Western Channel rMCZ Post-survey Site Report -...

Western Channel rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 12 Version 10

December 2014

Project Title: Coordination of the Defra MCZ data collection programme 2011/12 Report No 12. Title: Western Channel 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 Dr Alice Jones National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) [email protected] Dr Tim Le Bas National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) [email protected] Dr Russell Wynn National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Andrew Colenutt (CCO) for reviewing earlier drafts of this report and Gareth Grewcock (CCO) for advice regarding GIS mapping. 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.

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

Date submitted: December 2014

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Dr Alice Jones, Dr Tim Le Bas, Dr Russell Wynn (NOCS)

Quality control by: Sue Ware, Jackie Eggleton, Markus Diesing

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (15/12/2014)

Version: V10

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Dr Alice Jones 22/03/2013 First draft V1

Dr Alice Jones 26/03/2013 Amended draft V2

Dr Tim Le Bas 27/03/2013 Amended draft V3

Dr Russell Wynn 27/03/2013 Amended draft V4

Dr Alice Jones 28/03/2013 Amended draft V5

Dr Alice Jones 24/04/2013 Revised draft following Cefas QA V6

Dr Alice Jones 01/10/2013 Revised draft following PSG and IER V7

Dr Alice Jones 05/12/2013 Revised draft following additional MPAG Comments V8

Dr Tim Le Bas 26/03/2014 Revised following comments from JNCC V9

Sue Ware 11/12/2014 Revised following topology review V10

Western Channel rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation .................................................................................................... 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4 Quality of the updated map ......................................................................... 10

4 Results ........................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map .......................................... 12

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ........................................ 12

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

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 15

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

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

4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...................................... 17

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 19

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed .......................................... 20

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

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ............................................... 21

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

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

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 22

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

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

Western Channel rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report ii

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

Annex 1. Broadscale 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 (CEND 03/12) ...................................................... 32

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ......................................................... 35

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ................................. 39

Appendix 4. Species list ....................................................................................... 40

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ...... 51

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 54

Appendix 7. Images from survey showing broadscale habitats ........................... 56

Appendix 8. Image from survey showing habitat FOCI ........................................ 57

Western Channel 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 data. ........................ 10

Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. .............................................. 16

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

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

Western Channel rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Western Channel rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the GEBCO Digital Atlas (published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf of IOC and IHO, 2003). .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Western Channel rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the GEBCO Digital Atlas (published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf of IOC and IHO, 2003). ......................... 8

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 12

Figure 4. Western Channel rMCZ updated map of broadscale habitats based on CHP data from 2005 and newly acquired survey data collected in 2012. Note that light purple points on the map represent the location of still images which identified the presence of cobbles or boulders (‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ habitat), but the areal extent of this broadscale habitat could not be assessed with the data available. ......................................................... 14

Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified. ............................................................................ 17

Figure 7. MBES data collected in 2012 overlaid on the CHP data collected in 2005 to confirm dune feature stability. ...................................................................... 18

Western Channel rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at Western Channel 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 survey of the site conducted by Cefas in February 2012. The comparison covers broadscale habitats (BSH) and habitat FOCI.

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

Feature Extent

according to SAD (2011)

Extent according to

updated habitat map

Accordance between SAD and updated habitat

map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 676.23 km2 Unknown Unknown

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 756.20 km2 1442.21 km

2 +686.01 km

2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment 175.42 km2 0 km

2 -175.42 km

2

Habitat FOCI

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

Species FOCI

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

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

Feature

Extent according to SAD (2011)

Extent according to updated habitat map

Accordance between SAD and updated habitat

map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent

A5.2 Subtidal sand 0 km2 155.51 km

2 +155.51 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Subtidal Sands and Gravels* 756.20 km2** 1598.15 km

2 +841.95 km

2

Species FOCI

None Included N/A N/A N/A N/A

* This Habitat FOCI was identified in the rMCZ SAD, but conservation objectives were not included for subtidal sands and gravels, as any conservation requirements were considered to be met by the listed Broadscale Habitats. ** This is the corrected value calculated using the estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment BSH stated in the Site Assessment Document.


1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ

There is no evidence of human activities occurring within the boundaries of the rMCZ from the newly acquired survey data.


2 Introduction

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

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

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

2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Western Channel rMCZ is located in the Western Channel and Celtic Sea. The northern tip of the area is approximately 54 km offshore and to the south-east of the Lizard Peninsula (Figure 1). The southern boundary of the site follows the UK Continental Shelf Limit. The site does not overlap with any existing protected areas, nor does it contain any recommended Reference Areas.


Figure 1. Location of the Western Channel rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the GEBCO Digital Atlas (published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf of IOC and IHO, 2003).

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation

The Western Channel 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, 2011’ (Lieberknecht et al., 2011, section II.3.12) 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 were included in the recommendations for designation at this site (Table 1). See Annex 1 for full list of broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.

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

EUNIS code & Broadscale Habitat Spatial extent according to the SAD

A4.2 Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock 676.23 km2

A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 756.20 km2

A5.4 Subtidal Mixed Sediment 175.42 km2


2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. The habitat FOCI ‘subtidal sands and gravel’ was included in the recommendations for designation (Table 2). It should be noted that the spatial extent for this habitat FOCI stated in the SAD appears to have been miscalculated as 1038.75 km2. The correct spatial extent (derived from combining the estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment) is 756.20 km2. The corrected value will be used in this report when comparing the SAD and the updated habitat map.

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

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 756.20 km2*

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

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

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

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

Species FOCI

Low or limited mobility species FOCI None

Highly mobile species FOCI None

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection

Prioritisation of rMCZ sites for further evidence collection was informed by a gap analysis and evidence assessment. The prime objective was to elevate the confidence status for as many rMCZs as feasible to support designation in terms of the amount and quality of evidence for the presence and extent of broadscale habitat features and habitat 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 broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI reported for the Western Channel rMCZ was Low/Moderate (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 ground truthing data to allow the production of an updated habitat 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 during the course of the survey.

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

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


3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition

Multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data were used to assist in the planning and interpretation of seabed habitats. Two datasets were used:

1) The majority of the area of the rMCZ overlapped with an area of existing multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter data, although this dataset did not extend to the northeast and northwest corners of the site. These data were collected in 2005 as part of the UK's Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP), managed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). These data are archived by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) and were provided to the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) as fully processed and cleaned bathymetry data, as well as raw data files for further backscatter processing by NOCS. The bathymetric data were collected and processed in accordance with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys - Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). Processing of the backscatter data was undertaken by NOCS using the raw data provided by the UKHO. The software package PRISM (v5.0) was used to produce an intensity compensated and geometrically corrected backscatter mosaic and were exported as ArcGIS raster images for further expert interpretation (Le Bas & Huvenne, 2009). The bathymetry data were gridded at 12 m resolution and backscatter were gridded at 2.5 m resolution for analysis (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data).

2) Additional MBES bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired to infill the CHP MBES data coverage for this rMCZ. These data were collected by Cefas, on the RV CEFAS Endeavour cruise CEND 03/12, in February 2012. Processing of the MBES bathymetry and backscatter data was undertaken by Cefas. Bathymetric survey was conducted in accordance with International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standard Order 1a. Multibeam backscatter data were acquired following guidelines developed and provided by Cefas. The software package QPS FM Geocoder Toolkit (FMGT) was used to produce fully compensated and corrected backscatter mosaic and were exported as Floating Point Geotiff for further analysis. Both bathymetry and backscatter data were gridded at 2 m resolution for analysis (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data collected from the site in February 2012).

Multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data were also collected opportunistically during transits between the ground truthing stations on CEND 03/12. These data were used to explore the temporal stability and morphology of sand wave features observed in the 2005 data.

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

Ground truth samples were collected from 58 stations which were positioned within the sedimentary habitats (Figure 2; Appendix 1). The sample stations were positioned using a triangular lattice-grid (6 km spacing) to ensure adequate coverage of the broadscale habitats. The existing bathymetry and backscatter datasets, along with an interpreted sediment map created by the British Geological Survey (BGS) based on the above-mentioned CHP acoustic and legacy grain-size data, were used to inform the placement of additional grab samples. These were positioned to target


sand wave features identified using the existing interpreted acoustic data. Benthic grabs were used at all stations to collect sediment samples for sediment Particle Size Analysis (PSA) and infauna analysis. An underwater camera system was deployed at 38 stations to collect video and still images of the seabed.

It has not been possible to afford the necessary positional accuracy to the image data to allow them to be used in a quantitative way (due to their position being calculated using a ‘lay-back’ calculation as opposed to USLB positioning). Therefore, these data have been used in a qualitative way to inform the presence of broadscale habitats, but not to assess their extent during the production of the updated interpreted broadscale habitat map. Specifically, the images have been used for the purposes of assessing presence of broadscale habitats that could not be identified in the acoustic and grab sample data alone (such as cobbles and boulders).

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Western Channel rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the GEBCO Digital Atlas (published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf of IOC and IHO, 2003).

Sampling equipment comprised a 0.1 m2 mini Hamon grab fitted with a video camera, the combined gear being known as a ‘HamCam’. This allowed an image of the undisturbed seabed surface to be obtained immediately before each grab sample was taken. On recovery, the grab was emptied into a large plastic bin and a representative sub-sample of sediment (approx. 0.5 litres) taken for PSA. The PSA sample was stored in a labelled plastic container and frozen onboard the research vessel, ready for transfer to a laboratory ashore. The remaining sample was photographed and the volume of sediment measured and recorded. Benthic fauna were collected by washing the sample with seawater over a 1 mm mesh sieve. The


retained >1 mm fauna fraction was transferred to a labelled container and preserved in buffered 4 % formaldehyde for later analysis ashore.

The camera sledge was deployed at a subset of the stations sampled by the grab. The frequency of use of the camera sledge was informed by the existing BGS interpreted sediment map and by the type of sediment obtained in the grab sample. The camera images were collected in order to help characterise the surficial sediments and associated epifaunal communities. The total number of camera deployments for each BSH varied depending on the uniformity of the habitat and its spatial extent.

The camera sledge system comprised a video camera with capability to also capture still images. Illumination was provided by two Cefas high intensity LED striplights and a flash unit. The camera was fitted with a four-spot laser-scaling device to provide a reference scale in the video image. 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 recorded 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 sledge tows lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the sledge being towed at c. 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s-1) across a 50 m ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling station. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals and opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered. The sledge was controlled by a winch operator with sight of the video monitor and note made of the amount of tow cable deployed to allow a ‘lay back’ to be retrospectively applied to estimate the distance of the sledge behind the vessel. As the layback correction had not been applied to accurately georeference the video and still images prior to this report they have not been used to assist in informing the estimations of spatial extent of broadscale habitats in the interpreted habitat map.

For further detail on ground truth sample collection see ‘The Western Channel rMCZ Survey Report’ (Ware et al., 2012).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map

All new maps and their derivatives have been based on a WGS84 datum. A new habitat map for the site was produced by analysing and interpreting the available acoustic data (as detailed above) and the ground truth data collected by the dedicated survey of this site.

The existing dataset collected by the CHP, which covered the majority of the rMCZ area, had been provided on a 15 m resolution grid. The infill bathymetry and backscatter data for the northeast corner of the site, collected by Cefas in 2012, were re-sampled onto a common grid at 2 m resolution. This data preparation resulted in spatial grids with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 2 m x 2 m grid cell for the infill area and in each 12 m x 12 m grid cell for bathymetry and 2.5 m x 2.5 m grid cell for backscatter in the remaining area. It was these data values that were used in the rest of the mapping process.


The mapping process involved the production of derived datasets from the MBES datasets using tools in the ArcGIS v.10 Spatial Analyst Toolbox (slope, aspect and hillshade) and the DEM Surface Tools add-in (surface area/rugosity), as detailed in Table 4. These data layers and the processed depth and backscatter data layers were used to create a broadscale habitat map of the rMCZ area through expert visual interpretation. The BGS sediment map derived from CHP data was used as a template for the new habitat map. Feature boundaries were adjusted where necessary using the bathymetry and backscatter data and derived metrics. Areas with different characteristics in the acoustic data were identified and digitised in ArcGIS v.10. The consistent signature in the backscatter data for all dune features clearly set them apart from the background substrate (see Appendix 2). Sediment type within each delineated area was determined by examining the PSA samples from 2012 along with the backscatter data in order to translate the existing BGS sediment map into broadscale habitats. The edited version of the BGS sediment map was then merged with the digitised map of the newly acquired data.

Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry data.

Derivative Description

Slope The slope (gradient in degrees) for each cell of the bathymetry grid using the maximum change in elevation of each cell and its 8 neighbours (Burrough & McDonell, 1998).

Roughness (surface area ratio)

A measure of topographic roughness. Calculated by dividing the surface area of a cell and its 8 neighbours by the planimetric area of these 9 cells (Jenness, 2004).

Aspect Identifies the downslope direction of the maximum rate of change in value from each cell and its 8 neighbours. Can be thought of as the slope direction. Measured in clockwise degrees from 0 (due north). Flat areas with no downslope are given a value of -1 (Burrough & McDonell, 1998).

Hillshade Creates a shaded relief from a bathymetry surface by considering the illumination source angle and shadows. Creating a hillshade layer greatly enhances the visualisation of bathymetry (depth) data (Burrough & McDonell, 1998).

3.4 Quality of the updated map

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

1 http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 28/03/2014]

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


habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100, but as the current rMCZ exercise requires the mapping of broadscale physical habitats, not biotopes, it excludes the need for biological data. In the absence of biological data, the maximum score attainable for a 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 (Figure 3) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap (McBreen, 2010). For further detail see the Site Assessment Document (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 in Figure 4 results from a comprehensive and integrated analysis of the existing bathymetry, backscatter and sediment mapped data and the additional infill acoustic data and grab samples collected in the Cefas 2012 dedicated survey.

The resultant broadscale habitat map presented in Figure 4 is considered to be a realistic representation of the seabed habitats present within the site at the time of the 2012 survey and improves on the previous evidence relating to presence and extent of BSH and Habitat FOCI within this site. However, as with all broadscale habitat maps, it is acknowledged that it may be possible, in the future, to further delineate and improve our estimates of the distribution and spatial extent of those broadscale habitat features (and habitat FOCI) identified to be present within the site through additional, dedicated survey effort. For example, in the Western Channel the sand wave features identified to be present may not be comprised entirely of subtidal sand (>95% sand) sensu the ‘Modified Folk Trigon’ (Long, 2006), which


underpins the sedimentary BSH classifications as described in the ENG. Rather, it is possible that the sand content of the seabed sediments is highest directly on top of the dunes, and this is potentially confirmed by the lower backscatter values associated with the sand wave ridges. Therefore, whilst high confidence can be afforded to ‘subtidal sand’ being present within the site, it should be noted that the spatial extent of this BSH (according to the relevant classification/definition provided in the ENG) may be overestimated to a currently unknown degree.

Similarly, whilst the existing and newly acquired survey data indicates the occasional presence of hard substrata (stable cobbles and boulders) within the site, it is currently not possible (due to the small scale and patchy nature of this BSH feature) to map the extent of this ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ BSH with any reasonable certainty. Whilst there is some evidence that this BSH is present within the site, it is likely that its spatial extent is considerably less than the predicted estimate provided by the SAD habitat map.

The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples is presented in Appendix 4; a total of 380 infaunal taxa were recorded from grab samples and 114 epifaunal taxa were recorded from the video and still image data. No species were identified that are relevant to species or habitat FOCI.

A summary of the particle size analysis of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 58 stations where a sample was obtained, coarse sediment was recorded at 57 stations, and sand and muddy sand at 1 station.

Note that there is an area of 9.54 km2 in the northwest part of the rMCZ where no acoustic data were available; therefore the interpreted broadscale habitat map does not cover this section of the site (Figure 4).


Figure 4. Western Channel rMCZ updated map of broadscale habitats based on CHP data from 2005 and newly acquired survey data collected in 2012. Note that light purple points on the map represent the location of still images which identified the presence of cobbles or boulders (‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ habitat), but the areal extent of this broadscale habitat could not be assessed with the data available.


4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

The results of the MESH confidence assessment are shown in Figure 5. The main area covered by the older CHP acoustic data is given a score of 81, and the northeast corner of the site, where the new data were collected by Cefas, is given a score of 83 by the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool. This score is out of a possible 88 for a purely physical habitat map and is therefore considered to indicate a high MESH confidence score. There is an area in the northwest of the rMCZ area where no data was available, this has therefore been given a score of 0 and no habitat map has been created for this part of the site.

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

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified

‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ was the most widespread habitat type, occupying almost 90% of the rMCZ site (Figure 4; Table 5). Coarse sediment is slightly more prominent in the shallower, eastern end of the rMCZ. Within this category a longitudinal variation tending SW-NE is apparent in the fine resolution of the backscatter mosaics but seems not to be significant to the broadscale habitat identified.

‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ is estimated to occupy up to 10% of the total area. There are abundant bedforms throughout the rMCZ (categorised as ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’), which are characterised by greater sand content and lower gravel content in the sediment samples, and clear signatures in the backscatter and bathymetry data. The bedforms are positive relief features that are less reflective than surrounding


seafloor (which is dominated by coarse sediment); they are generally in cuspate form, typical of mobile barchan dunes, with an orientation suggesting a dominant flow direction to the southwest. Most of the dunes are isolated features, but amalgamation is also observed in places.

‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ was identified as being present within the site from still images collected in the 2012 Cefas surveys (Figure 4), but its extent could not be determined (Table 5). Circalittoral rock was not identified from any of the groundtruthing samples, but this is not surprising as grab sampling is unlikely to be effective at sampling rock habitats. This broadscale habitat is also unlikely to be identified from the acoustic data, as it appears to be mostly made up of relatively small and localised patches of cobbles and boulders, which would be missed by the backscatter data as a result of their restricted spatial extent.

An area of 9.47 km2 in the northwest corner of the rMCZ and several bands of approximately 80m in the vicinity of the site boundary, with a combined area of 5.33km2, were not mapped because no acoustic data was available (see figures 4 and 5). This unmapped section constitutes 0.9% of the full area of the Western Channel rMCZ.

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

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 756.20 km2 1442.21 km

2

A5.2 Subtidal sand 0 km2 155.51 km

2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 676.23 km2 Unknown

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The SAD estimates that over half of the rMCZ area is covered by the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI. The updated habitat map suggests that the coverage is greater; with this habitat FOCI making up almost the complete area of the site (Figure 6). The ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI has a calculated extent of 1597.82 km2 (Table 6). Note however, that we have been unable to quantify the extent of the ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ broadscale habitat, therefore the extent of the two other identified broadscale habitats, which both contribute to the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ Habitat FOCI, are likely to be slightly over-estimated in the updated interpreted habitat map.


Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified.

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 756.20 km2* 1597.82 km

2

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

4.6 Species FOCI identified

No species FOCI were found (Table 7). The list of species identified from grab samples collected by the 2012 dedicated survey is presented in Appendix 4.

Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Species FOCI Previously recorded within

rMCZ Identified during evidence

gathering survey

Low or Limited Mobility Species FOCI None recorded None recorded

Highly Mobile Species FOCI None recorded None recorded

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

4.7.1 Acoustic data

The existing acoustic data utilised for production of the updated habitat map were collected under the CHP. Therefore, acquisition and processing of this 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 NOCS staff to ensure these data were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretations and production of the updated habitat map.

The infill acoustic data, collected from the northeast corner of the rMCZ by Cefas in February 2012, 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 specialist Cefas staff to ensure data and deliverables met the required specification. All survey data will be made available to the UK Hydrographic Office, where it will undergo further checks to assess its suitability for inclusion in the pool of data used to produce navigational charts.

Barchan dune stability between the two survey dates (2005 and 2012) was assessed by overlaying the transit multibeam lines collected on CEND 03/12 on the CHP data acquired in 2005. Where the 2012 MBES lines crossed the dune features identified in 2005, the two datasets matched, indicating that a significant net movement of barchan dunes since 2005 can be ruled out (Figure 7).

Figure 7. MBES data collected in 2012 overlaid on the CHP data collected in 2005 to confirm dune feature stability.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) of sediments

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


4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs

Infaunal samples were processed by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies (IECS) 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 Thompson Unicomarine in accordance with the guidance documents developed by Cefas and the JNCC for the acquisition and processing of video and stills (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; summarised in Annex 5).

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map

The quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be High (MESH assessment tool). A source of potential misclassification of habitats arises from the location of ground truthing samples in relation to habitat types, as well as possible errors on the exact position of grab sample locations, which are plotted as the GPS-derived position of the side gantry of the ship at the time of grab deployment. This is particularly pertinent in this case, where relatively small and spatially constrained seabed features are present in the form of sand waves/dunes. Positional error may explain why sediment grab samples collected from within the vicinity of these features were classified as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ as opposed to the expected ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. Despite this, all of the sand dune features have been classified in the broadscale habitat map as ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ (Figure 4) as a result of expert interpretation of their clear bathymetric and backscatter characteristics, along with the presence of a single sediment grab from directly on top of a dune feature, which was classified as being ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. However, as detailed in Section 4.2, whilst high confidence can be afforded to the evidence for ‘Subtidal sand’ being present within the site, small scale spatial variability in the sand:gravel ratio of seabed sediments comprising the dune features may result in the spatial extent of this BSH being over-estimated in the updated habitat map.

The survey has provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence of the three mapped broadscale habitats (Figure 4). However, as it is impractical (and undesirable) to sample the entire area of the site with grabs and video, there is a chance that a BSH or FOCI may exist within the site that has not been recorded, especially if it was limited in spatial extent. Because of issues with geo-referencing the video and still image data, this source of information has not been utilised to inform estimates of spatial extent of given broadscale habitats.

Information from the video and still image data from the 2012 research cruise is available to assist in informing the locations of stations where cobbles and boulders were recorded, and these have been included as point records indicating the presence of ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ in the broadscale habitat map (Figure 4). These images have not been precisely geo-located, but the error on their position is deemed to be acceptable relative to the scale of the entire rMCZ. The images of cobbles and boulders provide strong evidence for the presence of the ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ habitat within the rMCZ, although they cannot support an assessment of the extent of this broadscale habitat. The extent of


this type of rock habitat (comprising cobbles and boulders) cannot be determined from the acoustic data unless it exists in large and dense patches (which have not been identified in this instance).

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. Instead it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a transitional boundary. In contrast, the mapped boundaries are abrupt and have been placed using best professional judgment. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI.

4.8.1 Presence of Species FOCI

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

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed

There are no observations of human impacts on the seabed. No trawl marks were seen, though the resolution of backscatter imagery of 2.5 m would make these difficult to identify without significant continuity in length and could be masked by the longitudinal variation in backscatter mentioned previously. No wrecks were identified in the area.


5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ broadscale habitats that were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey has not confirmed the presence of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ broadscale habitat that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of ‘A4.2 Subtidal sand’ broadscale habitats. This BSH was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ. The improved evidence base would now permit this BSH to be included in the site recommendations, if required.

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 1442.21 km2. This is an increase of 686.01 km2 on the spatial extent reported in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 155.51 km2. This BSH was not identified in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ BSH in the SAD habitat map was 676.23 km2. This BSH has been identified as being present within the rMCZ (recorded in still images collected at 5 stations) but its extent cannot be estimated due to the localised and patchy nature of this habitat feature within the site.

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The spatial extent of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI on the updated habitat map is 1597.82 km2. This is an increase of 841.62 km2 relative to the (re-calculated) spatial extent provided in the SAD habitat map


(756.20 km2). The original extent quoted in the SAD (1038.75 km2) was found to have been miscalculated.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species

No low or limited mobility species FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2012 dedicated survey. The results are 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 by the 2012 dedicated survey. The results are consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed

There is no evidence from the multibeam bathymetry or backscatter data of any human activity (Appendix 3).


References

Burrough, P.A. and McDonell, R.A. (1998). Principles of Geographical Information Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, 190 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 28/03/2014].

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.

Jenness, J.S. (2004). Calculating landscape surface area from digital elevation models. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 829–839.

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.

Le Bas, T.P. and Huvenne, V.A.I. (2009) Acquisition and processing of backscatter data for habitat mapping – Comparison of multibeam and sidescan systems Applied Acoustics, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust. 2008.07.010

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 be the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and Natural England. Available at http://tna.europarchive.org/20121107174820/http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/resources.html [Accessed 28/03/2014].

Long, D. (2006). BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified Folk classification. MESH project document. 7 pp. http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf [Accessed 28/03/2014].

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

McBreen, F. (2010). UKSeaMap 2010 EUNIS model Version 3.0. UKSeaMap 2010: Predictive seabed habitat map (v5). JNCC.

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

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

http://tna.europarchive.org/20121107174820/http:/www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/resources.html

http://tna.europarchive.org/20121107174820/http:/www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/resources.html

http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf

http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf


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)

Ware, S., Whomersley, P., Whybrow, M. and Pearson, S. (2012). Western Channel rMCZ Survey Report. Cefas report C5433. 48pp.

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. 33pp.http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf [Accessed 28/03/2014].

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]

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 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 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 seabed broadscale habitat encompasses several different habitat sub-types, all of which should be protected within the MPA network. The broadscale habitat deep seabed 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 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. 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.


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

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 Shrimp

Gooseneck Barnacle

Spiny Lobster

Mollusca Arctica islandica

Atrina pectinata

Caecum armoricum**

Ostrea edulis

Paludinella littorina

Tenellia adspersa**

Ocean Quahog

Fan Mussel

Defolin’s Lagoon Snail**

Native Oyster

Sea Snail

Lagoon Sea Slug**

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


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

Group Scientific name Common Name

Teleostei Osmerus eperlanus

Anguilla anguilla

Smelt

European Eel

Elasmobranchii Raja undulata Undulate Ray

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


Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol.

The purpose of the analysis of the video and still images is to identify what 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 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 can not be determined positively from the image. For example, Pomatoceros sp. would be acceptable, but Pomatoceros triqueter would not, as the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.


Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (CEND 03/12)

Date Cruise Stn No. Stn Code Gear Latitude Longitude

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 658 WC_6 HamCam 49.24034 -5.48344

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 662 WC_20 HamCam 49.25861 -5.41606

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 664 WC_7 HamCam 49.24228 -5.37811

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 667 WC_16 HamCam 49.21859 -5.36088

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 669 WC_17 HamCam 49.22987 -5.28021

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 674 WC_25 HamCam 49.30981 -5.39024

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 676 WC_ 27 HamCam 49.32091 -5.30941

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 679 WC_29 HamCam 49.33191 -5.22815

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 681 WC_8 HamCam 49.31353 -5.25435

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 684 WC_22 HamCam 49.28138 -5.25410

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 686 WC_9 HamCam 49.25288 -5.20750

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 692 WC_23 HamCam 49.29218 -5.17299

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 695 WC_10 HamCam 49.29936 -5.13084

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 697 WC_24 HamCam 49.30310 -5.09216

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 699 WC_31 HamCam 49.34339 -5.14679

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 702 WC_33 HamCam 49.35416 -5.06622

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 704 WC_26 HamCam 49.31403 -5.01110

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 707 WC_28 HamCam 49.32499 -4.92994

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 711 WC_35 HamCam 49.36521 -4.98475

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 713 WC_3 HamCam 49.38711 -4.96046

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 716 WC_40 HamCam 49.41628 -4.95838

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 722 WC_30 HamCam 49.33600 -4.84880

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 725 WC_32 HamCam 49.34681 -4.76778

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 727 WC_37 HamCam 49.38663 -4.82272

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 729 WC_5 HamCam 49.40377 -4.83530

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 732 WC_42 HamCam 49.42733 -4.87688

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 735 WC_01 HamCam 49.45222 -4.86445

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 787 WC_48 HamCam 49.47828 -4.85055

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 791 WC_44 HamCam 49.43803 -4.79552

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 793 WC38 HamCam 49.39790 -4.74020

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 796 WC34 HamCam 49.35756 -4.68581

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 798 WC2 HamCam 49.38096 -4.68989

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 802 WC39 HamCam 49.40884 -4.65941

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 804 WC45 HamCam 49.44851 -4.71450

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 806 WC14 HamCam 49.46355 -4.68895

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 809 WC50 HamCam 49.48900 -4.76941

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 818 WC41 HamCam 49.41917 -4.57784

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 823 WC47 HamCam 49.47041 -4.55148

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 825 WC13 HamCam 49.49136 -4.56094

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 828 WC54 HamCam 49.51042 -4.60660

24/02/2012 CEND 03/12 830 WC61 HamCam 49.55085 -4.66140

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 834 WC64 HamCam 49.59107 -4.71598



25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 836 WC_67 HamCam 49.61589 -4.65986

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 838 WC_66 HamCam 49.61631 -4.62938

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 841 WC_65 HamCam 49.60177 -4.63440

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 843 WC_11 HamCam 49.57448 -4.60799

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 846 WC62 HamCam 49.56162 -4.57942

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 848 WC56 HamCam 49.52127 -4.52460

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 851 WC63 HamCam 49.57218 -4.49795

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 854 WC15 HamCam 49.56742 -4.42247

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 856 WC57 HamCam 49.53176 -4.44368

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 858 WC49 HamCam 49.48085 -4.47071

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 862 WC51 HamCam 49.49122 -4.38862

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 864 WC59 HamCam 49.54221 -4.36184

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 866 WC60 HamCam 49.55252 -4.28001

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 869 WC53 HamCam 49.50173 -4.30698

25/02/2012 CEND 03/12 871 WC12 HamCam 49.49390 -4.26088

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 659 WC_L6 Camera Sledge 49.24163 -5.48228




21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 672 WC_21 Camera Sledge 49.27004 -5.33498


21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 677 WC 27 Camera Sledge 49.32173 -5.30991

21/02/2012 CEND 03/12 677 WC 27 Camera Sledge 49.32321 -5.31060















22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 714 WC-3 Camera Sledge 49.38892 -4.95901

22/02/2012 CEND 03/12 714 WC-3 Camera Sledge 49.38729 -4.96048











23/02/2012 CEND 03/12 785 WC1 Camera Sledge 49.45220 -4.86465













































Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys


Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

No evidence of human activites have been identified from the data available. Please note that fishing gear trawl marks are unlikely to be identified from the backscatter data because of its resolution.


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 78

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Leuckartiara octona 2 Bougainvilliidae 2 Merona cornucopiae 2 Calycella gracilis 2 Grammaria abietina 2

Halecium 2 Abietinaria abietina 2 Diphasia 2 Nemertesia antennina 2 Nemertesia ramosa 2 Halcampoides purpurea 2 Edwardsiella carnea 2

Eudendrium 3 Modeeria rotunda 3 Halecium tenellum 3 Antenella secundaria 3 Nemertesia 5 Campanularia hinksii 5 Alcyonium 5 Cerianthus lloydii 5 Epizoanthus couchii 5 Sertularia 7 Hydrallmania falcata 10 Sertularella tenella 14 Actiniaria 16 Lafoea dumosa 17 Caryophyllia smithii 21 Sertularella gayi/polyzonias 41 Edwardsia 41

FLATWORMS Turbellaria 21

RIBBONWORMS Nemertea 81

ROUNDWORMS Nematoda 69

GOBLET WORM Barentsia 7 Pedicellina 17

ARROW WORMS Chaetognatha 5

PEANUT WORMS Phascolion strombus 10 Golfingiidae 12


Taxa % Occurrence

Golfingia elongata 14 Aspidosiphon muelleri 14

SPOON WORM Maxmuelleria lankesteri 9

SEGMENTED WORMS Subadyte pellucida 2 Harmothoe 2 Harmothoe (Malmgreniella) lunulata 2 Harmothoe (Malmgreniella) mcintoshi 2 Phyllodocidae 2 Eteone barbata 2 Eumida bahusiensis 2 Nereiphylla 2 Lacydonia miranda 2 Hesiospina similis 2 Syllis variegata 2 Eusyllis assimilis 2 Eusyllis lamelligera 2 Opisthodonta A 2 Exogone hebes 2 Nephtys cirrosa 2 Euphrosine foliosa 2 Hyalinoecia tubicola 2 Lumbrineriopsis paradoxa 2 Aricidea cf. ramosa 2 Dipolydora caeca 2 Parascolelepis korsuni 2 Spiochaetopterus typicus 2 Dodecaceria 2 Euclymene lumbricoides 2 Asclerocheilus 2 Sclerocheilus minutus 2 Petta pusilla 2 Thelepus cincinnatus 2 Spirorbidae 2 Harmothoe (Malmgreniella) castanea 3 Harmothoe glabra 3 Nereiphylla rubiginosa 3 Paranaitis kosteriensis 3 Sphaerodorum gracilis 3 Opisthodonta (Streptodonta) pterochaeta 3 Syllides benedicti 3 Lumbrinerides amoureuxi 3 Lumbrinerides laubieri 3 Aricidea (Allia) seucica 3 Poecilochaetus serpens 3 Dipolydora caulleryi 3 Dipolydora flava 3 Cirratulus 3 Chaetozone zetlandica 3 Ophelia celtica 3 Ophelia roscoffensis 3 Amaeana trilobata 3


Taxa % Occurrence

Filogranula calyculata 3 Harmothoe (Malmgreniella) darbouxi 5 Fibriosthenelais zetlandica 5 Notophyllum foliosum 5 Glycinde nordmanni 5 Gyptis propinqua 5 Ophiodromus pallidus 5 Procerastea halleziana 5 Marphysa bellii 5 Spiophanes bombyx 5 Spiophanes kroyeri 5 Caulleriella alata 5 Praxillella affinis 5 Eupolymnia nesidensis 5 Euchone rubrocincta 5 Hesionura elongata 7 Eulalia 7 Sphaerosyllis (Prosphaerosyllis) tetralix 7 Nematonereis unicornis 7 Aphelochaeta A 7 Caulleriella B 7 Macrochaeta 7 Phisidia aurea 7 Pista malmgreni 7 Harmothoe fragilis 9 Syllis E 9 Brania (Salvatoria) swedmarki 9 Paradoneis lyra 9 Peresiella clymenoides 9 Ophelia 9 Asclerocheilus intermedius 9 Galathowenia oculata 9 Parathelepus collaris 9 Fabricia stellaris 9 Filograna implexa 9 Owenia fusiformis 10 Lanassa venusta 10 Polycirrus 10 Pseudopotamilla reniformis 10 Chitinopoma serrula 10 Spirobranchus triqueter 10 Streptosyllis bidentata 12 Lysidice ninetta 12 Scalibregma celticum 12 Ampharete lindstroemi 12 Polycirrus 12 Apomatus similis 12 Eurysyllis tuberculata 14 Eunereis longissima 14 Lumbrineris cingulata 14 Sabellaria spinulosa 14 Amphitrides gracilis 14 Pista bansei 14


Taxa % Occurrence

Pista cristata 14 Autolytus 16 Notoproctus 16 Lysilla nivea 16 Eulalia 17 Eumida sanguinea 17 Lumbrineris futilis 17 Minuspio cirrifera 17 Diplocirrus stopbowitzi 17 Polycirrus denticulatus 17 Jasmineira caudata 17 Grania 17 Dioplosyllis cirrosa 19 Loimia 19 Sabellidae 19 Chone collaris 19 Vermiliopsis infundibulum 19 Odontosyllis fulgurans 21 Exogone naidina 21 Aglaophamus agilis 21 Nothria hyperborea 21 Spio symphyta 21 Eumida 22 Kefersteinia cirrata 22 Aricidea (Acmira) cerrutii 22 Aurospio banyulensis 22 Lanice conchilega 22 Serpulidae 24 Metavermilia multicristata 24 Trypanosyllis coeliaca 26 Laonice bahusiensis 26 Polycirrus medusa 26 Nothria 28 Clymenura 29 Pseudomystides limbata 31 Chone dunerificta 31 Protodorvillea kefersteini 33 Caulleriella bioculata 33 Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 34 Chaetozone cf. setosa 34 Notomastus 36 Syllis cornuta 38 Eulalia mustela 41 Sphaerosyllis taylori 41 Eunice vittata 45 Syllis D 47 Glycera oxycephala 48 Pseudonotomastus southerni 50 Hydroides elegans/norvegica 52 Aonides paucibranchiata 53 Mediomastus fragilis 53 Polygordius 53 Harmothoe (Malmgreniella) ljungmani 57


Taxa % Occurrence

Pisione remota 59 Goniadella gracilis 62 Syllis H 66 Aponuphis bilineata 66 Glycera lapidum 72

SEA SPIDERS Nymphon brevirostre 2 Anoplodactylus petiolatus 2 Callipallene spectrum 5 Acarina 9

CRUSTACEANS Cylindroleberis mariae 2 Monoculodes carinatus 2 Leucothoe incisa 2 Stenothoe marina 2 Lepidepecreum longicornis 2 Scopelocheirus hopei 2 Tmetonyx 2 Liljeborgia pallida 2 Bathyporeia 2 Cheirocratus intermedius 2 Cheirocratus sundevallii 2 Gammaropsis cornuta 2 Rocinela damnoniensis 2 Microjaera anisopoda 2 Paramunna bilobata 2 Bodotria arenosa 2 Campylaspis legendrei 2 Decapoda 2 Anapagurus hyndmanni 2 Anapagurus laevis 2 Pagurus cuanensis 2 Pisidia longicornis 2 Ebalia tuberosa 2 Ebalia tumefacta 2 Eurynome spinosa 2 Haplostylus normani 3 Pontocrates arcticus 3 Ampeliscidae 3 Ampelisca typica 3 Cheirocratus assimilis 3 Siphonoecetes striatus 3 Conilera cylindracea 3 Eurydice inermis 3 Arcturella 3 Leptognathia breviremis 3 Pagurus 3 Eurynome 3 Urothoe elegans 5 Animoceradocus semiserratus 5 Urothoe marina 7 Hippomedon denticulatus 7 Unciolidae 7


Taxa % Occurrence

Microcharon harrisi 7 Verruca stroemia 9 Ampelisca brevicornis 9 Cheirocratus 9 Galathea intermedia 9 Scalpellum scalpellum 10 Ampelisca spinipes 14 Guernea coalita 16 Maera othonis 16 Leptognathia paramanca 16 Maerella tenuimana 17 Copepoda 21 Leptocheirus hirsutimanus 22 Gnathia 24 Eurydice truncata 24 Atylus vedlomensis 33

MOLLUSCS Solenogastres 2 Trochidae 2 Epitonium clathrus 2 Teretia anceps 2 Doto pinnatifida 2 Onchidorididae 2 Glycymeris glycymeris 2 Pectinidae 2 Aequipecten opercularis 2 Goodallia triangularis 2 Tellimya ferruginosa 2 Kurtiella bidentata 2 Lutraria 2 Moerella donacina 2 Gari (Psammobella) costulata 2 Abra 2 Abra prismatica 2 Venus casina 2 Gouldia minima 2 Mysia undata 2 Eleutheromenia sierra 3 Limaria loscombi 3 Palliolum 3 Palliolum tigerinum 3 Montacuta substriata 3 Clausinella fasciata 3 Euspira pulchella 5 Gari 5 Gari (Psammobella) tellinella 5 Thracia 5 Hedylopsis 7 Thracia villosiuscula 7 Aeolidioidea 10 Limaria 10 Neomenia carinata 14 Hemilepton nitidum 17


Taxa % Occurrence

Timoclea ovata 17 Leptochiton asellus 21 Anomiidae 21 Hiatella arctica 22 Angulus pygmaeus 31 Modiolula phaseolina 36 Spisula elliptica 38

BRYOZOANS Alcyonidium parasiticum 2 Escharoides mamillata 2 Cryptosula pallasiana 2 Plagioecia patina 3 Alcyonidium albidum 3 Scruparia ambigua 3 Callopora discreta 3 Scrupocellaria inermis 3 Smittoidea marmorea 3 Alderina imbellis 5 Bicellariella ciliata 5 Schizomavella linearis 5 Beania mirabilis 7 Scrupocellaria scruposa 7 Cellaria 7 Phylactella labrosa 7 Phaeostachys spinifera 7

Smittina crystallina 7 Vesicularia spinosa 9 Callopora lineata 9 Escharella immersa 9 Reptadeonella violacea 9 Escharina vulgaris 9 Crisia 10 Cellepora/Omalosecosa 10 Puellina 12 Hippothoa 16 Prenantia cheilostoma 16 Aetea sica 17 Neolagenipora collaris 19 Steraechmella buski 21 Figularia figularis 22 Reptadeonella insidiosa 22 Fenestrulina malusii 22 Tubulipora 24 Pyripora catenularia 24 Hippoporina pertusa 24 Escharina hyndmanni 24 Microporella ciliata 24 Puellina arrecta 28 Porella 28 Cyclostomatida 29 Micropora normani 29 Chorizopora brongniartii 29 Disporella hispida 38


Taxa % Occurrence

Escharella ventricosa 38 Schizomavella 40 Crassimarginatella solidula 47 Micropora coriacea 47 Puellina venusta 50 Escharina johnstoni 52 Puellina innominata 64

HORSESHOE WORMS Phoronis 7

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Ophiothrix 2 Echinidia 2 Leptosynapta decaria 2 Ophiocten affinis 3 Leptosynapta minuta 3 Ophiura 7 Spatangus 9 Spatangus purpureus 9 Amphiura securigera 10 Amphipholis squamata 16 Ophiactis balli 17 Ophiuroidea 26 Echinocyamus pusillus 90

SEA SQUIRTS Pyura tesselata 2 Ascidiella scabra 3 Didemnidae 14

LANCELETS

Branchiostoma lanceolatum 55

FISH Actinopterygii 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

Suberites 1

Raspailia 1

Porifera 41

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Tubulariidae 1

Capnea sanguinea 1

Sagartia elegans 1

Hormathiidae 1

Zoantharia 3

Epizoanthus incrustatus 3

Parazoanthus anguicomus 5

Epizoanthus couchii 7

Nemertesia 8

Corynactis viridis 8

Cerianthus lloydii 14

Edwardsiidae 14

Actiniaria 21

Sagartia troglodytes 21

Alcyonium digitatum 22

Metridium senile 22

Urticina 29

Nemertesia ramosa 30

Adamsia palliata 32

Halecium 36

Abietinaria abietina 38

Conica 45

Caryophyllia smithii 62

Nemertesia antennina 68

SEGMENTED WORMS

Aphroditidae 1

Spirobranchus 1

Chaetopterus 3

Serpula vermicularis 3

Sabellaria spinulosa 4

Sabella pavonina 10

Serpulidae 15

Polychaeta 19

Sabellidae 26

Lanice conchilega 44

Hydroides 45

SEA SPIDERS

Pycnogonida 1

CRUSTACEANS

Amphipoda 1

Processa canaliculata 1

Upogebia 1

Pagurus bernhardus 1


Taxa % Occurrence

Ebalia 1

Ebalia tumefacta 1

Galathea 3

Munida 3

Macropodia 3

Crustacea 8

Inachus 16

Decapoda 25

Pagurus prideaux 30

Paguridae 70

MOLLUSCS

Gibbula cineraria 1

Jujubinus miliaris 1

Epitonium clathrus 1

Buccinum undatum 1

Onchidorididae 1

Archidoris pseudoargus 1

Glycymeris glycymeris 1

Anomiidae 1

Astartidae 1

Polyplacophora 3

Nudibranchia 3

Goniodoris nodosa 3

Chlamys varia 4

Colus gracilis 7

Aequipecten opercularis 7

Sepia 7

Palliolum tigerinum 8

Calliostoma zizyphinum 11

Hinia incrassata 14

Berthella plumula 16

Pecten maximus 18

BRYOZOANS

Crisia 1

Vesicularia spinosa 1

Cellaria 1

Pentapora fascialis 3

Flustra foliacea 4

Bryozoa 55

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Asteroidea 1

Astropecten irregularis 1

Anseropoda placenta 1

Henricia 1

Ophiocomina nigra 1

Amphiuridae 1

Antedon bifida 3

Luidia ciliaris 3

Ophiothrix fragilis 3

Spatangoida 3

Holothuroidea 3

Luidia sarsi 4

Crossaster papposus 4


Taxa % Occurrence

Psammechinus miliaris 4

Porania pulvillus 5

Marthasterias glacialis 14

Asterias rubens 16

Ophiura 23

Echinus esculentus 23

SEA SQUIRTS

Didemnidae 3

Dendrodoa grossularia 7

Ascidiacia 14

FISH

Trisopterus luscus 1

Scyliorhinus canicula 3

Lophius piscatorius 3

Mullus surmuletus 3

Ammodytidae 3

Callionymus 4

Microchirus variegatus 4

Arnoglossus 5

Aspitrigla cuculus 10

Gadidae 11

Gobiidae 12

Osteicthyes 25


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 (%) 735 WC_1 49.45222 -4.86445 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 15.89 83.69 0.42 798 WC_2 49.38096 -4.689889 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 19.03 80.68 0.29 713 WC_3 49.38711 -4.960462 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 10.88 88.36 0.75 729 WC_5 49.40377 -4.8353 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 32.04 67.32 0.64 658 WC_6 49.24034 -5.48344 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 11.42 86.49 2.09 664 WC_7 49.24228 -5.378106 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 28.19 70.37 1.44 681 WC_8 49.31353 -5.254352 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 13.80 84.83 1.36 686 WC_9 49.25288 -5.207503 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 9.47 89.91 0.62 695 WC_10 49.29936 -5.130839 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 32.71 66.25 1.04 843 WC_11 49.57448 -4.60799 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 15.09 84.35 0.55 871 WC_12 49.4939 -4.26088 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal Sand 1.10 98.90 0.00 825 WC_13 49.49136 -4.560936 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 6.62 93.07 0.31 806 WC_14 49.46355 -4.688948 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 22.59 77.00 0.41 854 WC_15 49.56742 -4.42247 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 36.71 62.78 0.50 667 WC_16 49.21859 -5.360881 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 25.93 73.14 0.93 669 WC_17 49.22987 -5.280209 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 31.63 67.68 0.68 662 WC_20 49.25861 -5.41606 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 24.68 72.85 2.47 671 WC_21 49.26998 -5.335083 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 6.96 92.13 0.91 684 WC_22 49.28138 -5.254102 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 38.44 59.52 2.03 692 WC_23 49.29218 -5.172994 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 9.07 89.98 0.96 697 WC_24 49.3031 -5.09216 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 47.30 52.31 0.39 674 WC_25 49.30981 -5.390238 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 8.59 90.48 0.93 704 WC_26 49.31403 -5.011098 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 63.64 35.51 0.85 676 WC_27 49.32091 -5.309408 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 9.68 86.17 4.15 707 WC_28 49.32499 -4.929943 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 30.59 64.74 4.67 679 WC_29 49.33191 -5.228147 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 32.86 66.18 0.96 722 WC_30 49.336 -4.848804 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 17.43 81.68 0.89 699 WC_31 49.34339 -5.146793 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 51.46 47.84 0.70


Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/Clay (%) 725 WC_32 49.34681 -4.767778 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 27.63 71.17 1.19 702 WC_33 49.35416 -5.06622 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 29.78 69.57 0.65 796 WC_34 49.35756 -4.68581 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 28.68 68.85 2.47 711 WC_35 49.36521 -4.984746 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 28.12 70.86 1.02 727 WC_37 49.38663 -4.822718 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 28.22 71.30 0.48 793 WC_38 49.3979 -4.740198 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 42.80 56.27 0.92 802 WC_39 49.40884 -4.659413 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 38.62 60.68 0.70 716 WC_40 49.41628 -4.958376 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 26.96 71.81 1.23 818 WC_41 49.41917 -4.57784 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 16.91 77.33 5.76 732 WC_42 49.42733 -4.876884 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 40.33 58.18 1.50 791 WC_44 49.43803 -4.795517 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 24.44 73.80 1.76 804 WC_45 49.44851 -4.7145 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 35.39 63.94 0.67 823 WC_47 49.47041 -4.551476 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 33.83 62.45 3.72 787 WC_48 49.47828 -4.850551 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 35.49 63.41 1.10 858 WC_49 49.48085 -4.470705 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 40.77 57.95 1.28 809 WC_50 49.489 -4.769409 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 37.28 61.20 1.51 862 WC_51 49.49122 -4.388622 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 23.10 74.95 1.95 869 WC_53 49.50173 -4.306977 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 28.31 70.27 1.42 828 WC_54 49.51042 -4.606604 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 40.48 58.21 1.31 848 WC_56 49.52127 -4.524599 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 24.80 72.44 2.76 856 WC_57 49.53176 -4.443683 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 30.92 68.30 0.78 864 WC_59 49.54221 -4.361841 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 15.07 84.20 0.73 866 WC_60 49.55252 -4.280013 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 14.94 84.13 0.93 830 WC_61 49.55085 -4.661403 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 27.36 72.64 0.00 846 WC_62 49.56162 -4.579424 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 25.55 68.36 6.08 851 WC_63 49.57217 -4.497879 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 23.83 75.47 0.71 834 WC_64 49.59107 -4.715976 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 21.59 76.51 1.90 841 WC_65 49.60177 -4.634401 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 39.63 59.47 0.90 838 WC_66 49.61631 -4.629375 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 26.65 72.02 1.33


Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/Clay (%) 836 WC_67 49.61589 -4.659864 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal Coarse Sediment 31.05 66.97 1.98


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

Stn Code SOL Lat SOL Long EOL Lat EOL Long Habitat No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR

WC_1 49.45220 -4.86465 49.45297 -4.86405 S1 A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.OCS




WC_05 49.40304 -4.83304 49.40280 -4.83240 S2 A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.OSa


WC_8 49.31450 -5.25325 49.31561 -5.25294 S1 A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa.OSa


























Stn Code SOL Lat SOL Long EOL Lat EOL Long Habitat No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR






WC_L4 49.34183 -4.90600 49.38711 -4.96046 S1 A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.OCS





Appendix 7. Images from survey showing broadscale habitats

Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey

A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment

Image from Stn Code: WC_05

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

A5.2: Subtidal sand


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

A4.2: Moderate energy circalittoral rock


Rock characterised by animal dominated communities. The character of the fauna varies enormously and is affected mainly by wave action, tidal stream strength, salinity, turbidity, the degree of scouring and rock topography

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






Appendix 8. Image from survey showing habitat FOCI

Habitat FOCI & Station Code

Description Example Image taken during survey

Subtidal sands and gravels


Sand and gravel seabeds widespread around the UK


This page intentionally left blank

Western Channel rMCZ Post-survey Site Report -...

Documents

Transcript of Western Channel rMCZ Post-survey Site Report -...