Mounts Bay rMCZ Post-survey Site Report - Defra, UK -...

Mounts Bay rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 15 Version 5

February 2014

Project Title: Coordination of the Defra MCZ data collection programme 2011/12 Report No 15. Title: Mounts Bay rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 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 Joanna Murray Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Anna Downie Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Robin Law (Cefas) and Sue Ware (Cefas) for editing the text of 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.

mailto:[email protected]


Cefas Document Control Title: Mounts Bay rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Submitted to: rMCZ Project Steering Group

Date submitted: January 2014

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Joanna Murray and Anna Downie

Quality control by: Sue Ware and Robin Law

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (19/2/2014)

Version: V5

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Joanna Murray and Anna Downie

September 2013 First Draft V1


October 2013 Revised draft following internal review V2


October 2013 Revised draft following internal QC V3


January 2014 Revised draft following external reviewers’ comments

V4


February 2014 Revised draft following Defra comments V5

Mounts Bay 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 within the rMCZ ............................................... 2

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

2.1 Location of the rMCZ ..................................................................................... 4

2.2 Rationale for the 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 ................................................................... 7

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map ......................................................... 8

3.4 Quality of 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 ........................................ 13

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 15

4.4 Broad-scale habitats identified .................................................................... 15

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 16

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 ......................... 19

4.9 Observations of human activities within the rMCZ ...................................... 20

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 21

5.1 Presence and extent of broad-scale habitats .............................................. 21

5.2 Presence and extent of FOCI habitats ........................................................ 21

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ................................................. 22

5.4 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ............................................. 22

References ............................................................................................................... 23

Data sources ............................................................................................................ 25

Mounts Bay rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report ii

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 26

Annex 1. Broad-scale habitat features listed in the ENG. .................................... 26

Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................ 27

Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ....................... 28

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ..................................... 29

Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol ..................................................... 30

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 32

Appendix 1. Survey Metadata .............................................................................. 32

Appendix 2. Outputs from Acoustic Surveys ........................................................ 33

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ................................. 35

Appendix 4. Species List ..................................................................................... 36

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 40

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 41

Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broad-scale habitats .................... 42

Appendix 8. Example image from survey for habitat FOCI .................................. 43

Mounts Bay rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Broad-scale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. ... 5

Table 2. Habitat FOCI present but not proposed for designation of this rMCZ. ......... 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. Confusion matrix for the internal validation of the classified Broad-scale Habitat map for Mounts Bay rMCZ. The table shows how many ground-truth samples of each habitat class were located in each habitat class on the updated BSH map. .......................................................................................... 11

Table 6. Broad-scale habitats identified in this rMCZ. ............................................. 16

Table 7. Habitat FOCI identified in Mounts Bay rMCZ. ............................................ 17

Table 8. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ....................................................... 18

Mounts Bay rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

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

Figure 2. Location of ground-truth sampling sites at the Mounts Bay rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). ........................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Flowchart outlining the process of producing the broad-scale habitat map.9

Figure 4. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 13

Figure 5. Updated map of broad-scale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. ................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 6. Overall MESH confidence scores for subtidal and intertidal regions in the updated broad-scale habitat map. ................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Habitat FOCI identified. ............................................................................ 17

Figure 8. Broad-scale habitats and species FOCI identified. ................................... 18

Mounts Bay rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Mounts Bay 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. Before the dedicated survey, the site assessment was 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 broad-scale habitats (BSH) and habitat FOCI (Features of Conservation Importance) 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 resulted from the survey of the site conducted by the Environment Agency (EA) in March 2012. The comparison covers broad-scale 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 SAD

3

Extent according to updated

habitat map

Accordance between updated SAD and

updated habitat map

Broad-scale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent

A5.2: Subtidal sand 10.32 km2 7.69 km

2 2.65 km

2 -5.04 km

2

A5.4: Subtidal mixed sediments

/ A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment

1

0.01 km2 0.03 km

2 1.38 km

2 +1.35 km

2

A3.1: High energy infralittoral rock

0.16 km2

0.07 km2 3.69 km

2 +3.62 km

2

A2.1: Intertidal coarse sediment2

0.56 km2

N/A N/A N/A N/A

A2.4: Intertidal mixed sediments

2 < 0.01 km

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

A2.2: Intertidal sand and muddy sand

2 < 0.01 km

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

A1.1: High energy intertidal rock

2

0.12 km2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

A1.2: Moderate energy intertidal rock

2 0.04 km

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A


Feature Extent according

to SAD

Extent according to

updated SAD

3


habitat map

Accordance between updated SAD and

updated habitat map

Habitat FOCI

Seagrass Beds 0.02 km2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Species FOCI

Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)

2 Records N/A 1 record N/A N/A

Giant Goby (Gobius cobitis) 3 Records N/A N/A N/A N/A

Stalked Jellyfish (Haliclystus auricula)

4 Records N/A N/A N/A N/A

Stalked Jellyfish (Lucernariopsis campanulata)

1 Record N/A N/A N/A N/A

Stalked Jellyfish (Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis)

1 Record N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 The new survey identified mainly coarse sediment, instead of mixed sediment. However, the habitats have been observed

during video transects and no PSA samples were available from either category, making distinction between them uncertain. 2 Although part of the intertidal is included in the updated habitat map, the methodology used is not appropriate for intertidal

habitats, making confidence in the intertidal part of the map low. Hence, no estimates of intertidal habitat extent have been made. 3 The new survey described in this report covers 7.8 km

2, amounting to 76% of the rMCZ. The updated SAD figures given are

those from an updated version of the habitat map used to calculate the original area figures put forward in the recommendations by Finding Sanctuary, after it was clipped to the extent of the survey data.

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 SAD1


habitat map

Accord between updated SAD and

updated habitat map

Broad-scale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent

A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock

0 km2 0 km

2 0.04 km

2 +0.04 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Subtidal Sands and Gravels1 10.32 km

2* 7.69 km

2 4.03 km

2 -3.66 km

2

Species FOCI

None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 The new survey described in this report covers 7.8 km

2, amounting to 76% of the rMCZ. The updated SAD figures given are

those from an updated version of the habitat map used to calculate the original area figures put forward in the recommendations by Finding Sanctuary, after it was clipped to the extent of the survey data.

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

1.3 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

No evidence of human activities was observed in the newly acquired data for this site.


2 Introduction

In accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the UK is committed to developing and implementing 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 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 127 recommended MCZs (rMCZs) and compiled a Site Assessment Document (SAD) for each, summarising the evidence available for presence and extent of the various habitat, species and geological features specified in the ENG and for which the site was being recommended.

Because of the scarcity of survey-derived seabed habitat maps in UK waters, the 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 and Natural England at the Mounts Bay rMCZ site during March 2012, and updates the evidence base which will permit reassessment of the site’s designation as a MCZ.


2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Mounts Bay rMCZ boundary on the south Cornish coast follows the coastline along the Ordnance Survey Boundary Line Mean High Water mark from the beach at Long Rock (west of Marazion), around St Michael’s Mount to Cudden Point, between Praa Sands and Perranuthnoe. From the beach at Long Rock, the site boundary extends N-S for approximately 2.8 km, and from there it extends eastwards to Cudden Point (Figure 1).

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

2.2 Rationale for the site position and designation

The Mounts Bay rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to the criteria specified in the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG; Natural England and the JNCC, 2010) relating to broad-scale habitats. For a detailed site description see Section 4, part II.3.33 in ‘Finding Sanctuary Final report and Recommendations’ (Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

2.2.1 Broad-scale habitats proposed for designation

Three subtidal broad-scale habitats were included in the recommendations for designation at the site (Table 1). See Annex 1 for full list of broad-scale habitat features listed in the ENG. Table 1 shows the area of each subtidal BSH, both as originally calculated by Finding Sanctuary (based on the existing coarse scale habitat GIS layer for the entire Mounts Bay rMCZ site; Lieberknecht et al., 2011) and


the corresponding values for the area covered by the new survey (7.8 km2; 76% of the rMCZ), calculated from an updated version of the coarse scale habitat GIS layer.

Table 1. Broad-scale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

EUNIS code & Broad-scale Habitat Spatial extent

according to the SAD Spatial extent according to

the updated SAD

A3.1: High energy infralittoral rock 0.16 km2 0.07 km

2


2

A5.4: Subtidal mixed sediment 0.01 km2 0.03 km

2

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ was indicated by the SAD to be present within the Mounts Bay rMCZ (Table 2). However, this habitat FOCI was not included on the list of draft conservation objectives for the site because it is considered that any conservation requirements will be met by the listed broad-scale habitats. In addition, the spatial extent for this habitat FOCI stated in the SAD appears to have been miscalculated as 9.31 km2. The correct spatial extent (derived from the spatial extent coincident with the subtidal sand BSH) is 10.32 km2. The corrected value will be used in this report when comparing the SAD and the updated habitat map.

Table 2. Habitat FOCI present but not proposed for designation of this rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to

SAD Spatial extent according

to updated SAD

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 10.32 km2* 7.69 km

2

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

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

Five Low or Limited Mobility, but 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 Number of Point records

Low or limited mobility species FOCI

Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)

Giant Goby (Gobius cobitis)

Stalked Jellyfish (Haliclystus auricula)

Stalked Jellyfish (Lucernariopsis campanulata)

Stalked Jellyfish (Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis)

2

3

4

1

1

Highly mobile species FOCI None recorded

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 quantity and quality of evidence for the presence and extent of broad-scale


habitat features and habitat and 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 broad-scale habitats and habitat FOCI reported for the Mounts Bay rMCZ was Low (JNCC and Natural England, 2012), so the site was prioritised for additional evidence collection.

2.4 Survey aims and objectives

Primary Objectives

To collect ground-truth data and utilise Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP) acoustic data to produce an updated habitat map to be used to inform the presence of broad-scale habitats and habitat FOCI, and to allow estimates to be made of their spatial extent within the surveyed area of the rMCZ.

Secondary Objectives

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

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

It should be emphasised that surveys were not designed primarily to address the secondary objectives under the current programme of work. Although 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 the data will be valuable for informing the assessment and monitoring of the condition of given habitat features in the future.


3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition

The majority of the Mounts Bay rMCZ overlaps with an area of existing Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter data acquired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) under the CHP. Consequently no dedicated acoustic data were acquired for the site.

3.2 Ground-truth sample acquisition

The position of ground-truth stations is illustrated below (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Location of ground-truth sampling sites at the Mounts Bay rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

Sampling equipment comprised a 0.1 m2 Day Grab. On recovery, the grab sample 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.

Video footage and still images of the seabed were collected with an underwater camera system. The camera images helped to characterise surficial sediments and associated epifaunal communities.

The camera system was mounted on a drop down frame with two high intensity LED strip lights, and collected both video and still images. A reference scale was used 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 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, with the sledge towed at ca. 0.5 knots (ca. 0.25 m s–1) across a 100 m diameter ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling station. Still images were captured at regular 10-15 m intervals and also opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered. Video and still images were analysed following an established protocol used by Cefas and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (Coggan and Howell 2005; JNCC, in prep.; see Annex 5).

In all, 20 ground-truth stations were visited (Figure 2). Day Grabs were successful at nine stations and successful drop camera tows were completed at a further 11 stations. Station metadata are presented in Appendix 1. For further detail on ground-truth sample collection methodology see the Mounts Bay rMCZ Survey Report (Jones et al., 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 available acoustic data and the ground-truth data collected by the dedicated survey of the site. The new habitat map was produced via object-based image analysis (OBIA) implemented in the software package eCognition® v8.7.2.

OBIA is a two-step process consisting of the segmentation and classification of an image based on its spectral characteristics (Blaschke, 2010). Acoustic spectrum data are initially reinterpreted as visual data layers of bathymetry, backscatter and their derivatives. Subsequent segmentation divides the data into meaningful uniform subareas, called objects, and these can be characterised by their various features, such as layer values (mean, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.), texture, and many others. The subsequent classification of objects is based on combinations of these features. The process is summarised in Figure 3 and described in more detail below.


Figure 3. Flowchart outlining the process of producing the broad-scale habitat map.

Data Preparation

Before analysis, the MBES bathymetry and backscatter data were processed into floating point grid layers at 1 m and 0.5 m resolution, respectively.

Derivatives

A set of derivative datasets (see Table 4) describing local variability in data values was calculated for bathymetry. The derivative layers describe aspects of topographic variability.


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)

Bathymetric Position Index Bathymetric Position Index (BPI; Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 3, 5, 10, 25, 45 and 60 cells

Standard Deviation (3 x 3 cell moving window)

Standard deviation statistic calculated within a moving window of 3 x 3 cells

Segmentation

The goal of the OBIA segmentation is to create meaningful uniform segments in the map image, called objects. A homogeneous area of seabed will have larger objects than a heterogeneous area. The input layers used in segmentation were the broad-scale Bathymetric Position Index (BPI) 60, backscatter strength and bathymetry. Segmentation was carried out first using the multiresolution segmentation algorithm in eCognition® with the scale parameter set at 5. This is an optimisation procedure that starts with an individual pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels with similar values to form an object. The process continues until a threshold value for a scale parameter is reached. The threshold scale value restricts the internal variability of pixel values in objects, and the smaller the threshold, the smaller and more uniform the consequent objects. In the second segmentation stage, the objects formed in the initial segmentation were further combined into larger objects, by merging neighbouring objects having differences of less than 1 decibel (db) in their mean backscatter values and less than 0.1 in their BPI 60 values. The second stage effectively identifies areas of relatively uniform reflectivity and bedform.

Characterisation

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.

Classification

It was possible to distinguish four distinct types of BSH from the acoustic and ground-truthing data. Extensive outcrops of ‘High’ and ‘Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ (A3.1 and A3.2) were found in the area, interspersed with ‘Coarse/Mixed sediments’ (A5.1/A5.4) and surrounded by areas of ‘Sublittoral sand’ (A5.2).

The distribution of values for bathymetry, its derivatives and backscatter, in the broad-scale 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 hard substratum classes ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’, as well as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse


sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’. Coarse and mixed sediments were only observed in the video transects. Due to the very similar nature of their recorded substrate composition, and the fact that no PSA samples existed of either of the sediment categories, coarse and mixed sediments were described as a complex of the two habitats. PSA data from grab samples were used to classify the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH observed in the area.

Patches of ‘Sublittoral sand’ (A5.2) were identifiable by their much lower backscatter and low surface relief, whereas ‘High’ and ‘Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ (A3.1 and A3.2) were characterised by highly rugose bottom topography accompanied by high reflectivity. The energy level of rock habitats was determined by depth. High reflectivity coupled with low rugosity was found to indicate ‘Coarse’ and ‘Mixed sediment’ bottoms (A5.1/A5.4). Consequently, objects with high rugosity values above 18m depth were classified as ‘High energy infralittoral rock’ and below 18m as ‘Moderate energy infralittoral rock’. The remaining lower rugosity area was classified into ‘Sublittoral sand’ and ‘Coarse/Mixed sediment’ based on backscatter intensity.

Not enough data were available for external validation of the updated map. Results of internal validation (using the same data records that were used to derive classification boundaries) are shown in Table 5. Internal validation serves to indicate how well the rules determined by analysis fit the data, but it cannot be reliably used to estimate accuracy.

Table 5. Confusion matrix for the internal validation of the classified Broad-scale Habitat map for Mounts Bay rMCZ. The table shows how many ground-truth samples of each habitat class were located in each habitat class on the updated BSH map.

Number of ground-truth samples

Map

Habitat A3.1 A3.2 A5.1/A5.4 A5.2

A3.1 37 0 2 1

A3.2 0 3 1 0

A5.1/A5.4 1 3 13 0

A5.2 0 0 0 12

3.4 Quality of 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 Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) 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, to be used in compiling a full coverage map for northwest Europe. Where two of the

1 http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 18/02/2014]

http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html


original maps overlapped, the map 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 because the current rMCZ exercise requires the mapping of broad-scale physical habitats rather than 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.


4 Results

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map

The SAD habitat map was produced using a number of data sources including the UKSeaMap, outputs from the MESH project and EA data sources, along with anecdotal information acquired through stakeholder consultation. The predicted extent of the main broad-scale habitats shown in the SAD habitat map are reproduced in Figure 4. For further detail see the original SAD; Section 3, part II.3.7 in ‘Finding Sanctuary Final report and Recommendations’ (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 existing MBES bathymetry and backscatter data from the CHP and the 2012 dedicated survey data (see appendices 2 and 6) is presented in Figure 5. It shows the seabed at the site to be characterised by outcropping bedrock (‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’), with pockets of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment ‘, surrounded by larger areas of ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. The coarse and mixed sediment broad-scale habitats are presented in the map as a complex ‘A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed Sediments’, due to the lack of PSA samples available to verify classification (Appendix 5).


Figure 5. Updated map of broad-scale habitats based on newly acquired survey data.


4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

The results of the MESH confidence assessment are shown in Figure 6. The subtidal part of the area covered by the newly acquired data was given a score of 82 out of the 88 possible for a purely physical habitat map. No ground-truth samples were available from the intertidal and, consequently, the intertidal part of the habitat map achieves a MESH confidence score of 45.

Figure 6. Overall MESH confidence scores for subtidal and intertidal regions in the updated broad-scale habitat map.

4.4 Broad-scale habitats identified

The subtidal seabed in the newly mapped area of Mounts Bay rMCZ is a combination of infralittoral rock outcrops interspersed with deposits of coarse sediment, consisting of gravel, pebbles, cobbles and occasional boulders, and large areas of clean sand. The spatial extent of each of the BSH classes shown in the updated habitat map is presented in Table 6. Appendix 7 presents images taken during the survey of BSHs identified.

Outcrops of ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ cover almost half of the mapped subtidal area (48%), with small patches of ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ (0.5%) in the deepest part of the area. The high energy rock habitat is covered by a mixed faunal turf made up of hydroids, ascidians and sponges as well as epilithic red and brown algae. In many places this habitat supports kelp forest made up of Laminaria hyperborea and Laminaria saccharina with epiphytic ascidians and foliose red algae. The moderate energy rock is in turn characterised mainly by encrusting


fauna and foliose and epilithic red algae. Surrounding the rock outcrops, the two broad-scale habitats ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ form a continuum from shelly sediment with sparse fauna to a more cobbly substrate with sponges, hydroids and other encrusting fauna and red algae, similar to the infralittoral rock habitat types. Together the two broad-scale habitats ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ account for approximately 18% of the mapped area. The remaining 34% of the seabed is covered by ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’.

The list of benthic macrofaunal species found in the grab samples is presented in Appendix 4; in all, 100 taxa were recorded.

Table 6. Broad-scale habitats identified in this rMCZ.

Broad-scale Habitat Type (EUNIS Level 3)

Spatial extent according to the

SAD

Extent according to updated SAD

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat

map

A3.1: High energy infralittoral rock 0.16 km2

0.07 km2 3.69 km

2

A5.4: Subtidal mixed sediments

/ A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment*

0.01 km2 0.03 km

2 1.38 km

2


2 2.65 km

2

* The new survey identified mainly coarse sediment, instead of mixed sediment. However, the habitats have been observed during video transects and no PSA samples were available from either category, making distinction between them uncertain.

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The extent of the habitat FOCI identified by the updated habitat map is shown in Figure 7 and detailed in Table 7. Areas mapped as ‘Subtidal sands and gravels’ (A5.1 and A5.2) cover approximately 53% of the area of the rMCZ, but that estimate includes an unquantified fraction of mixed sediments (see Section 3.3). Appendix 8 shows an image taken during the survey of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’.


Figure 7. Habitat FOCI identified.

Table 7. Habitat FOCI identified in Mounts Bay rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI


SAD

Extent according to updated SAD


updated habitat map

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 10.32 km2

7.69 km2 4.03 km

2

4.6 Species FOCI identified

An individual of the species FOCI Arctica islandica (juvenile) was recorded in a single grab sample collected during the survey (Figure 8). The sample was located near the centre of the western boundary of the site. No other species FOCI were found. The list of species identified from grab and video samples collected by the 2012 dedicated survey is presented in Appendix 4.


Figure 8. Broad-scale habitats and species FOCI identified.

Table 8. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Species FOCI Previously recorded

within rMCZ Identified during evidence

gathering survey

Low or limited mobility species

Arctica islandica

2 Records

1 Record

Highly mobile species None recorded None recorded

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

4.7.1 Acoustic data

Acoustic data were quality-assured through specification of the technical requirements of the equipment and procedures used during acquisition. All survey data and reports were reviewed by Cefas specialist staff to ensure that data and deliverables met the required specification. All survey data will be made available to the UK Hydrographic Office, where the information will undergo further checks to assess its suitability for inclusion in the pool of data used to produce navigational charts.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) of sediments

PSA was carried out by Cefas following standard laboratory practice following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011).


4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs

Infaunal samples were processed by Hebog Environmental Ltd. following standard laboratory practices 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 MES Ltd. in accord with the guidance documents developed by Cefas and the 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 new habitat map covers 76% of the Mounts Bay rMCZ. The quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be high (MESH assessment tool). The survey has provided substantial and robust evidence for the presence of the mapped habitats and an approximation of their extent. However, because 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 have not been recorded, especially if they are limited in extent. The presence and extent of BSH and FOCI outside the newly mapped area remains unknown.

The precise location of the boundaries between the broad-scale habitats depicted on the map should be regarded as indicative rather than definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt and 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 judgement (supported by the predictive procedures detailed in Section 3.3). This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI, especially at a site with such fine-scale variability.

The quality of the acoustic datasets used to create the updated habitat map suffered from patchy variation in backscatter intensity due to gain changes made during acquisition, and effects of vessel movement identifiable in the bathymetry. The difference between backscatter values at different gain settings resulted in the need to adjust backscatter cut-off levels in classification between gain strengths. Some features had high rugosity values resulting from vessel movement artefacts in the bathymetry layer and, where identified as such, these were reclassified manually to the appropriate sedimentary class based on backscatter values.

‘Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘Subtidal mixed sediment’ were only identified visually from video and still images showing varying mixtures of sand, gravel cobbles and clay, with no PSA samples to verify classification. The two habitats also have similar acoustic signatures, making it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish the two broad-scale habitats in acoustic data. The two habitats were therefore not mapped separately, but are instead presented as a habitat complex.


4.8.1 Presence of Species FOCI

Of the five species FOCI which were included in the recommendations for proposal of this rMCZ only one species (i.e. one juvenile individual of Arctica islandica) was recorded in the rMCZ.

4.9 Observations of human activities within the rMCZ

No evidence of human activities was observed in the newly acquired data for the site.


5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broad-scale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey of the subtidal area of the Mounts Bay rMCZ has confirmed the presence of the ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’, and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ broad-scale habitat classes. These were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating the site as an MCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey revealed the presence of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ instead of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’ which was proposed in the recommendations made by the SAD. These two habitats were, however, difficult to distinguish from each other as there were no PSA samples available to validate the video transect which identified their presence.

Extent

The spatial extent of the ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ BSH according to the updated SAD habitat map was 0.07 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the potential extent of this habitat is 3.69 km2, 3.62 km2 more than the spatial extent in the updated SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH according to the updated SAD habitat map was 7.69 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 2.65 km2, 5.04 km2 less than the spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’ BSH according to the updated SAD habitat map was 0.03 km2. In the updated habitat map, the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’ and ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ were not distinguishable from each other and so the combined extent of these habitats is 1.38 km2, 1.35 km2 more than the spatial extent in the updated SAD habitat map.

5.2 Presence and extent of FOCI habitats

5.2.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ FOCI which was reported in the SAD as present within the rMCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The recalculated spatial extent of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI according to the updated SAD habitat map was 7.69 km2. According to


the updated habitat map, the spatial extent of this habitat FOCI is 4.03 km2, 3.66 km2 less than in the SAD habitat map.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species

One juvenile individual of the bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica was recorded at one station in the rMCZ area.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI

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

5.4 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ



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

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 18/02/2014].

JNCC (in prep.). Video/Stills Camera Standard Operating Procedure for Survey and Analysis: for ground-truthing 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.

Jones, N., Fraser, M. and Godsell, N. (2013). Mounts Bay rMCZ survey report. 44pp.

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 18/02/2014].

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.

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://findingsanctuary.marinemapping.com/


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 18/02/2014].

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]



Annexes

Annex 1. Broad-scale habitat features listed in the ENG.

Broad-scale 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 Sediment A5.4

Subtidal Macrophyte Dominated Sediment A5.5

Subtidal Biogenic Reef A5.6

Deep Seabed*** A6

* Infralittoral rock includes habitats of bedrock, boulders and cobble in the shallow subtidal zone that typically support seaweed communities ** Circalittoral rock is characterised by animal-dominated rather than seaweed-dominated communities *** The deep seabed broad-scale habitat encompasses several different habitat subtypes, all of which should be protected within the MPA network. The broad-scale habitat deep seabed habitat is found only in the southwest of the MCZ project area and MCZs identified for this broad-scale habitat should seek to protect the variety of subtypes known 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)**

Coldwater Coral Reefs ***

Coral Gardens***

Deepsea 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 Deepwater

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, so excludes artificially created mussel beds and those 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.


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 Sand Worm**

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

Leptosammia 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

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 MCZ Projects.


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.


Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol

The purpose of analysing video/stills is to identify the habitats seen in 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 needs to be reanalysed 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 subjected 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 substratum type, seabed character, species and life forms present. For each taxon record actual (where feasible) or 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 broad-scale 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 to 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 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 substratum type, seabed character, species and life forms present. For each taxon, record actual (where feasible) or 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 achieved confidently from the available image. Hence, taxon identity could range from life form level (e.g. sponge, hydroid, anemone) to species level (e.g. Asterias rubens, Alcyonium digitatum). Avoid the temptation to guess species identity if it cannot be determined positively from the image. For example, Spirobranchus sp. would be acceptable, but Spirobranchus triqueter would not, because the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.


Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey Metadata

Date Station code Gear Latitude Longitude

15/03/2012 Mbay04 Day Grab 50.122467 -5.492552

15/03/2012 Mbay04 Day Grab 50.122536 -5.493148

15/03/2012 Mbay02 Day Grab 50.118488 -5.496109

15/03/2012 Mbay02 Day Grab 50.118862 -5.496577

15/03/2012 Mbay03 Day Grab 50.115047 -5.492630

15/03/2012 Mbay03 Day Grab 50.114609 -5.492528

15/03/2012 Mbay06 Day Grab 50.111237 -5.488801

15/03/2012 Mbay06 Day Grab 50.111279 -5.489393

15/03/2012 Mbay08 Day Grab 50.111439 -5.482059

15/03/2012 Mbay08 Day Grab 50.111084 -5.482318

15/03/2012 Mbay11 Day Grab 50.111355 -5.474985

15/03/2012 Mbay11 Day Grab 50.111507 -5.475062

15/03/2012 Mbay07B Day Grab 50.107330 -5.485125

15/03/2012 Mbay07B Day Grab 50.107468 -5.485145

15/03/2012 Mbay07A Day Grab 50.107288 -5.485198

15/03/2012 Mbay05B Day Grab 50.106976 -5.492108

15/03/2012 Mbay05B Day Grab 50.107101 -5.492458

15/03/2012 Mbay05A Day Grab 50.106880 -5.492180

15/03/2012 Mbay01B Day Grab 50.111073 -5.495652

15/03/2012 Mbay01B Day Grab 50.110832 -5.495757

15/03/2012 Mbay01A Day Grab 50.111008 -5.495934

15/03/2012 Mbay03A Day Grab 50.115021 -5.492758

15/03/2012 Mbay02A Day Grab 50.118694 -5.496770

15/03/2012 Mbay09 – SOL Drop Cam 50.106598 -5.478933

15/03/2012 Mbay09 - EOL Drop Cam 50.107777 -5.477820

15/03/2012 Mbay12 - SOL Drop Cam 50.107197 -5.471406

15/03/2012 Mbay12 - EOL Drop Cam 50.108185 -5.470518

15/03/2012 Mbay14 - SOL Drop Cam 50.111618 -5.468525

15/03/2012 Mbay14 - EOL Drop Cam 50.112900 -5.468105

15/03/2012 Mbay15 - SOL Drop Cam 50.107292 -5.465327

15/03/2012 Mbay15 - EOL Drop Cam 50.108883 -5.464645

15/03/2012 Mbay10 - SOL Drop Cam 50.103298 -5.474662

15/03/2012 Mbay10 - EOL Drop Cam 50.104099 -5.473400

21/03/2012 Mbay20_SOL Drop Cam 50.100803 -5.433650

21/03/2012 Mbay20_EOL Drop Cam 50.100723 -5.436868

21/03/2012 Mbay18_SOL Drop Cam 50.100300 -5.448197

21/03/2012 Mbay18_EOL Drop Cam 50.100792 -5.450885

21/03/2012 Mbay19_SOL Drop Cam 50.104473 -5.444548

21/03/2012 Mbay19_EOL Drop Cam 50.104324 -5.447612

21/03/2012 Mbay13_SOL Drop Cam 50.103786 -5.467818

21/03/2012 Mbay13_EOL Drop Cam 50.104080 -5.468407

21/03/2012 Mbay16_SOL Drop Cam 50.103909 -5.458872

21/03/2012 Mbay16_EOL Drop Cam 50.103867 -5.461430

21/03/2012 Mbay17_SOL Drop Cam 50.104240 -5.453772

21/03/2012 Mbay17_EOL Drop Cam 50.104080 -5.455198

Key: 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) ranked by % occurrence for each major taxon group, calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples’ x 100.

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Sycon 11

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Edwardsiidae 89

Leuckartiara octona 33

Phialella quadrata 11

RIBBONWORMS

Tubulanus polymorphus 78

Nemertea 44

GOBLET WORMS

Entoprocta 11

SEGMENTED WORMS

Scoloplos armiger 89

Chaetozone christiei 78

Magelona filiformis 78

Magelona johnstoni 78

Nephtys (juv) 78

Sigalion mathidae (juv) 67

Galathowenia oculata 56

Chaetozone gibber 56

Nephtys hombergii 56

Owenia fusiformis 44

Glycera tridactyla 33

Nephtys assimilis 33

Diplocirrus glaucus 33

Glycinde nordmanni 22

Myriochele danielsseni 22

Exogone hebes 22

Spio filicornis 22

Spiophanes bombyx 11

Ampharete lindstroemi 11

Nephtys cirrosa 11

Aphelochaeta (Type A) 11

Tharyx killariensis 11

Malmgreniella andreapolis 11

Phyllodocidae 11

Sthenelais limicola 11

Paranaitis kosteriensis 11

CRUSTACEANS

Siphonoecetes kroyeranus 89

Synchelidium maculatum 78

Bathyporeia elegans 78

Bathyporeia tenuipes 78

Ampelisca brevicornis 67

Bathyporeia 44


Taxa % Occurrence

Hippomedon denticulatus 33

Ampelisca typica 33

Leucothoe incisa 33

Diastylis laevis 22

Megaluropus agilis 22

Harpinia antennaria 11

Ampelisca 11

Ampelisca tenuicornis 11

Ostracoda 11

Gastrosaccus normanii 11

Perioculodes longimanus 11

Pontocrates arenarius 11

Orchomenella nana 11

Ampithoe rubricata 11

Tanaidacea 11

Iphinoe trispinosa 11

MOLLUSCS

Angulus fabula 100

Chamelea striatula 100

Thyasira flexuosa 78

Kurtiella bidentata 67

Nucula nitidosa 67

Dosinia lupinus 67

Corbula gibba 67

Polinices pulchellus 56

Abra alba 44

Abra nitida 44

Thracia phaseolina 44

Mangelia nebula 33

Gari fervensis 33

Donax vittatus 33

Abra (juv) 22

Spisula (juv) 22

Turritella communis 22

Gari (juv) 22

Epitonium turtonis 11

Phaxas pellucidus 11

Roxania utriculus 11

Spisula subtruncata 11

Timoclea ovata 11

Tricolia pullus 11

Rissoa parva 11

Muricidae (juv) 11

Philine aperta 11

Heteranomia squamula 11

Tellinidae 11

Angulus squalidus 11

Arctica islandica (juv) 11

SEAMATS

Crisia denticulata 11


Taxa % Occurrence

Tubulipora 11

Disporella hispida 11

Nolella dilatata 11

Electra pilosa 11

Chorizopora brongniarti 11

Microporella ciliate 11

Cellepora pumicosa 11

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 89

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Ophiuroidea (juv) 67

Acrocnida brachiata 44

Echinocyamus pusillus 22

Ophiura (juv) 11

SEA SQUIRTS

Didemnidae 11

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

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Porifera 64

Hemimycale columella 18

Axinella dissimilis 9

BRYOZOA

Membranipora membranacea 73

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Hydrozoa 55

Alcyonium digitatum 18

Actiniaria 18

Schyphomedusae 9

CRUSTACEANS

Paguridae 9

Mysidacea 9

SEGMENTED WORMS

Serpulidae 27

MOLLUSCS

Trochidae 18

Gastropoda 9

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Marthasterias glacialis 82

Echinus esculentus 55

Holothuria forskali 45

Asteroidea 36

Luidia ciliaris 27

SEA SQUIRTS

Lissoclinum perforatum 45


Taxa % Occurrence

FISH

Osteichthyes 36

RED ALGAE

Corallinaceae 91

Rhodymenia pseudopalmata 64

Palmaria palmate 55

Delesseria sanguine 55

Callophyllis laciniata 27

Heterosiphonia plumose 18

Drachiella spectabilis 9

BROWN ALGAE

Laminaria hyperborean 64

Laminaria sp. 36

Laminaria saccharina 9


Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition

Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel

(%) Sand (%)

Silt/clay (%)

Mbay01_MCZ 50.11101 -5.49593 Fine sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.02 99.98 0.00

Mbay01_WFD 50.11083 -5.49576 Fine sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.03 99.93 0.04













http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/2501















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

Station Code

Habitat No.

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

Mbay09 1 10 Bedrock and overlying boulders, cobbles and some coarse sand

A3.2 – Moderate Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.MIR

Mbay10 1 11 Outcrops of bedrock and overlying boulders, cobbles and coarse sand

A3.2 – Moderate Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.MIR

Mbay12 1 3 Fine sands and silt with burrowing fauna A5.2 – Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.IMuSa

Mbay12 2 8 Mixed sediment on sand ripples A5.4 – Subtidal Mixed Sediment SS.SMx.IMx

Mbay13 1 10 Bedrock and overlying boulders, cobbles and some coarse sand

A3.1 – High Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.HIR

Mbay14 1 7 Bedrock with Laminaria hyperborea forest A3.1 – High Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.HIR.KFaR.LhypR


Mbay16 1 9 Bedrock and overlying boulders, cobbles and areas of coarse overlaying sand

A3.1 – High Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.MIR


Mbay18 1 10 Bedrock and overlying sand with Laminaria hyperborea forest

A3.1 – High Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.HIR.KFaR.LhypR


Mbay20 1 4 Bedrock and some overlying sand with Laminaria hyperborean forest

A3.1 – High Energy Infralittoral Rock IR.HIR.KFaR.LhypR

.


Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broad-scale habitats

Broad-scale Habitat Description Example Image taken during survey

A3.1 – High Energy Infralittoral Rock

Rocky habitats in the infralittoral zone subject to exposed to extremely exposed wave action or strong tidal streams.

A3.2 – Moderate Energy Infralittoral Rock

Predominantly moderately wave-exposed bedrock and boulders, subject to moderately strong to weak tidal streams.

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.

A5.4 – Subtidal Mixed Sediment/ A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment

Sublittoral mixed (heterogeneous) sediments found from the extreme low water mark to deep offshore circalittoral habitats/ Coarse sediments including coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles, which are often unstable due to tidal currents and/or wave action.


Appendix 8. Example image from survey for habitat FOCI

Habitat FOCI Description Example Image taken during survey

Subtidal Sands and Gravels

Sand and gravel seabeds widespread around the UK


This page left intentionally blank

Mounts Bay rMCZ Post-survey Site Report - Defra, UK -...

Documents

Transcript of Mounts Bay rMCZ Post-survey Site Report - Defra, UK -...