emptied into a large plastic container and a representative sub-sample of sediment (approx. 0.5 l) taken for Particle Size Analysis (PSA). The remaining sample was photographed and sieved over a 1 mm mesh sieve to collect the benthic fauna. Retained fauna were preserved in buffered formaldehyde solution for later processing ashore. The Day grab samples were treated in an identical manner as the mini-Hamon grab samples, except that PSA sub-samples were taken from the undisturbed sediment using a small sub-corer (3 cm diameter).

Video observations were made using a Drop Camera (DC) system which had the capability to collect both video and still images. A four-point laser device was used to provide a reference scale in the video and still 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 recorder and a computer hard drive. A video overlay was used to provide station metadata, time and position (of the GPS antenna) in the recorded video image. Camera tows lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the DC system being towed at ~0.3 knots. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals (or every 10-15 metres on the 2012 survey) 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). Only still photographs (no video footage) were acquired during the 2012 survey.

For further detail on ground truth sample collection see the Morte Platform rMCZ Survey Reports (Godsell et al. (2013) for the 2012 survey; Murray (2015) for the 2014 survey).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map

An updated habitat map was produced following analysis and interpretation of the newly acquired acoustic and ground truth data. Acoustic data were converted into raster images for ease of interpretation (see Appendix 2). The data integration and mapping process involved object-based image analysis and statistical modelling, as described below.

Object-based image analysis (OBIA) is a two-step process of segmentation and classification (Blaschke, 2010), implemented using the software package eCognition v9.0.2. Objects were created through segmenting the raster data layers. The resulting objects represent sections of the image which possess homogeneous characteristics across all data layers used in the segmentation process.

For each of the identified objects, mean and standard deviation values of primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives were calculated. These values were extracted to PSA point samples and observations of hard substrates in still images for statistical analysis. Rules used to split objects into habitat types in the classification step of OBIA 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). A step-by-step description of the acoustic data analysis process is given below.

Stage 1. Data preparation

Prior to analysis, the bathymetry and backscatter datasets were re-sampled onto a common grid at 1 m resolution. This step results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 1 m x 1 m grid cell and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process.

Stage 2. Derivatives calculated

A range of derivatives were calculated for the MBES bathymetry data layer, as detailed in Table 4.


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

Curvature (profile and planar)

Curvature parallel to the direction of slope (profile) and perpendicular to the direction of slope (planar)

BPI Bathymetric position index (Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 3, 5, 10, 25 cells

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

Stage 3. Segmentation and classification

Based on spectral characteristics, images generated from acoustic data can be segmented into small objects. Each object can be defined by a range of features including its layer statistics (mean, mode, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.) and texture. The segmentation process was undertaken using multi-resolution segmentation. Multi-resolution segmentation commences with a single pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels, based on the relative homogeneity criterion. The homogeneity criterion is based on both colour (standard deviation of spectral colours) and shape (standard deviation of a compact shape) of the pixel. The segmentation process continues until a threshold value for the scale parameter, determined by the analyst, is reached. The scale parameter determines the variability allowed within each object. The ultimate aim of the segmentation process is to create objects which represent areas of homogeneity within the image.

The segmentation and classification of the acoustic data for the Morte Platform rMCZ occurred in two stages. The aim of the first segmentation was to define and classify the extent of rock within the rMCZ, while that of the second segmentation was to define and classify the extent of sedimentary habitats within the rMCZ.

Rock segmentation and classification

When identifying the extent of rocky habitats within the Morte Platform rMCZ the bathymetry, backscatter and slope were used within the multi-resolution segmentation process with weightings of 1, 1, and 3 respectively. The segmentation was undertaken at the pixel level with a scale parameter of 5. These weightings and scale parameter were used as they best selected the distribution of rock within this site.

For each object created in this segmentation process, the mean and standard deviation values of the primary acoustic layers (e.g. mean bathymetry value for the grid cells lying within an object) and their derivatives outlined in Table 4 (roughness, slope, etc.) were calculated. Grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) texture values, entropy and homogeneity, were also calculated for backscatter. These object-features and related values were exported as GIS shapefiles and extracted to each location associated with ground truthing samples. Ground truthing samples were either classified as “Rock” or “Sediment” depending on their broadscale habitat classification. This provided an analysis dataset for the classification process.


The distribution of values for backscatter, bathymetry and bathymetric derivatives in the broadscale habitat classes found in the ground truth data were analysed to find the variables that best defined habitat classes. CI analysis (Hothorn et al., 2006) was used to identify the acoustic variables that most successfully differentiated between the observed broadscale habitats in the ground truthing datasets, and to establish the best cut-off values for those variables.

To produce the updated habitat map, the segmentation objects were classified according to the cut-off values identified in the CI analysis for the appropriate variables and the resulting classified objects were exported into GIS.

Sediment segmentation and classification

To classify the extent of sedimentary habitats within the rMCZ the regions of the Morte Platform rMCZ not classified as rocky habitats were resegmented. Firstly, a chessboard segmentation was undertaken at the image object level. A multi-resolution segmentation was then undertaken, also at the image object level, using slope, bathymetry and backscatter (weightings of 1, 2 and 3 respectively) with a scale parameter of 5. These weightings and scale parameter were used as they best selected the distribution of sedimentary habitats within this site. For each object created in this segmentation process, the mean and standard deviation values of the primary acoustic layers (e.g. mean bathymetry value for the grid cells lying within an object) and their derivatives outlined in Table 4 (roughness, slope, etc.) were calculated. Grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) texture, entropy and homogeneity values were also calculated for backscatter. Finally, a spectral difference segmentation was used to fuse spectrally similar objects. These objects were exported as GIS shapefiles and extracted to each location associated with a ground truth sample. Groundtruthing samples were restricted to the sedimentary BSH classes ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’.

The sedimentary data from PSA samples were analysed to determine whether a real difference could be identified between the two sediment types. However, it was decided that the boundary between BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ could not be distinguished with confidence. Therefore, sedimentary habitats were defined using a hybrid BSH classification ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’.

Finally, the updated broadscale habitat map was exported as a GIS shapefile.

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 made the map. In its original implementation, the tool was used to make an auditable judgement of the confidence that could be placed on a range of existing, local biotope maps that had been developed using different techniques and data inputs, to

1 http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 03/12/15]

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


be used in compiling a full coverage map for northwest 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 MCZ 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 map based purely on physical data 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.


4 Results

During the 2012 survey, a total of 13 out of 45 targeted stations were successfully sampled using a combination of 0.1 m2 mini-Hamon and Day grabs. Eighteen drop camera tows were conducted from the 45 targeted stations, however, poor visibility during the tows resulted in the data acquired being of insufficient quality for any subsequent analyses at all but six of these.

A total of 31 grabs were collected from the 54 planned stations during the 2014 survey, while underwater video and still images were successfully acquired at 37 stations.

The combined list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples from both the 2012 and 2014 surveys is presented in Appendix 4; a total of 421 and 104 taxa were recorded from the grab and video samples respectively. No species FOCI were recorded at the Morte Platform rMCZ during either of the two surveys.

A summary of the results from particle size analysis of the sediments from the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 44 stations from the two surveys where a sample was obtained, coarse sediment was recorded at 22 stations and mixed sediments were recorded at a further 22 stations.

The results from the analysis of the seabed video and stills are summarised in Appendix 6. Example images taken during the survey of the BSHs recorded in the video analysis are given in Appendix 7.

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map

The SAD habitat map (Figure 3) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap 2010 v5 (McBreen et al., 2011). For further detail see Lieberknecht et al. (2011).


Figure 3. 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 2012 and 2014 dedicated survey data is presented in Figure 4. The results from the PSA suggest that the majority of the site consists of the BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. However, it is has not been possible in this instance to define the extent of these two broadscale habitats individually (see Section 3.3); they have, therefore, been defined as a mosaic of both BSHs, labelled as ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. It was possible to predict the extent of rocky habitats in this rMCZ using photographs taken during video tows. ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ were both observed during the ground truthing process. However, despite ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ being observed, all rocky habitats were classified as representing the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. This is because the extent of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ could not be extrapolated across the entire site due to insufficient observations of the BSH (only three stills were classed as such). Therefore, observations of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ have been plotted as points on the updated habitat map (Figure 4). The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ was observed to be present from stills and video footage, however it is not possible to confidently ascertain the reef status solely based on this information. Therefore, while the BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ is named within this report, further dedicated survey work is needed to determine the true presence and extent of this BSH. In addition, it was not always possible to confidently distinguish between this BSH and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. Therefore, images classified as the BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ have been plotted as point observations.

Morte Platform MCZ Post-survey Site Report 15

Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. Insert maps show the location of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ observations.


4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

The updated broadscale habitat map for the Morte Platform rMCZ attained a score of 82 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 5), which is good given that the maximum possible score for a map based purely on physical data is 88.

Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map.

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified

The broadscale habitat types observed in grab and video ground truthing samples included ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’. A hybrid of two BSHs, ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’, was the most widespread habitat, occupying 88% of the rMCZ site (Figure 4; Table 5).

Rocky habitats cover approximately 12% of the rMCZ and are located predominantly on the south-eastern edge of the rMCZ as a matrix of rocky outcrops and the hybrid BSH ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. The BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ was observed on video stills, however, there were insufficient observations to extrapolate this BSH across the rMCZ. Therefore, rocky habitats within this site have been classified as the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, with ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ plotted as point observations. The bathymetry data (Appendix 2) and SAD map suggest that rocky habitats are more widespread then mapped in the updated habitat map, the dynamic nature of this site means that sediment may be temporarily deposited and then re-suspended,


meaning that there is the potential for the relative proportion of rock and sediment across the site to change depending on other environmental factors. This means that the ratio of sedimentary to rocky habitats could vary over time.

The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ was observed within the video and stills groundtruthing data. However, CI could not accurately predict its spatial extent due to it having a similar signature to that of the hybrid BSH ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. Therefore, the category ’A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ was not used in the CI process as it introduced too much uncertainty and was therefore plotted as point observations on the updated broadscale habitat map (Figure 4).

Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ.

Broadscale Habitat Type (EUNIS Level 3)

Spatial extent according to the SAD

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat map

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 4.86 km2 3 stills

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 14.50 km2 3.11 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 6.11 km2 N/A*

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments N/A N/A*

A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments N/A 22.34 km2

A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs** N/A 40 stills

* It was not possible to calculate the extent of this BSH in isolation because it had the same acoustic signature as another BSH. The extent of the hybrid BSH is provided. ** The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ has been identified on still images only. Further dedicated survey work is needed to confirm reef status.

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ identified within the SAD has since been removed from the list of FOCI (Table 6), therefore its extent has not been calculated in the updated habitat map.

Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according

to the SAD Spatial extent according to

the updated habitat map

Subtidal Sands and Gravels* 6.11 km2** N/A

* Removed from list of habitat FOCI in July 2015. See Corrigendum. ** This is the corrected value calculated using the estimated spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ in the SAD.

4.6 Species FOCI identified

No species FOCI were recorded at the Morte Platform rMCZ during the 2012 and 2014 dedicated surveys.

Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Species FOCI Previously recorded

within rMCZ Identified during evidence

gathering survey

Low or Limited Mobility Species

None recorded N/A N/A

Highly Mobile Species

None recorded N/A N/A


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

4.7.1 Acoustic data

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 reviewed and processed by specialist Cefas staff to ensure that they were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretations and production of the updated habitat map.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis of sediments

PSA on the samples collected in 2012 was carried out by the National Laboratory Service, Environment Agency, and Cefas, while Cefas conducted the PSA on those collected in 2014. All PSA procedures followed standard laboratory practices and complied with the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011). Over-arching quality assurance checks were completed by Cefas. The habitat classification and composition based on the results of the PSA is shown in Appendix 5.

4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs

Infaunal samples taken during the 2012 survey were processed by Hebog Environmental Ltd, and those from the 2014 survey were processed by MES Ltd. Infaunal processing followed standard laboratory practices and the results were checked in accordance with the recommendations of the NMBAQC scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis

Video and photographic stills from the 2012 survey were processed by RSS Marine Ltd, while those obtained during the 2014 survey were processed by Seastar Surveys Ltd. All processing was conducted 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 2012 and 2014 surveys have provided substantial and robust evidence of the presence of the broadscale habitats mapped. The quality of the derived habitat map, in which a hybrid BSH class has been mapped, is assessed to be High (MESH assessment tool). It was not possible to differentiate between the BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and map them separately, as the acoustic signatures of each BSH type were statistically indistinguishable. Also, sources of potential misclassification of habitats arise from the location of groundtruthing samples in relation to habitat types.

Although the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ were observed in the groundtruthing samples, it was not possible to predict


their extent across the whole site. It was not possible to predict the extent of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ due to the insufficient number of samples representing this BSH. It was not possible to predict the extent of ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ due to the similarity of its acoustic signature with ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. Therefore, these two BSHs were plotted as point observations on the updated broadscale habitat map.

It is impractical (and undesirable) to sample the entire area of the site with grabs and video, so there is a chance that a BSH or FOCI may exist within the site which has not been recorded, especially if it was limited in extent.

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 and normally, one BSH grades into another across a transitional boundary. In contrast, the mapped boundaries are abrupt and have been placed using best professional judgement. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI.

The updated broadscale habitat map is a snapshot representing the distribution of broadscale habitat types at the time of survey. It is also important to note that the habitat boundaries delineated in this report are likely to shift with variations in hydrodynamic conditions, which will re-suspend and re-deposit the finer fraction of the sediments, covering and exposing underlying rocky habitats in the process.

4.8.1 Presence of Species FOCI

No species FOCI were included in the recommendations for proposal of this rMCZ, and none was recorded during the 2012 and 2014 surveys for this site.

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed

There is evidence from the MBES bathymetry and backscatter images of three potential wrecks present within the boundaries of the Morte Platform rMCZ (see Appendix 3).


5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2012 and 2014 dedicated groundtruthing surveys have confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ which were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2012 and 2014 dedicated groundtruthing surveys have confirmed the presence of BSHs ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’. These BSHs were not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ was identified from video footage and still photographs, therefore, further survey work is required to confidently ascertain the presence and extent of this BSH.

The BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ could not be distinguished from one another on the acoustic data record, therefore a hybrid BSH type has been defined as ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’.

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ is 3.11 km2. This is 11.39 km2 less than its extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of each of the BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ could not be determined in the mapping process.

The spatial extent of the BSH hybrid ‘A5.1/5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ is 22.34 km2. This was not identified in the SAD map.

The spatial extent of each of the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ could not be determined during the mapping process. Occurrence of both BSHs has been represented as point data on the updated habitat map.

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence

The 2012 and 2014 dedicated groundtruthing surveys did not identify any habitat FOCI.


5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species

No low or limited mobility species were recorded at this site during the 2012 or 2014 dedicated surveys. This observation is consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI

No highly mobile species FOCI were recorded at this site during the 2012 or 2014 dedicated surveys. This observation is consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed

There is evidence from the MBES bathymetry and backscatter images of three potential wrecks 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.

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 03/12/15]

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.

Godsell, N., Fraser, M. and Jones, N. (2013) Morte Platform rMCZ.

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.

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 v5: Predictive mapping of seabed habitats in UK waters. JNCC Report, No. 446. Available online from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukseamap.

Murray, J. (2015) Morte Platform Survey Report.

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)

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

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


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 08/01/16]

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/1175/nmbaqc-inv-prp-v10-june2010.pdf [Accessed 08/01/16]

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


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. *** Coldwater 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. ***** ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat feature ‘Subtidal mud’ and is no longer included within MCZ designation.


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 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 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. *** The stalked jellyfish Haliclystus auricula is now referred to as Haliclystus species for the purpose of MCZ protection to account for potential presence of Haliclystus octoradiatus that has not been consistently differentiated within scientific records. The species are therefore considered jointly as an MCZ feature. **** Fan mussel should be correctly described as Atrina fragilis. ***** The sea snail (Paludinella littorina) has been removed from Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that it is no longer a Feature of Conservation Importance (FOCI) so has been removed as a feature for MCZ designation.


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

Group Scientific name Common Name

Teleostei Osmerus eperlanus

Anguilla 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. ** MCZs are no longer considered to be an appropriate tool for the protection of European eels. They have been identified as habitat generalists for which it is particularly difficult to identify unique nursery or foraging grounds due to their wide distribution across coastal and freshwater zones. Conservation and management of European eels is considered to be more effectively achieved through the Eel Regulations and Eel Management Plans.


Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol.

The purpose of the analysis of the video and still images is to identify which habitats exist in a video record, 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

WGDN0412

Date Cruise Stn No. Stn Code Gear Latitude Longitude

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 3 Mort03 DG 51.20948 -4.32701

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 4 Mort04 DG 51.20948 -4.31519

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 6 Mort06 DG 51.21499 -4.33298

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 7 Mort07 DG 51.21505 -4.32237

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 8 Mort08 DG 51.21561 -4.31157

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 10 Mort10 DG 51.22074 -4.33876

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 11 Mort11 SOL DC 51.22094 -4.32806

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 11 Mort11 EOL DC 51.22011 -4.32734

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 12 Mort12 SOL DC 51.22152 -4.31694

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 12 Mort12 EOL DC 51.22022 -4.317

27/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 13 Mort13 DG 51.2215 -4.30663

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 16 Mort16 HG 51.22629 -4.33425

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 17 Mort17 SOL DC 51.22723 -4.3237

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 17 Mort17 EOL DC 51.22701 -4.32157

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 18 Mort18 SOL DC 51.22733 -4.31082

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 18 Mort18 EOL DC 51.22615 -4.31228

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 19 Mort19 HG 51.22727 -4.30089

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 22 Mort22 HG 51.23226 -4.33947

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 25 Mort25 HG 51.23268 -4.3065

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 26 Mort26 SOL DC 51.23359 -4.29428

28/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 26 Mort26 EOL DC 51.23262 -4.29643

29/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 30 Mort30 SOL DC 51.24022 -4.31242

29/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 30 Mort30 EOL DC 51.23817 -4.31281

29/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 32 Mort32 HG 51.23877 -4.29148

29/03/2012 WGDN 04/12 35 Mort35 DG 51.24465 -4.31817

Key: DG – Day Grab; HG - Mini Hamon Grab; DC – Drop Camera; EOL - End of Line; SOL – Start of

Line

CEND 2514


25/11/2014 CEND2514 17 GT52 HG 51.23893 -4.26522

25/11/2014 CEND2514 18 GT51 HG 51.24163 -4.26528

25/11/2014 CEND2514 19 GT54 HG 51.24483 -4.26019

25/11/2014 CEND2514 20 GT53 HG 51.25084 -4.26595

25/11/2014 CEND2514 25 GT39 SOL DC 51.25512 -4.29455

25/11/2014 CEND2514 25 GT39 EOL DC 51.25511 -4.29323

25/11/2014 CEND2514 26 GT42 SOL DC 51.24995 -4.28817

25/11/2014 CEND2514 26 GT42 EOL DC 51.25019 -4.28703

25/11/2014 CEND2514 27 GT45 SOL DC 51.24456 -4.28285

25/11/2014 CEND2514 27 GT45 EOL DC 51.24484 -4.28175

25/11/2014 CEND2514 29 GT48 HG 51.23925 -4.27734

25/11/2014 CEND2514 31 GT44 HG 51.23291 -4.28157

25/11/2014 CEND2514 33 GT38 HG 51.2435 -4.29221

25/11/2014 CEND2514 34 GT30 HG 51.24606 -4.29949



25/11/2014 CEND2514 35 GT35 HG 51.25028 -4.29778

25/11/2014 CEND2514 37 GT21 SOL DC 51.24449 -4.31372

25/11/2014 CEND2514 37 GT21 EOL DC 51.24418 -4.31493

25/11/2014 CEND2514 40 GT37 HG 51.2342 -4.29422

25/11/2014 CEND2514 41 GT37 SOL DC 51.23413 -4.2944

25/11/2014 CEND2514 41 GT37 EOL DC 51.23361 -4.29563

25/11/2014 CEND2514 42 GT40 SOL DC 51.22954 -4.28795

25/11/2014 CEND2514 42 GT40 EOL DC 51.22906 -4.28898

25/11/2014 CEND2514 43 GT47 SOL DC 51.22711 -4.2813

25/11/2014 CEND2514 43 GT47 EOL DC 51.22649 -4.28249

25/11/2014 CEND2514 44 GT36 SOL DC 51.2212 -4.29179

25/11/2014 CEND2514 44 GT36 EOL DC 51.22025 -4.29234

25/11/2014 CEND2514 45 GT33 SOL DC 51.22624 -4.29932

25/11/2014 CEND2514 45 GT33 EOL DC 51.22625 -4.29759

25/11/2014 CEND2514 46 GT29 HG 51.23244 -4.3032

25/11/2014 CEND2514 47 GT20 HG 51.23236 -4.31408

25/11/2014 CEND2514 48 GT20 SOL DC 51.23245 -4.3137

25/11/2014 CEND2514 48 GT20 EOL DC 51.23272 -4.31229

25/11/2014 CEND2514 49 GT17 HG 51.23627 -4.32105

25/11/2014 CEND2514 50 GT13 HG 51.24395 -4.325

26/11/2014 CEND2514 52 GT12 HG 51.23387 -4.32712

26/11/2014 CEND2514 53 GT16 HG 51.22646 -4.31906

26/11/2014 CEND2514 54 GT24 HG 51.22664 -4.308

26/11/2014 CEND2514 58 GT23 SOL DC 51.21515 -4.30754

26/11/2014 CEND2514 58 GT23 EOL DC 51.21531 -4.30628

26/11/2014 CEND2514 59 GT32 SOL DC 51.21578 -4.29645

26/11/2014 CEND2514 59 GT32 EOL DC 51.21505 -4.297

26/11/2014 CEND2514 60 GT28 SOL DC 51.22047 -4.30216

26/11/2014 CEND2514 60 GT28 EOL DC 51.2201 -4.30329

26/11/2014 CEND2514 61 GT24 SOL DC 51.22693 -4.30802

26/11/2014 CEND2514 61 GT24 EOL DC 51.22664 -4.30896

26/11/2014 CEND2514 64 GT11 HG 51.22082 -4.32388

26/11/2014 CEND2514 65 GT08 HG 51.22661 -4.32952

26/11/2014 CEND2514 66 GT06 HG 51.23 -4.33

26/11/2014 CEND2514 67 GT03 HG 51.23214 -4.34582

26/11/2014 CEND2514 68 GT03 SOL DC 51.23218 -4.34537

26/11/2014 CEND2514 68 GT03 EOL DC 51.23164 -4.34677

26/11/2014 CEND2514 69 GT04 SOL DC 51.22805 -4.34154

26/11/2014 CEND2514 69 GT04 EOL DC 51.22746 -4.34251

26/11/2014 CEND2514 70 GT09 SOL DC 51.23848 -4.32985

26/11/2014 CEND2514 70 GT09 EOL DC 51.23771 -4.33053

26/11/2014 CEND2514 71 GT08 SOL DC 51.22621 -4.32996

26/11/2014 CEND2514 71 GT08 EOL DC 51.22651 -4.32873

26/11/2020 CEND2514 74 GT04 HG 51.22803 -4.34185

26/11/2020 CEND2514 75 GT01 HG 51.22619 -4.35118

26/11/2020 CEND2514 76 GT02 HG 51.22054 -4.34533

26/11/2014 CEND2514 77 GT05 SOL DC 51.22046 -4.3351

26/11/2014 CEND2514 77 GT05 EOL DC 51.22128 -4.33427

26/11/2014 CEND2514 78 GT15 SOL DC 51.21483 -4.31819

26/11/2014 CEND2514 78 GT15 EOL DC 51.21547 -4.31923

26/11/2014 CEND2514 79 GT10 SOL DC 51.209 -4.32308

26/11/2014 CEND2514 79 GT10 EOL DC 51.20953 -4.32435

26/11/2014 CEND2514 80 GT14 SOL DC 51.20368 -4.31785



26/11/2014 CEND2514 80 GT14 EOL DC 51.20296 -4.3186

26/11/2014 CEND2514 81 GT18 SOL DC 51.2074 -4.31093

26/11/2014 CEND2514 81 GT18 EOL DC 51.20705 -4.31185

26/11/2014 CEND2514 83 GT07 HG 51.21491 -4.32902

26/11/2014 CEND2514 84 GT22 SOL DC 51.2052 -4.30599

26/11/2014 CEND2514 84 GT22 EOL DC 51.20475 -4.30682

26/11/2014 CEND2514 85 GT10 HG 51.20935 -4.32372

26/11/2014 CEND2514 86 GT27 SOL DC 51.20952 -4.30167

26/11/2014 CEND2514 86 GT27 EOL DC 51.2092 -4.30253

26/11/2014 CEND2514 87 GT19 SOL DC 51.22091 -4.31278

26/11/2014 CEND2514 87 GT19 EOL DC 51.22038 -4.31372

26/11/2014 CEND2514 88 GT44 SOL DC 51.23336 -4.28116

26/11/2014 CEND2514 88 GT44 EOL DC 51.23267 -4.2823

26/11/2014 CEND2514 89 GT50 SOL DC 51.2337 -4.27216

26/11/2014 CEND2514 89 GT50 EOL DC 51.23417 -4.27088

26/11/2014 CEND2514 90 GT41 SOL DC 51.23846 -4.28762

26/11/2014 CEND2514 90 GT41 EOL DC 51.2388 -4.28675

26/11/2014 CEND2514 91 GT47 HG 51.22724 -4.28191

26/11/2014 CEND2514 92 GT36 HG 51.22082 -4.29155

27/11/2014 CEND2514 94 GT21 HG 51.24436 -4.31398

27/11/2014 CEND2514 95 GT42 HG 51.25034 -4.28725

27/11/2014 CEND2514 97 GT54 SOL DC 51.24486 -4.26071

27/11/2014 CEND2514 97 GT54 EOL DC 51.24487 -4.25922

27/11/2014 CEND2514 98 GT49 SOL DC 51.25134 -4.27484

27/11/2014 CEND2514 98 GT49 EOL DC 51.25108 -4.27611

27/11/2014 CEND2514 99 GT46 SOL DC 51.2564 -4.28159

27/11/2014 CEND2514 99 GT46 EOL DC 51.25602 -4.28256

27/11/2014 CEND2514 103 GT56 HG 51.23896 -4.26503

27/11/2014 CEND2514 104 GT43 SOL DC 51.2612 -4.29162

27/11/2014 CEND2514 104 GT43 EOL DC 51.2608 -4.2925

27/11/2014 CEND2514 105 GT31 SOL DC 51.25605 -4.30303

27/11/2014 CEND2514 105 GT31 EOL DC 51.2558 -4.30415

27/11/2014 CEND2514 106 GT26 SOL DC 51.25054 -4.30875

27/11/2014 CEND2514 106 GT26 EOL DC 51.24988 -4.30928

27/11/2014 CEND2514 107 GT25 SOL DC 51.23825 -4.30865

27/11/2014 CEND2514 107 GT25 EOL DC 51.23856 -4.30803

27/11/2014 CEND2514 108 GT34 SOL DC 51.23855 -4.29813

27/11/2014 CEND2514 108 GT34 EOL DC 51.23877 -4.2972

Key: HG - Mini Hamon Grab; DC – Drop Camera; 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.

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

PORIFERA 19

Cliona celata 12

PORIFERA (Type A) 12

Suberitidae 9

Stelligera rigida 5

Hymeraphia 2

Sycon ciliata 2

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

ACTINIARIA 42

Hydrallmania falcata 35

Sertularia 28

Campanulariidae 5

Halecium 5

Dynamena pumila 2

Edwardsiidae 2

FLATWORMS

TURBELLARIA 19

PLATYHELMINTHES 14

RIBBON WORMS

NEMERTEA 81

Cerebratulus 16

Tubulanus polymorphus 12

Oerstedia dorsalis 2

NEMATODES

NEMATODA 63

PEANUT WORMS

SIPUNCULA 33

Nephasoma minutum 16

Golfingia elongata 7

Phascolion strombus 5

Aspidosiphon muelleri 2

Golfingia vulgaris 2

SEGMENTED WORMS

Mediomastus fragilis 81

Laonice bahusiensis 79

Clymenura 70

Glycera lapidum 70

Spirobranchus lamarcki 70

Sabellaria spinulosa 67


Taxa % Occurrence

Lumbrineris cingulata 63

Caulleriella alata 56

Glycera 51

Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 51

Ampharete lindstroemi 49

Scalibregma celticum 49

Aonides paucibranchiata 47

Polynoidae 44

Hydroides norvegicus 40

Marphysa bellii 40

Notomastus latericeus 40

Lysidice unicornis 37

Dipolydora coeca 35

Pholoe baltica (sensu Petersen) 35

Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) 35

Syllis garciai 35

Polycirrus 33

Syllidia armata 30

Eulalia mustela 28

Laonice 28

Terebellides stroemi 28

Eunereis longissima 26

Lumbrineris gracilis 26

Notomastus 26

Praxillella affinis 26

Spirobranchus 26

Jasmineira elegans 23

Malmgrenia arenicolae 23

Schistomeringos rudolphi 23

Syllidae (Type A) 23

Syllis armillaris 23

Ampharetidae 21

Asclerocheilus intermedius 21

Nephtys kersivalensis 21

Paradoneis lyra 21

Spiophanes kroyeri 21

Syllis (Type E) 21

Aonides oxycephala 19

Dipolydora caulleryi 19

Eteone longa (agg) 19

Nephtys 19

Paraehlersia ferrugina 19

Prosphaerosyllis chauseyensis 19

Protodorvillea kefersteini 19

Syllis variegata 19

Chaetozone zetlandica 16


Taxa % Occurrence

Eumida 16

Goniadella gracilis 16

Lepidonotus squamatus 16

Spirobranchus triqueter 16

Aphelochaeta 14

Glycinde nordmanni 14

Lumbrineridae 14

Odontosyllis fulgurans 14

Phyllodocidae 14

Polycirrus norvegicus 14

Serpulidae 14

Sphaerosyllis taylori 14

Chone dunerificta 12

Dipolydora socialis 12

Eteone longa 12

Eumida sanguinea 12

Eusyllis blomstrandi 12

Goniadella bobretzkii 12

Nereididae 12

Prionospio 12

Serpula vermicularis 12

Syllis 12

Aphelochaeta (Type A) 9

Eulalia ornata 9

Eulalia tripunctata 9

Exogone hebes 9

Exogone naidina 9

Grania 9

Lanice conchilega 9

Maldanidae (Type A) 9

Phisidia aurea 9

Polygordius 9

Sabellidae 9

Scalibregma inflatum 9

Sphaerodorum gracilis 9

Spionidae 9

Sthenelais boa 9

Syllides 9

Ampharete octocirrata 7

Anaitides longipes 7

Aphelochaeta marioni 7

Clymenura johnstoni 7

Goniadidae 7

Malmgrenia darbouxi 7

Marphysa 7

Paraonidae 7


Taxa % Occurrence

Parasabella 7

Pseudomystides limbata 7

Pterocirrus 7

Rullierinereis ancornunezi 7

Scolelepis tridentata 7

Scoloplos armiger 7

Sphaerosyllis hystrix 7

Amphicteis midas 5

Branchiomma 5

Chone duneri 5

Euclymene lombricoides 5

Eulalia aurea 5

Eulalia bilineata 5

Exogone verugera 5

Glycera fallax 5

Glycera unicornis 5

Loimia medusa 5

Lumbrineriopsis paradoxa 5

Maldanidae 5

Malmgrenia ljungmani 5

Mysta picta 5

Nephtys caeca 5

Orbinia sertulata 5

Owenia 5

Petaloproctus 5

Pisione remota 5

Psamathe fusca 5

Pseudonotomastus southerni 5

Pseudopotamilla 5

Pseudopotamilla reniformis 5

Pygospio elegans 5

Sabellides octocirrata 5

Schistomeringos neglecta 5

Scolelepis korsuni 5

Scoletoma magnidentata 5

Syllis (Type D) 5

Syllis licheri 5

Terebellidae 5

Thelepus cincinnatus 5

Thelepus setosus 5

Anaitides groenlandica 2

Arenicola 2

Capitellidae 2

Cirratulus 2

Dioplosyllis cirrosa (?) 2

Drilonereis filum 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Enchytraeidae 2

Erinaceusyllis 2

Eulalia expusilla 2

Eulalia microoculata 2

Eunicidae 2

Eurysyllis (Type A) 2

Flabelligera affinis 2

Gattyana cirrhosa 2

Gyptis rosea 2

Harmothoe impar 2

Hesionidae 2

Heteroclymene robusta 2

Hydroides 2

Lepidonotus 2

Lumbrineris futilis 2

Lysidice ninetta 2

Lysilla loveni 2

Malmgrenia andreapolis 2

Malmgrenia castanea 2

Marphysa sanguinea 2

Megalomma (Type A) 2

Microspio mecznikowianus 2

Nereiphylla rubiginosa 2

Nicomache 2

Notocirrus scoticus 2

Notoproctus 2

Oenonidae 2

Orbinia norvegica 2

Orbiniidae 2

Owenia fusiformis 2

Parasabella cambrensis 2

Parasabella langerhansi 2

Pholoe 2

Pholoe assimilis 2

Poecilochaetus serpens 2

Polycirrus medusa 2

Polynoe scolopendrina 2

Procerastea 2

Prosphaerosyllis 2

Pseudopolydora 2

Pseudopolydora pulchra 2

Sabella pavonina 2

Scoletoma 2

Scoletoma fragilis 2

Sphaerosyllis tetralix 2

Spio 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Spio armata 2

Spiochaetopterus typicus 2

Spiophanes 2

Spiophanes bombyx 2

Spirorbidae 2

Syllidae 2

Syllis columbretensis 2

Syllis cornuta 2

Tharyx killariensis 2

Trypanosyllis coeliaca 2

Tubificoides pseudogaster 2

Vermiliopsis striaticeps 2

SEA SPIDERS

Anoplodactylus petiolatus 26

Achelia echinata 12

Callipallene brevirostris 2

Callipallenidae 2

CRUSTACEANS

Verruca stroemia 49

Pisidia longicornis 28

Ampelisca spinipes 26

Monodaeus couchii 26

Gammaropsis maculata 23

Cheirocratus 19

Unciola crenatipalma 19

Ampeliscidae 16

Othomaera othonis 16

Socarnes erythrophthalmus 16

THORACICA 16

Pilumnus hirtellus 14

Isaeidae 12

Maerella tenuimana 12

Melitidae 12

Monocorophium sextonae 12

Paguridae 12

Urothoe elegans 12

Anthura gracilis 9

Atelecyclus rotundatus 9

Ericthonius punctatus 9

Leptocheirus pectinatus 9

Balanus crenatus 7

Ebalia 7

Ericthonius 7

Abludomelita obtusata 5

Acidostoma obesum (sensu Stoddart & Lowry) 5

Ampelisca diadema 5


Taxa % Occurrence

Animoceradocus semiserratus 5

Corophiidae 5

Cumella pygmaea 5

Dyopedos monacantha 5

Ebalia tuberosa 5

Harpinia pectinata 5

Liljeborgia kinahani 5

Liocarcinus 5

OSTRACODA 5

Acidostoma neglectum 2

Ampelisca 2

Anapagurus hyndmanni 2

Bopyridae 2

Cheirocratus sundevallii 2

COPEPODA 2

Cressa dubia 2

DECAPODA 2

Ebalia tumefacta 2

Eriopisa elongata 2

Galathea 2

Gammaropsis longicornis 2

Gnathia oxyuraea 2

Guernea coalita 2

Heteromysis microps 2

Iphimedia perplexa 2

Janira maculosa 2

Listriella mollis 2

Lysianassidae 2

Macropodia 2

Munna 2

Nicippe tumida 2

Nototropis vedlomensis 2

Pandalina brevirostris 2

Parametaphoxus fultoni 2

Photis longicaudata 2

Pinnotheres pisum 2

Pseudoparatanais batei 2

Stenothoe marina 2

TANAIDACEA 2

Tanaopsis graciloides 2

Tritaeta gibbosa 2

Xanthidae 2

MOLLUSCS

Leptochiton asellus 47

Mytilidae 47

Gibbula tumida 44


Taxa % Occurrence

Clausinella fasciata 30

Myidae 26

Sphenia binghami 26

Timoclea ovata 26

GASTROPODA 23

Spisula elliptica 23

Anomiidae 21

BIVALVIA 19

Diplodonta rotundata 19

Mactridae 19

Thecacera pennigera 19

Veneridae 19

Abra alba 16

Mytilus edulis 14

Cardiidae 12

POLYPLACOPHORA 12

Thracia 12

Abra 9

Caecum glabrum 9

Kurtiella bidentata 9

Moerella donacina 9

Dosinia lupinus 7

Gari tellinella 7

Hiatella arctica 7

Nucula nucleus 7

Onchidoris 7

Polititapes rhomboides 7

Thracia villosiuscula 7

Corbula gibba 5

Dosinia 5

Euspira nitida 5

Modiolus barbatus 5

Onchidorididae 5

Onoba semicostata 5

Pectinidae 5

ANOMALODESMATA 2

Dosinia exoleta 2

Epitonium clathrus 2

Epitonium turtonis 2

Gari 2

Hyala vitrea 2

Jujubinus montagui 2

Lyonsia norwegica 2

Mimachlamys varia 2

Montacuta substriata 2

Mysia undata 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Nassariidae 2

Neomenia carinata 2

Palliolum tigerinum 2

Parvicardium scabrum 2

Pododesmus patelliformis 2

Tellimya ferruginosa 2

BRACHIOPODS

BRACHIOPODA 2

BRYOZOANS

Escharella immersa 77

Schizomavella 70

Disporella hispida 63

Conopeum reticulum 30

Tubulipora 30

Alcyonidium 28

Flustra foliacea 28

Electra pilosa 23

Cellepora pumicosa 21

Chorizopora brongniartii 16

Pentapora fascialis 14

Bugula 12

Schizomavella auriculata 12

Bicellariella ciliata 9

Crisia 9

Escharella variolosa 7

Plagioecia sarniensis 7

Porella concinna 7

Stomatoporina incurvata 7

Amphiblestrum auritum 5

Callopora discreta 5

Crassimarginatella solidula 5

Escharella ventricosa 5

Hincksina flustroides 5

Microporella ciliata 5

Tubulipora liliacea 5

Vesicularia spinosa 5

Alcyonidioides mytili 2

Alcyonidium diaphanum 2

Amphiblestrum flemingii 2

Cauloramphus spiniferum 2

Crisia aculeata 2

CYCLOSTOMATIDA 2

Electra monostachys 2

Eurystrotos compacta 2

Omalosecosa ramulosa 2

Phylactella labrosa 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Puellina bifida 2

Puellina innominata 2

Pyripora catenularia 2

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 58

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

OPHIUROIDEA 60

Amphipholis squamata 58

Echinocyamus pusillus 33

ECHINOIDEA 5

Ophiactis balli 5

Ophiothrix fragilis 5

Ophiura albida 5

Echinus 2

HOLOTHURIOIDEA 2

Leptosynapta cruenta 2

Ophiothrix 2

Ophiura 2

Ophiura ophiura 2

Psammechinus miliaris 2

ACORN WORMS

HEMICHORDATA 5

SEA SQUIRTS

Dendrodoa grossularia 58

ASCIDIACEA 21

Didemnidae 5

Didemnum maculosum 2

Molgula oculata 2

Pyura tessellata 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.

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Porifera (encrusting)

Porifera (branching type1)

Porifera (globose)

Raspailia ramosa

Cliona celata

Porifera (branching type2)

Haliclona simulans

Hemimycale columella

59

20

9

7

5

5

2

2

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Hydrozoa (turf)

Urticina sp.

Actiniaria

Alcyonium digitatum

Hydrozoa

Sagartiidae

Tubularia indivisa

Capnea sanguinea

Hydrallmania falcata

Sagartia sp.

Sagartia troglodytes

Abietinaria abietina

Sertularia

Metridium senile

Nemertesia sp.

Nemertesia antennina

Actinothoe sphyrodeta

Cerianthus lloydii

Plumularoidea

Sagartia elegans

Sertularia sp.

Zoantharia

80

70

66

61

52

50

30

20

18

16

11

9

9

7

7

7

5

5

5

5

5

2

SEGMENTED WORMS

Serpulidae

Spirobranchus sp.

Sabellaria spinulosa

Sabella pavonina

Polychaeta

Bispira volutacornis

Salmacina dysteri

Myxicola infundibulum

91

82

73

41

30

5

5

2


Taxa % Occurrence

CRUSTACEANS

Paguridae

Ebalia sp.

Brachyura

Thoracica

Inachidae

Pandalidae

Munida rugosa

Maja squinado

Cancer pagurus

Galatheoidea

Liocarcinus sp.

Necora puber

Caridea

Decapoda

Homarus gammarus

Hyas sp.

Macropodia sp.

Portunidae

Semibalanus balanoides

70

41

34

34

32

30

14

7

5

5

5

5

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

MOLLUSCS

Calliostoma zizyphinum

Polyplacophora

Gastropoda

Trochidae

Pectinidae

Bivalvia

Buccinum undatum

Aequipecten opercularis

34

25

18

16

11

9

7

5

BRACHIOPODS

BRACHIOPODA 7

BRYOZOANS

Bryozoa (encrusting)

Flustra foliacea

Pentapora fascialis

Bryozoa (turf)

Alcyonidium diaphanum

Bryozoa (erect)

Cellepora pumicosa

80

57

50

45

11

2

2

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Asterias rubens

Marthasterias glacialis

Asteroidea

Echinus esculentus

Ophiura albida

Ophiura

Crossaster papposus

Ophiothrix fragilis

Ophiuroidea

Henricia

66

18

11

9

9

5

2

2

2

2


Taxa % Occurrence

SEA SQUIRTS

ASCIDIACEA (non colonial)

ASCIDIACEA (colonial)

Dendrodoa grossularia

36

2

2

FISH

Scyliorhinus canicula

TELEOSTEI

Pleuronectiformes

Gadidae

Anguilla anguilla

Callionymus lyra

Trisopterus luscus

7

9

7

5

2

2

2

ALGAE

Phaeophyceae 5


Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition

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

3 Mort 03 51.209475 -4.327012 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal Mixed Sediments 66.91 24.75 8.34

4 Mort 04 51.209478 -4.315190 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 68.96 29.10 1.95






16 Mort 16 51.227272 -4.300890 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediments 70.67 27.54 1.79






75 GT01 51.226190 -4.351179 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal Mixed Sediments 38.21 52.73 9.06

76 GT02 51.220540 -4.345325 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 59.55 38.71 1.74


















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















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

Station No.

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

11 Mort11 51.22076 -4.3281 1 A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

11 Mort11 51.22068 -4.32802 2 A5.4 Subtidal Mixed Sediments SS.SMx
















26 Mort26 51.23326 -4.29509 1 A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock SM.SSSaG


30 Mort30 51.23872 -4.31286 1 A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS

68 GT03 51.23218 -4.34537 1 A5.4 Subtidal Mixed Sediments SS.SMx.CMx

69 GT04 51.22805 -4.34154 1 A5.6 Subtidal Biogenic Reef* SS.SBR.PoR.SspiMx

77 GT05 51.22046 -4.33510 1 A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS










Station No.





87 GT19 51.22091 -4.31278 1 A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.CSab.Sspi






84 GT22 51.20497 -4.30640 2 A4.1 High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.XFa


84 GT22 51.20490 -4.30654 4 A4.1 High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.XFa










86 GT27 51.20941 -4.30194 3 A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.CSab.Sspi






59 GT32 51.21535 -4.29677 3 A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR







Station No.









88 GT44 51.23336 -4.28116 1 A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR





98 GT49 51.25128 -4.27516 2 A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.EcCr.FaAlCr.Flu



BSHs for the stations sampled during the 2012 survey, and for station GT10 during 2014, were classified using data from video stills only.

*The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ has been classified based solely on video still images, further dedicated survey work would need to be undertaken to confirm reef status.


Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats

Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey

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.

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.

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments

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

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





A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs*

Mixed sediments with elevated clumps of Sabellaria spinulosa

aggregations

*The BSH ‘A5.6 Subtidal biogenic reefs’ has been classified based solely on video still images further dedicated survey work would need to be undertaken to confirm reef status.


Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI

Habitat FOCI

Description Example Image taken during survey

None observed N/A N/A


This page intentionally left blank

Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site...

Documents

Transcript of Morte Platform rMCZ Post-survey Site...