East of Haig Fras rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 6 Version 12

November 2014

Project Title: Coordination of the Defra MCZ data collection programme 2011/12 Report No 6. Title: East of Haig Fras 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 The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Monkstone House City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY Authorship Jacqueline Eggleton Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) Jacqueline.Eggleton@cefas.co.uk Anna Downie Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) Anna.Downie@cefas.co.uk Acknowledgements We thank Drs Sue Ware and Christopher Barrio Froján (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.

Cefas Document Control Title: East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report Submitted to: rMCZ Project Steering Group

Date submitted: November 2014

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Jacqueline Eggleton, Anna Downie

Quality control by: Sue Ware

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (06/11/2014)

Version: V12

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Jacqueline Eggleton 07/12/2012 First Draft V1

Jacqueline Eggleton 21/12/2012 Revised draft following internal QA V2

Jacqueline Eggleton 11/01/2013 Final edits ready for sign-off following Project Steering Group review

V3

Jacqueline Eggleton 11/02/2013 Revised BSH map and description V4

Jacqueline Eggleton 28/02/2013 Edited following additional PSG comment and external peer review

V5

Jacqueline Eggleton 14/03/2013 Edited following additional comments provided by the JNCC

V6

Jacqueline Eggleton 25/03/2013 Edited following additional comments provided by the JNCC

V7

Jacqueline Eggleton 26/03/2013 Cefas final QA V8

Jacqueline Eggleton 25/11/2013 Revised draft incorporating analysis of additional survey data collected during CEND05/13

V9

Jacqueline Eggleton 10/12/2013 Revised draft following internal QA V10

Christopher Barrio 24/03/2014 Revised following updated mud HOCI definitions V11

Jacqueline Eggleton 06/11/2014 2nd

round of Defra and Project Steering Group Comments

V12

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ 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 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 ......................................................... 9

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

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

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

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

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 18

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 18

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 19

4.6 Species FOCI identified .............................................................................. 20

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

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 21

4.9 Observations of human activities within the rMCZ ...................................... 21

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

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

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

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

5.4 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ............................................. 23

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

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 1. Survey Metadata (CEND 03/12) ...................................................... 33

Appendix 2. Outputs from Acoustic Surveys ........................................................ 36

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ................................. 38

Appendix 4. Species List ..................................................................................... 39

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 49

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 51

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

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

East of Haig Fras 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 present but not proposed for designation of East of Haig Fras rMCZ. ................................................................................................................. 5

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

Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry and backscatter (where specified). ........................................................................................................ 11

Table 5. Results of independent validation of the broadscale habitat map using newly acquired ground truth video and still imagery.* ...................................... 13

Table 6. Broadscale habitats identified in East of Haig Fras rMCZ. ........................ 19

Table 7. Habitat FOCI identified in East of Haig Fras rMCZ. ................................... 20

Table 8. Species FOCI identified in East of Haig Fras rMCZ. ................................. 20

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the East of Haig Fras rMCZ in the context of other rMCZs in the area. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). ........................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites at the East of Haig Fras rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). ........................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Flowchart outlining the process of producing the broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 10

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

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

Figure 6. An extract of the updated habitat map for the East of Haig Fras rMCZ, showing the fine scale variation in the heterogeneous landscape. .................. 17

Figure 7. Map showing the distribution of potential 'A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock' BSH. ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 8. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 9. Habitat FOCI identified. ............................................................................ 19

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the East of Haig Fras recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ). The site is being considered for inclusion in a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters, designed to meet conservation objectives under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. 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 broadscale 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 result from the survey of the site conducted by Cefas in February 2012. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI.

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

Feature

Extent according

to SAD

Extent according to

updated habitat map

Accord between SAD and updated habitat map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent

A4: Circalittoral rock 9.79 km2 13.25 km

2 +3.46 km

2

A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment* 235.53 km2 129.36 km

2 -106.17 km

2

A5.2: Subtidal sand 154.65 km2

189.68 km2 +35.03 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

* Includes an un-quantified proportion of mixed sediments.

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

Feature

Extent according

to SAD

Extent according to

updated habitat map

Accord between SAD and updated habitat map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent

A5.3: Subtidal mud 0 km2 76.63 km

2 +76.63 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 390.18 km2* 319.04 km

2 -71.14 km

2

Mud Habitats in Deep Water 0 km2 76.63 km

2 +76.63 km

2

Species FOCI

None Found N/A N/A N/A N/A

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 2

1.3 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 3

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 site. The SAD summarises what evidence was 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 Cefas and the JNCC at the East of Haig Fras rMCZ site during February 2012, and updates the evidence base which will permit reassessment of the site’s designation as a MCZ.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 4

2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The East of Haig Fras rMCZ is located approximately 40 km east of the Greater Haig Fras rMCZ and approximately 67 km from Land’s End (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location of the East of Haig Fras rMCZ in the context of other rMCZs in the area. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

2.2 Rationale for the site position and designation

The East of Haig Fras 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 broadscale habitats. For a detailed site description see Section 3, Part II.3.7 in ‘Finding Sanctuary Final report and Recommendations’ (Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

2.2.1 Broadscale habitats proposed for designation

Three broadscale habitats were included in the recommendations for designation at the 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 9.79 km2

A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment 235.53 km2

A5.2: Subtidal sand 154.65 km2

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 5

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 East of Haig Fras rMCZ (Table 2). However, this habitat FOCI is 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 broadscale habitats. Furthermore, the spatial extent for this habitat FOCI stated in the SAD appears to have been miscalculated as 264.78 km2. The correct spatial extent (derived from combining the estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment and the subtidal sand) is 390.18 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 East of Haig Fras rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 390.18 km2*

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

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

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

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

Species FOCI

Low or limited mobility species FOCI None

Highly mobile species FOCI None

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection

Prioritisation of rMCZ sites for further evidence collection was informed by a gap analysis and evidence assessment. The prime objective was to elevate the confidence status for as many rMCZs as feasible to support designation in terms of the quantity 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 East of Haig Fras rMCZ was Low (JNCC and Natural England, 2012), so the site was prioritised for additional evidence collection.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 6

2.4 Survey aims and objectives

Primary Objectives

To collect acoustic and ground truth data to allow the production of an updated map to be used to inform the presence of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI, and to 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) 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. However, 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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 7

3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

Groundtruthing data were collected in two stages. The first ground truth survey at the East of Haig Fras rMCZ was carried out onboard RV Cefas Endeavour (cruise CEND 03/12) during February 2012. As the acoustic survey was being run concurrently by Gardline Geosurvey Limited, the acoustic outputs were not available to inform the selection of ground truth stations. Instead, selection and positioning of ground truth stations was informed by a combination of the predicted extent of broadscale habitats derived from the UK SeaMap 2010 (v7) and the habitat map provided in the SAD. The acoustic data, when processed, highlighted the need for more targeted groundtruthing across potential circalittoral rock features. Consequently a second ground truth survey was carried out during the RV Cefas Endeavour cruise CEND 05/13 during April 2013.

For the first groundtruthing survey, sampling stations were positioned within the predicted sedimentary habitats using a triangular lattice grid overlaid on the predicted habitat map. Stations within the predicted ‘Subtidal coarse sediment’ (A5.1) and ‘Subtidal sand’ (A5.2) sediments were at a grid spacing of 3 km. For the second survey, a number of camera tows were planned along and across topographic features that were predicted to include patches of circalittoral rock. The full array of stations is illustrated below, in Figure 2.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 8

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

Sediment samples were collected with a grab system consisting of 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 for each grab sample. On recovery, the grab was emptied into a large plastic bin and a representative subsample of sediment (approx. 0.5 litres) taken for particle size analysis (PSA). The remaining sample was photographed, then sieved over a 1 mm mesh to collect the benthic macrofauna. These were preserved in buffered 4% formaldehyde for later processing ashore.

During the first ground truth survey, video footage and still images of the seabed were collected with an underwater camera system deployed at a subset of stations sampled by the grab. The frequency of use of the camera was informed by the type of sediment obtained in the grab sample. Where this was consistent with the predicted BSH, the camera was deployed at approximately every third station, but where the grab sample was not consistent with the predicted BSH, the camera was used at every station. The camera images helped to characterise surficial sediments and associated epifaunal communities.

The camera was mounted on a towed sledge and collected both video and still images. A four-point laser scaling device was used to provide a reference scale in the video and still images. Set-up and operation followed the MESH ‘Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques’ (Coggan et al., 2007). Video was recorded simultaneously to a Sony GV-HD700 DV tape 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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 9

The second survey consisted of camera tows only. Video footage and still images of the seabed were collected using a drop-camera system. The system specification was similar to that used on the camera sledge (as described above), but mounted in a rectangular drop-frame and deployed from the side gantry, amidships.

Camera tows lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the sledge towed at c. 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s–1) across a 100 m diameter ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling station. Drop camera was deployed with the vessel executing a controlled drift at c. 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s-1) across the ‘bullring’. The height of the drop camera off the seabed was controlled by a winch operator with sight of the video monitor. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals and opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered. Video and still images were analysed following an established protocol used by Cefas and the JNCC (Coggan and Howell 2005; JNCC, in prep., see Annex 5).

In all, 69 ground truth stations were visited during the two surveys (Figure 2). In the first survey, Hamon grabs were successful at all 50 stations and camera sledge tows were completed at 20 of them. The second survey completed a further 19 drop camera tows. Station metadata are presented in Appendix 1. For further detail on ground truth sample collection see the East of Haig Fras rMCZ Survey Report (Ware 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 the available acoustic data and the ground truth data collected by the dedicated surveys of the site. The new habitat map was produced via object-based image analysis (OBIA; Blaschke, 2010), 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. 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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 10

Figure 3. Flowchart outlining the process of producing the broadscale habitat map.

Data Preparation

Before analysis, the bathymetry and backscatter data layers were resampled onto a common grid at 2 m resolution. A 2D Fourier filter was applied to both layers to reduce stripe noise along the vessel track (Wilken et al., 2012). Such data preparation results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 2 m x 2 m grid cell, and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process.

Derivatives

A set of derivative datasets (see Table 4) describing topographic variability and local variability data values was calculated for bathymetry and backscatter.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 11

Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry and backscatter (where specified).

Derivative Description

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

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

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

BPI Bathymetric Position Index (Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 3, 5, 9 and 25 cells

TRI* Terrain Ruggedness Index (Wilson et al., 2007)

Sobel filter* An edge detection filter calculated in x and y directions

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

Local Moran’s I Local spatial-autocorrelation (Moran, 1950)

* Calculated for backscatter as well as bathymetry.

Segmentation

The goal of the OBIA segmentation is to create meaningful objects in the map image. A homogeneous area of seabed will have larger objects than a heterogeneous area. The input layers used in segmentation were the primary acoustic data layers (bathymetry and backscatter strength). 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 the consequent objects. In the second segmentation stage, the objects in the initial segmentation were further combined into larger objects, with connected objects having less than 1 db difference in their mean backscatter values.

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. 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 habitat from the acoustic data. Areas of boulders and cobbles, acting as hard substratum, were identified in the video footage on raised ridges of ‘Coarse/Mixed sediments’ (A5.1/A5.4), surrounded by mobile sands (A5.2) and, in deeper areas, mud (A5.3). The patches of hard substratum were identified as ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock and other hard substrata’ (A4.2) based on their community composition.

The distributions of values for bathymetry and backscatter, together with their derivatives, in the broadscale habitat classes found in the ground truth data from the first survey, were analysed to find the variables that best separated habitat classes. Data from video and still images were used to characterise the hard substratum

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 12

class ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. PSA data from grab samples were also used to classify the sedimentary broadscale habitats observed in the area: ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’.

Areas raised above the seafloor, determined by a BPI with a 25-cell radius (Table 4), with backscatter values similar to the observed cobble and boulder habitats were highlighted as potential hard substratum in order to map the extent of the cobble and boulder habitats. The range of backscatter values in the hard substratum locations largely overlaps with the range of values observed for the Coarse/Mixed Sediments. This is not surprising, because there is a continuum of increasing cobble content on the coarse and mixed substrata not reflected in the PSA data collected through grab-sampling. Consequently,the areas identified as hard substratum were classified as ‘Potential (A4.2) moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Those patches which coincided with observations of hard substratum in video stills were firmly classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’.

The remainder of the area was classified according to cutoffs in backscatter and depth values obtained from the analysis of PSA samples. Subtidal sand and subtidal mud had significantly lower backscatter values than subtidal coarse sediment and subtidal mixed sediment, and subtidal sand and mud could be separated further based on bathymetry. None of the variables used revealed separation between subtidal coarse sediment and mixed sediments, so the latter two were not separated in the resultant habitat map. A query of the PSA data also shows that the coarse and mixed sediments are similar in particle size composition, with a continuum of gradual increase in the mud fraction through the coarse sediment samples to the mixed sediment samples.

Stills observations from the second groundtruthing survey were used to validate the habitat map. Rock features have been identified in the map, with 76% of map objects classified as ‘Potential (A4.2) moderate energy circalittoral rock’ recorded as rock habitat in the new groundtruthing data (Table 5). Correct classification rates for sediment were much lower, at 31% for both ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. Rock habitats were most commonly erroneously mapped as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, whilst ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ were commonly misclassfied as each other. Areas with ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ were not included in the new groundtruthing.

The gradual change between habitats and highly mosaic nature of the habitats are sources for classification error, together with potemntial positioning accuracy. Difficulty in correctly delineating coarse sediment from sand in still images also adds to the error estimates and may explain some of the misclassification between ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. The overlap of ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ with ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ is not unexpected, as the boundary between ‘coarse sediment with cobbles’ and ‘cobble with boulders as hard substrate’ is gradual.

Both ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ were identified in the new groundtruthing data. It was however, not possible to differentiate between the energy levels, and consequently areas mapped as

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 13

‘Potential (A4.2) moderate energy circalittoral rock’ were reclassified into ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ in the final broadscale habitat map.

Table 5. Results of independent validation of the broadscale habitat map using newly acquired ground truth video and still imagery.*

MAP

Groundtruthing

A4 A5.1 A5.2 UA

A4 119 21 16 76%

A5.1 74 47 29 31%

A5.2 5 42 21 31%

PA 60% 19% 24% 50%

*UA = User’s Accuracy, PA = Producer’s Accuracy where UA is how often the class on the broadscale habitat map was verified as the correct class by groundtruthing; and PA is how often the groundtruthing was correctly classified on the broadscale habitat map

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 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, to be used in compiling a full coverage map for northwest Europe. Where two of the original maps overlapped, that with the highest MESH confidence score would take precedence in the compiled map.

Subsequent to the MESH project, the confidence assessment tool has been applied to provide a benchmark score that reflects the technical quality of newly developed habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100 but, because the current rMCZ exercise, requires the mapping of broadscale physical habitats rather than biotopes, it excludes the need for biological data. In the absence of biological data, the maximum score attainable for a perfect 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.

1 http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 24/03/2014]

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 14

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 Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project and Environment Agency (EA) data sources, along with anecdotal information acquired through stakeholder consultation. The predicted extent of the main broadscale 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 the 2012 and 2013 dedicated survey data is presented in Figure 5. It shows the seabed at the site to be a heterogenous fine scale mosaic of sand, coarse and mixed sediments, with mud habitat in deeper areas. The two broadscale habitats ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Mixed sediments’ are presented in the map as a complex ‘A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’. They show no differentiation in their acoustic or topographical properties that would allow them to be mapped separately.

Small patches of ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ were identified in the updated habitat map (Figure 5). The circalittoral rock habitat is present in scattered small patches, illustrated in Figure 6, a close-up of a small region in the habitat map depicting the

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 15

fine-scale mosaic nature of the BSH. The distribution of the circalittoral rock features in the rMCZ are further highlighted in Figure 7, which presents their extent separately from the sedimentary habitats.

Lists of benthic macrofaunal species found in the grab samples, as well as video and stills, are presented in Appendix 4. In all, 289 infaunal taxa were identified from the grab samples and 126 epifaunal taxa were identified from the video and still image data.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 16

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 17

Figure 6. An extract of the updated habitat map for the East of Haig Fras rMCZ, showing the fine scale variation in the heterogeneous landscape.

Figure 7. Map showing the distribution of potential 'A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock' BSH.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 18

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

The results of the MESH confidence assessment are shown in Figure 8. The area covered by the newly acquired data is given a score of 83 out of the 88 possible for a purely physical habitat map.

Figure 8. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map.

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified

The East of Haig Fras rMCZ seabed is a fine-scale mosaic of deposits of gravel, pebbles, cobbles and boulders interspersed with mobile sandy substrata, all with a variable mud content. The habitats blend into each other, so estimates of absolute coverage for any habitat need to be treated with caution. Nevertheless, the spatial extent of each of the BSH classes shown in the updated habitat map is presented in Table 6. ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ is the most widespread, covering approximately 47% of the area of the rMCZ. The class combining ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ covers 32%, and another 18% of the area consists of ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’, not previously identified by the SAD.

Patches of hard substratum in the form of cobbles and boulders are associated with the ‘A5.1/A5.4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ features. The cobbles and boulders form stable hard surfaces supporting a variety of epifaunal organisms, particularly hydroids, and some mobile fauna typically associated with moderate energy rock habitats, and are consequently classified as ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’. Additional targeted groundtruthing carried out in 2013 confirmed the presence of the ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ broadscale habitat within the rMCZ. The circalittoral rock

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 19

habitat covers approximately 3% of the area. However, the estimate of area cover is tenuous because of an overlap in the acoustic and topographical properties used to map the hard substratum with those identified for the coarse and mixed sediments. The coarse/mixed sediments and hard substratum form a continuum with increasing cobble and boulder content, making it difficult to draw distinct boundaries between the classes. The mobile sands and low relief of the hard substrata give the hard substratum habitat a potentially ephemeral nature. Sand scour also leaves the epifaunal community poorer than in a setting with more continuous and permanent bedrock outcrops or ledges.

Table 6. Broadscale habitats identified in East of Haig Fras rMCZ.

Broadscale Habitat Type (EUNIS Level 3)

Spatial extent according to the

SAD

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat

map

A4 Circalittoral rock 9.79 km2 13.25 km

2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment* 235.53 km2 129.36 km

2

A5.2 Subtidal sand 154.65 km2 189.68 km

2

A5.3 Subtidal mud 0 km2 76.63 km

2

* Includes an unquantified proportion of mixed sediments

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The extent of the habitat FOCI identified by the updated habitat map is shown in Figure 9 and detailed in Table 7. Areas mapped as ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ (A5.1 and A5.2) cover approximately 80% of the area of the rMCZ, but that estimate includes an unquantified fraction of mixed sediments (see Section 3.3).

Figure 9. Habitat FOCI identified.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 20

The remainder of the area within the East of Haig Fras rMCZ (approximately 20%) mapped as BSH ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ conforms to the description of the habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’.

Table 7. Habitat FOCI identified in East of Haig Fras rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent

according to the SAD Spatial extent according to

the updated habitat map

Subtidal Sands and Gravels (modelled)* 390.18 km2**

319.04 km

2

Mud Habitats in Deep Water 0 km2 76.63 km

2

* Includes an unquantified proportion of mixed sediments; ** This is the corrected value calculated

using the combined estimated spatial extent of the subtidal coarse sediment and subtidal sand broadscale habitats stated in the SAD.

4.6 Species FOCI identified

No low or limited mobility species FOCI and no highly mobile species FOCI were observed in the samples obtained for this study (Table 8).

Table 8. Species FOCI identified in East of Haig Fras rMCZ.

Species FOCI Previously recorded

within rMCZ Identified during evidence

gathering survey

Low or limited mobility species None recorded None recorded

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 Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd following standard laboratory practice and the results checked by Cefas specialist staff 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 MES 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).

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 21

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis

Video and photographic stills data acquired during the 2012 survey were processed by MES Ltd and video and stills data acquired during the 2013 survey were processed by APEM Ltd in accordance 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 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 sedimentary 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 which has not been recorded, especially if they are limited in extent.

The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale 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.

‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’ have similar acoustic signatures, so it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish the two broadscale habitats in acoustic data. Therefore, the two habitats were not mapped separately. No discernible signal was found in bathymetry, backscatter or their derivatives, to be used to distinguish between the two habitats with any confidence. The spatial variability at the site prevented the use of interpolation measures.

Video observations indicate the presence of hard substratum, consisting of cobbles and boulders, which support epifaunal species, particularly hydroids, and some mobile fauna. The patches of hard substratum are part of a continuum observed from sandy or muddy habitat through an increasing gravel, pebble and cobble content in the sediment, with occasional boulders, and their acoustic signature overlaps to an extent with that of coarse/mixed habitats. The overlap causes some ambiguity about the boundary between hard substratum and coarse/mixed substratum, which renders the estimates of extent more uncertain.

4.8.1 Presence of Species FOCI

No species FOCI were included in the recommendations for proposal of this rMCZ or were recorded at any of the stations sampled at the site.

4.9 Observations of human activities within the rMCZ

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 22

5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2012 and 2013 dedicated surveys have confirmed the presence of the ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ broadscale habitat classes. These were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating the site as an MCZ.

The 2012 and 2013 dedicated surveys also revealed the presence of ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ habitat class, not previously identified in the SAD.

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ BSH according to the SAD habitat map was 9.79 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the potential extent of this habitat is 13.25 km2, 3.46 km2 more than the spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ BSH according to the SAD habitat map was 235.53 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 129.36 km2, 106.17 km2 less than the spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH according to the SAD habitat map was 154.65 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 189.68 km2, 35.03 km2 greater than the spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ BSH according to the SAD habitat map was 0 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 76.63 km2, 76.63 km2 greater than the spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

5.2 Presence and extent of FOCI habitats

5.2.1 Presence

The 2012 and 2013 dedicated surveys have confirmed the presence of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ FOCI which was reported in the SAD as present within the rMCZ.

The 2012 and 2013 dedicated surveys have confirmed the presence of the ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI. This FOCI was not reported in the SAD.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 23

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The recalculated spatial extent of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI according to the SAD habitat map was 390.18 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the spatial extent of this habitat FOCI is 319.04 km2, 71.14 km2 less than in the SAD habitat map.

The extent of the ‘Mud Habiats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI identified, acording to the updated habitat map, is 76.63 km2. This habitat FOCI was distributed towards the deeper, western extent of the rMCZ.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

No ‘Low or limited mobility species FOCI’ and no ‘Highly mobile species FOCI’ were observed in the samples obtained for this study.

5.4 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 24

References

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

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

Coggan, R., Mitchell, A., White, J. and Golding, N. (2007). Recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf [Accessed 24/03/2014]

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

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

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

Lieberknecht, L.M., Hooper, T.E.J., Mullier, T.M., Murphy, A., Neilly, M., Carr, H., Haines, R., Lewin, S. and Hughes, E. (2011). Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations. A report submitted by the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England. http://findingsanctuary.marinemapping.com/ Final report as one document (PDF, 43MB) - 14 September 2011 version [Accessed 24/03/2014]

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.

Moran, P. A. P. (1950). Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37, 17-23.

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)

Ware, S., Whomersley, P. and Vanstaen, K. (2013). East of Haig Fras rMCZ survey report. 56 pp.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 25

Wilken, D., Feldens, P., Wunderlich, T. and Heinrich, C. (2012). Application of 2D Fourier filtering for elimination of stripe noise in side-scan sonar mosaics. Geo-Marine Letters 32, 337-347.

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

Worsfold, T.M., Hall., D.J. and O’Reilly, M. (2010). Guidelines for processing marine macrobenthic invertebrate samples: a processing requirements protocol version 1 (June 2010). Unicomarine Report NMBAQCMbPRP to the NMBAQC Committee. 33 pp. [Accessed 24/03/2014]

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 26

Data sources

All enquiries in relation to this report should be addressed to the following e-mail address: marinescience@defra.gsi.gov.uk

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 27

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 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 broadscale habitat encompasses several different habitat subtypes, all of which should be protected within the MPA network. The broadscale habitat deep seabed habitat is found only in the southwest of the MCZ project area and MCZs identified for this broadscale habitat should seek to protect the variety of subtypes known in the region.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 28

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, 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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 29

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 MCZ Projects.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 30

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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 31

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 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 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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 32

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.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 33

Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey Metadata (CEND 03/12)

Date Stn No Station code Gear Latitude Longitude

09/02/2012 345-SOL EHF_C1 Camera Sledge 51.91949 -5.91615

09/02/2012 345-EOL EHF_C1 Camera Sledge 51.9207 -5.91654

10/02/2012 350 EHF_R1 HamCam 50.42311 -6.78009

10/02/2012 351-SOL EHF_R1 Camera Sledge 50.42089 -6.77877

10/02/2012 351-EOL EHF_R1 Camera Sledge 50.42267 -6.77994

10/02/2012 353 EHF_S3 HamCam 50.42718 -6.73756

10/02/2012 355 EHF_C4 HamCam 50.43348 -6.69611

10/02/2012 357 EHF_S1 HamCam 50.41227 -6.66946

10/02/2012 358-SOL EHF_S1 Camera Sledge 50.4126 -6.66893

10/02/2012 358-EOL EHF_S1 Camera Sledge 50.41412 -6.66742

10/02/2012 360 EHF_S2 HamCam 50.41992 -6.62591

10/02/2012 362 EHF_C2 HamCam 50.42614 -6.58488

10/02/2012 364 EHF_C3 HamCam 50.4321 -6.5433

10/02/2012 365-SOL EHF_C3 Camera Sledge 50.43201 -6.54346

10/02/2012 365-EOL EHF_C3 Camera Sledge 50.432 -6.5457

10/02/2012 367 EHF_C1 HamCam 50.41234 -6.51459

10/02/2012 369 EHF_C9 HamCam 50.45777 -6.53075

10/02/2012 371 EHF_C7 HamCam 50.45145 -6.57237

10/02/2012 373 EHF_C6 HamCam 50.44552 -6.61412

10/02/2012 374-SOL EHF_C6 Camera Sledge 50.446 -6.61515

10/02/2012 374-EOL EHF_C6 Camera Sledge 50.44545 -6.61419

10/02/2012 376 EHF_C5 HamCam 50.43963 -6.65503

10/02/2012 378 EHF_S4 HamCam 50.44682 -6.76651

10/02/2012 380 EHF_C8 HamCam 50.453 -6.72484

10/02/2012 381 EHF_C10 HamCam 50.45908 -6.68367

10/02/2012 382-SOL EHF_C10 Camera Sledge 50.45886 -6.68407

10/02/2012 382-EOL EHF_C10 Camera Sledge 50.45901 -6.68391

10/02/2012 384 EHF_C11 HamCam 50.46527 -6.64228

10/02/2012 386 EHF_C12 HamCam 50.47123 -6.60064

10/02/2012 388 EHF_C13 HamCam 50.47741 -6.55969

10/02/2012 389-SOL EHF_C13 Camera Sledge 50.47773 -6.55936

10/02/2012 389-EOL EHF_C13 Camera Sledge 50.47745 -6.55812

10/02/2012 391 EHF_C15 HamCam 50.48331 -6.51814

10/02/2012 393 EHF_C19 HamCam 50.5029 -6.54718

10/02/2012 395-SOL EHF_C18 Camera Sledge 50.49733 -6.5888

10/02/2012 395-EOL EHF_C18 Camera Sledge 50.49616 -6.5877

10/02/2012 396 EHF_C18 HamCam 50.49689 -6.58932

10/02/2012 398 EHF_C17 HamCam 50.49069 -6.63015

10/02/2012 400 EHF_C16 HamCam 50.48512 -6.67139

10/02/2012 402 EHF_C14 HamCam 50.4785 -6.71269

10/02/2012 403-SOL EHF_C14 Camera Sledge 50.47864 -6.71316

10/02/2012 403-EOL EHF_C14 Camera Sledge 50.4784 -6.71146

11/02/2012 405 EHF_S5 HamCam 50.47239 -6.75401

11/02/2012 407 EHF_S6 HamCam 50.4921 -6.78275

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 34

Date Stn No Station code Gear Latitude Longitude

11/02/2012 408-SOL EHF_S6 Camera Sledge 50.49221 -6.7827

11/02/2012 408-EOL EHF_S6 Camera Sledge 50.49176 -6.78142

11/02/2012 410 EHF_S7 HamCam 50.49827 -6.74165

11/02/2012 412 EHF_C20 HamCam 50.50427 -6.70027

11/02/2012 413-SOL EHF_C20 Camera Sledge 50.50426 -6.70005

11/02/2012 413-EOL EHF_C20 Camera Sledge 50.50303 -6.69864

11/02/2012 415 EHF_C21 HamCam 50.51021 -6.65855

11/02/2012 417 EHF_C22 HamCam 50.51647 -6.61725

11/02/2012 418-SOL EHF_C22 Camera Sledge 50.51653 -6.61708

11/02/2012 418-EOL EHF_C22 Camera Sledge 50.51543 -6.61694

11/02/2012 420 EHF_C23 HamCam 50.52253 -6.57591

11/02/2012 422 EHF_C24 HamCam 50.52851 -6.53475

11/02/2012 423-SOL EHF_C24 Camera Sledge 50.52948 -6.53461

11/02/2012 423-EOL EHF_C24 Camera Sledge 50.52773 -6.53597

11/02/2012 425 EHF_C28 HamCam 50.55426 -6.52174

11/02/2012 427 EHF_C27 HamCam 50.54815 -6.56338

11/02/2012 428-SOL EHF_C27 Camera Sledge 50.54818 -6.56298

11/02/2012 428-EOL EHF_C27 Camera Sledge 50.54794 -6.5611

11/02/2012 430 EHF_C26 HamCam 50.54188 -6.60522

11/02/2012 433 EHF_C25 HamCam 50.53615 -6.6463

11/02/2012 434-SOL EHF_C25 Camera Sledge 50.53617 -6.64684

11/02/2012 434-EOL EHF_C25 Camera Sledge 50.53638 -6.64559

11/02/2012 436 EHF_S10 HamCam 50.53008 -6.68781

11/02/2012 438 EHF_S9 HamCam 50.52383 -6.72916

11/02/2012 439-SOL EHF_S9 Camera Sledge 50.52319 -6.72825

11/02/2012 439-EOL EHF_S9 Camera Sledge 50.52417 -6.72939

11/02/2012 441 EHF_S8 HamCam 50.51801 -6.77091

11/02/2012 443 EHF_S11 HamCam 50.54364 -6.75805

11/02/2012 444-SOL EHF_S11 Camera Sledge 50.54389 -6.7579

11/02/2012 444-EOL EHF_S11 Camera Sledge 50.54299 -6.75786

11/02/2012 446 EHF_S12 HamCam 50.54959 -6.7169

11/02/2012 448 EHF_S13 HamCam 50.55564 -6.67529

11/02/2012 449-SOL EHF_S13 Camera Sledge 50.55591 -6.67485

11/02/2012 449-EOL EHF_S13 Camera Sledge 50.55429 -6.67694

11/02/2012 451 EHF_S14 HamCam 50.56179 -6.63379

11/02/2012 453 EHF_C29 HamCam 50.56803 -6.59243

11/02/2012 454-SOL EHF_C29 Camera Sledge 50.56819 -6.59197

11/02/2012 454-EOL EHF_C29 Camera Sledge 50.56767 -6.59283

11/02/2012 456 EHF_C30 HamCam 50.57414 -6.55127

11/02/2012 458 EHF_S19 HamCam 50.58759 -6.6213

11/02/2012 459-SOL EHF_S19 Camera Sledge 50.58751 -6.62079

11/02/2012 459-EOL EHF_S19 Camera Sledge 50.58748 -6.6229

11/02/2012 461 EHF_S18 HamCam 50.58142 -6.6624

11/02/2012 463 EHF_S17 HamCam 50.57561 -6.70412

11/02/2012 464-SOL EHF_S17 Camera Sledge 50.57549 -6.70449

11/02/2012 464-EOL EHF_S17 Camera Sledge 50.57608 -6.70352

12/02/2012 466 EHF_S16 HamCam 50.56923 -6.74562

12/02/2012 468 EHF_S15 HamCam 50.56311 -6.78712

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 35

Date Stn No Station code Gear Latitude Longitude

12/02/2012 469-SOL EHF_S15 Camera Sledge 50.56321 -6.78705

12/02/2012 469-EOL EHF_S15 Camera Sledge 50.5635 -6.78454

Key: EOL: End of line; SOL: Start of line; HamCam: Hamon camera

Survey Metadata (CEND 05/13)

Cruise Date Stn No Stn Code Gear SOL Lat SOL Lon EOL Lat EOL Lon

CEND0513 23/04/2013 103 A1/A2 SS/MB 50.52061 -6.52804 50.54147 -6.57557

CEND0513 23/04/2013 115 EOHF01 DC 50.45877 -6.59777 50.45791 -6.59897

CEND0513 23/04/2013 116 EOHF02 DC 50.4604 -6.59661 50.46110 -6.59857

CEND0513 23/04/2013 117 EOHF03 DC 50.4668 -6.59699 50.46735 -6.59500

CEND0513 23/04/2013 118 EOHF04 DC 50.46981 -6.59482 50.47043 -6.59347

CEND0513 23/04/2013 119 EOHF05 DC 50.48993 -6.59048 50.48993 -6.58889

CEND0513 23/04/2013 112 EOHF06 DC 50.49405 -6.58634 50.49407 -6.58783

CEND0513 23/04/2013 120 EOHF07 DC 50.50416 -6.5868 50.50536 -6.58704

CEND0513 23/04/2013 121 EOHF08 DC 50.50628 -6.58442 50.50578 -6.58289

CEND0513 23/04/2013 122 EOHF09 DC 50.51166 -6.58283 50.51274 -6.58148

CEND0513 23/04/2013 123 EOHF10 DC 50.52644 -6.5768 50.52722 -6.57800

CEND0513 23/04/2013 124 EOHF11 DC 50.52864 -6.58035 50.52986 -6.57957

CEND0513 23/04/2013 125 EOHF12 DC 50.53838 -6.57302 50.53953 -6.57493

CEND0513 23/04/2013 107 EOHF13 DC 50.52316 -6.52231 50.52250 -6.52073

CEND0513 23/04/2013 108 EOHF14 DC 50.5183 -6.53257 50.51674 -6.53230

CEND0513 23/04/2013 109 EOHF15 DC 50.51233 -6.54611 50.51141 -6.54775

CEND0513 23/04/2013 110 EOHF16 DC 50.5057 -6.56334 50.50530 -6.56516

CEND0513 23/04/2013 111 EOHF17 DC 50.498 -6.57844 50.49700 -6.57940

CEND0513 23/04/2013 113 EOHF18 DC 50.48995 -6.59573 50.48927 -6.59732

CEND0513 23/04/2013 114 EOHF19 DC 50.48367 -6.60784 50.48415 -6.60917

Key: EOL: End of line; SOL: Start of line; SS: Side scan; MB: Multibeam; DC: Drop Camera

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 36

Appendix 2. Outputs from Acoustic Surveys

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 37

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 38

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

None observed.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 39

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

FORMANIFERANS

Astrorhiza 29

SPONGES

Cliona 2

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Edwardsiidae 19

Lovenella clausa 13

Cerianthus lloydii 10

ACTINIARIA 10

Scleractinia 6

Leptolida 4

Leuckartiara octona 4

Hydractiniidae 2

Hydrallmania falcate 2

Sertularia 2

Campanulariidae 2

Clytia 2

FLATWORMS

Turbellaria 19

RIBBONWORMS

Nemertea 85

ROUNDWORMS

Nematoda 15

PENIS WORMS

Priapulida 2

GOBLET WORMS

Entoprocta 2

ARROW WORMS

Chaetognatha 2

PEANUT WORMS

Aspidosiphon muelleri 52

Thysanocardia procera 13

Golfingia elongata 2

Golfingia vulgaris 2

Phascolion strombus 2

SEGMENTED WORMS

Galathowenia oculata 79

Lumbrineris cingulata 69

Spiophanes kroyeri 63

Owenia fusiformis 46

Chaetozone zetlandica 40

Aponuphis bilineata 38

Ampharete falcata 35

Cirrophorus branchiatus 33

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 40

Taxa % Occurrence

Amphictene auricoma 33

Terebellides stroemi 33

Notomastus latericeus 31

Glycinde nordmanni 29

Magelona minuta 29

Diplocirrus glaucus 29

Polycirrus 29

Peresiella clymenoides 27

Clymenura 27

Glycera (juv) 23

Glycera lapidum 23

Aonides paucibranchiata 23

Pseudonotomastus southerni 23

Glycera oxycephala 21

Nephtyidae (juv) 21

Scoloplos armiger 21

Euclymene (Type A) 21

Sthenelais limicola 19

Hyalinoecia tubicola 19

Minuspio cirrifera 19

Spiophanes bombyx 19

Nephtys hombergii 17

Praxillella affinis 17

Streblosoma intestinalis 17

Laonice bahusiensis 15

Scolelepis korsuni 15

Magelona alleni 15

Aphelochaeta (Type A) 15

Maldanidae 15

Ophelia borealis 15

Ampharete lindstroemi 15

Polynoidae 13

Harmothoe antilopes 13

Goniadidae (juv) 13

Goniada maculata 13

Podarkeopsis capensis 13

Syllis cornuta 13

Chaetozone setosa 13

Myriochele danielsseni 13

Lagis koreni 13

Amaeana trilobata 13

Grania 13

Glycera unicornis 10

Abyssoninoe hibernica 10

Aricidea 10

Aricidea laubieri 10

Paramphitrite birulai 10

Exogone verugera 8

Onuphidae (juv) 8

Poecilochaetus serpens 8

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 41

Taxa % Occurrence

Tharyx killariensis 8

Amphicteis gunneri 8

Terebellidae 8

Pista cristata 8

Ditrupa arietina 8

Malmgreniella darbouxi 6

Pseudomystides limbata 6

Eulalia mustela 6

Eumida sanguinea 6

Glyceridae 6

Glycera alba 6

Ophiodromus pallidus 6

Ancistrosyllis 6

Glyphohesione klatti 6

Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata 6

Scolelepis bonnieri 6

Mediomastus fragilis 6

Ampharetidae (juv) 6

Malmgreniella castanea 4

Anaitides groenlandica 4

Goniadidae 4

Ophiodromus flexuosus 4

Aglaophamus rubella 4

Nephtys hystricis 4

Nothria conchylega 4

Nematonereis unicornis 4

Lumbrineridae 4

Lumbrineridae (juv) 4

Orbiniidae 4

Aricidea wassi 4

Paradoneis 4

Paradoneis lyra 4

Spionidae 4

Polydora caeca 4

Spiochaetopterus 4

Caulleriella alata 4

Chaetozone 4

Euclymene lumbricoides 4

Opheliidae (juv) 4

Ophelina acuminata 4

Oweniidae 4

Sabellaria spinulosa 4

Paramphitrite tetrabranchia 4

Hydroides norvegica 4

Pisione remota 2

Aphroditidae 2

Pholoe baltica (sensu petersen) 2

Pholoe inornata (sensu petersen) 2

Sigalionidae 2

Hesionura elongata 2

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 42

Taxa % Occurrence

Anaitides rosea 2

Glycera celtica 2

Glycera fallax 2

Goniada pallida 2

Goniadella gracilis 2

Ancistrosyllis groenlandica 2

Syllis (Type H) 2

Exogone hebes 2

Exogone naidina 2

Eunereis longissima 2

Nephtyidae 2

Nephtys kersivalensis 2

Eunicidae 2

Marphysa bellii 2

Schistomeringos rudolphi 2

Orbinia 2

Orbinia sertulata 2

Aricidea cerrutii 2

Magelonidae 2

Magelona 2

Magelona filiformis 2

Chaetopteridae 2

Cirratulidae 2

Chaetozone christiei 2

Cirratulus (Type A) 2

Monticellina dorsobranchialis 2

Capitellidae 2

Maldanidae (juv) 2

Euclymene oerstedii 2

Asclerocheilus intermedius 2

Scalibregma inflatum 2

Polygordius 2

Pectinariidae (juv) 2

Sosane sulcata 2

Terebellidae (juv) 2

Lanice conchilega 2

Phisidia aurea 2

Chone 2

Euchone 2

Jasmineira caudata 2

Serpulidae 2

Tubificoides pseudogaster 2

SEA SPIDERS

Anoplodactylus petiolatus 8

Paranymphon spinosum 4

CRUSTACEANS

Urothoe elegans 38

Copepoda 25

Ampelisca spinipes 17

Unciola planipes 17

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 43

Taxa % Occurrence

Westwoodilla caecula 13

Photis longicaudata 13

Hippomedon denticulatus 10

Atylus vedlomensis 10

Iphinoe serrata 10

Maera othonis 8

Harpinia antennaria 6

Ampelisca 6

Ampelisca tenuicornis 6

Ampelisca typica 6

Eurydice truncata 6

Harpinia pectinata 4

Scopelocheirus hopei 4

Siphonoecetes striatus 4

Diastylis laevis 4

Scalpellum scalpellum 2

Ostracoda 2

Leucothoe incisa 2

Leucothoe lilljeborgi 2

Acidostoma nodiferum 2

Lepidepecreum longicorne 2

Tryphosites longipes 2

Ampelisca brevicornis 2

Cheirocratus 2

Cheirocratus sundevallii 2

Eriopisa elongata 2

Maerella tenuimana 2

Aoridae 2

Leptocheirus hirsutimanus 2

Phtisica marina 2

Hyperia galba 2

Natatolana borealis 2

Tanaopsis graciloides 2

Bodotriidae 2

Diastylis 2

Callianassidae (juv) 2

Paguridae (juv) 2

Anapagurus laevis 2

Ebalia (juv) 2

Liocarcinus depurator 2

Goneplax rhomboides 2

MOLLUSCS

Thyasira flexuosa 21

Polinices pulchellus 19

Abra (juv) 19

Abra prismatica 19

Corbula gibba 17

Antalis entalis 15

Cardiidae (juv) 15

Kurtiella bidentata 10

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 44

Taxa % Occurrence

Epitonium trevelyanum 8

Lucinoma borealis 8

Phaxas pellucidus 8

Cylichna cylindracea 6

Nucula nucleus 6

Myrtea spinifera 6

Thyasira (juv) 6

Abra nitida 6

Falcidens crossotus 4

Roxania utriculus 4

Pelecypoda 4

Nucula sulcata 4

Epilepton clarkiae 4

Spisula (juv) 4

Timoclea ovata 4

Hiatella arctica 4

Cuspidaria cuspidata 4

Chaetoderma nitidulum 2

Neomenia carinata 2

Leptochiton asellus 2

Turritella communis 2

Polinices montagui 2

Eulima bilineata 2

Eulimella laevis 2

Okenia leachii 2

Scaphopoda 2

VENEROIDA 2

Montacuta substriata 2

Tellimya ferruginosa 2

Acanthocardia echinata 2

Arcopella balaustina 2

Dosinia (juv) 2

Thracia (juv) 2

Lyonsia norwegica 2

Pandora (juv) 2

Pandora pinna 2

SEAMATS

Schizomavella 6

Alcyonidium diaphanum 2

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 35

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Echinocyamus pusillus 88

Ophiuroidea (juv) 71

Amphiura filiformis 46

ECHINOIDEA (juv) 19

Ophiuroidea 17

Echinoidea 8

Asteroidea (juv) 6

Cucumariidae (juv) 6

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 45

Taxa % Occurrence

Amphiura chiajei 4

Astropecten irregularis 2

Amphipholis squamata 2

SPATANGOIDA (juv) 2

Echinocardium flavescens 2

Pseudothyone raphanus 2

Cucumaria frondosa 2

Leptosynapta 2

Leptosynapta inhaerens 2

ACORN WORMS

Enteropneusta 8

SEA SQUIRTS

Ascidiacea 13

LANCELETS

Branchiostoma lanceolatum 2

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

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Porifera 87

Axinella 46

Axinella infundibuliformis 10

Hymedesmia paupertas 10

Polymastia boletiformis 10

Ciocalypta penicillus 5

Dysidea fragilis 5

Desmacidon fruticosum 2

Haliclona simulans 2

Phakellia ventilabrum 2

Polymastia penicillus 2

Raspailia ramosa 2

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Caryophyllia smithii 55

Nemertesia 35

Bolocera tuediae 34

Actiniaria 32

Hydroids 27

Abietinaria 22

Nemertesia antennina 20

Aglaophenia 12

Edswardsiella carnea 12

Mesacmaea mitchelli 12

Adamsia palliata 10

Adreus vesicularis 10

Aulactinia verrucosa 10

Aureliania heterocera 10

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 46

Taxa % Occurrence

Cerianthus lloydii 10

Plumulariidae 10

Halcampoides elongatus 5

Parazoanthus anguicomus 5

Sagartia elegans 5

Urticina eques 5

Diphasia 5

Cerianthidae 3

Capnea sanguinea 2

Metridium senile 2

Peachia cylindrica 2

Tubulariidae 2

Turritella communis 2

Urticina felina 2

SEGMENTED WORMS

Serpulidae 65

Salmacina dysteri 17

Eulimidae 2

Harmothoe extenuata 2

Lanice conchilega 2

Nereididae 2

Sabellidae 2

CRUSTACEANS

Paguridae 58

Munida rugosa 39

Ebalia 10

Pagurus prideaux 10

Inachus 7

Galathea 5

Processa 5

Pandalidae 3

Atelecyclus rotundatus 2

Brachyura 2

Cirripedia 2

Hyas 2

Macropodia 2

Palliolum tigerinum 2

Processa canaliculata 2

MOLLUSCS

Novocrania anomala 41

Pecten maximus 23

Gastropoda 12

Coryphella 10

Janolus cristatus 10

Euspira catena 7

Gibbula tumida 7

Goniodoris nodosa 7

Aequipecten opercularis 5

Buccinidae 5

Calliostoma zizyphinum 5

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 47

Taxa % Occurrence

Eledone cirrhosa 5

Leptochiton asellus 5

Nassarius incrassatus 5

Ocenebra erinacea 5

Pectinidae 3

Aeolidiidae 2

Ancula gibbosa 2

Atrina fragilis 2

Berthella plumula 2

Colus gracilis 2

Euspira pulchella 2

Jujubinus montagui 2

BRYOZOANS

Reteporella 27

Omalesecosa ramulosa 24

BRYOZOA 22

Cellaria 2

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 2

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Echinus acutus 44

Porania pulvillus 39

Ophiura 32

Asteroidea 25

Amphiura securigera 17

Holothuroidea 17

Ophiocomina nigra 17

Ophiuroidea 12

Luidia ciliaris 10

Antedon bifida 10

Spatangidae 8

Psammechinus miliaris 7

Marthasterias glacialis 5

Astropecten irregularis 5

Stichastrella rosea 5

Echinidae 3

Echinus 3

Amphiuridae 2

Echinocardium cordata 2

Luidia sarsi 2

Ophiothrix fragilis 2

SEA SQUIRTS

Ascidiacea 22

FISH

Actinopterygii 32

Trisopterus luscus 20

Gobiidae 10

Chelidonichthys lucernus 7

Phynorhombus norvegicus 5

Pleuronectidae 5

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 48

Taxa % Occurrence

Osteichthyes 5

Scyliorhinus 5

Arnoglossus laterna 3

Ammodytidae 2

Ctenolabrus rupestris 2

Gadidae 2

Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis 2

Pollachius pollachius 2

Solea solea 2

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 49

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 (%)

367 EHF_C1 50.41234 -6.51459 Coarse: Coarse gravelly shelly sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 43.55 50.21 6.24

381 EHF_C10 50.45908 -6.68367 Sand: Sand with broken shells A5.2 Subtidal sand 10.00 79.29 10.71

384 EHF_C11 50.46527 -6.64228 Sand: Sand with broken shells A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.36 91.61 8.02

386 EHF_C12 50.47123 -6.60064 Coarse: Gravelly sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 2.38 74.00 23.62

388 EHF_C13 50.47741 -6.55969 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.17 81.87 15.96

402 EHF_C14 50.47850 -6.71269 Sand: Slightly muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 30.83 66.95 2.22

391 EHF_C15 50.48331 -6.51814 Sand: Shelly sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.76 94.98 2.26

400 EHF_C16 50.48512 -6.67139 Sand: Slightly muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 6.99 79.22 13.80

398 EHF_C17 50.49069 -6.63015 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 8.92 86.28 4.81

396 EHF_C18 50.49689 -6.58932 Sand: Slightly muddy, shelly sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 7.52 90.34 2.15

362 EHF_C2 50.42614 -6.58488 Sand: Fine sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 3.85 91.38 4.77

412 EHF_C20 50.50427 -6.70027 Mixed: Muddy sand with cobbles A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 8.93 81.90 9.17

415 EHF_C21 50.51021 -6.65855 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 12.04 73.03 14.93

417 EHF_C22 50.51647 -6.61725 Sand: Fine shelly sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 6.83 87.73 5.44

420 EHF_C23 50.52253 -6.57591 Sand: Fine sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.60 92.78 5.62

422 EHF_C24 50.52851 -6.53475 Sand: Muddy sand (slightly gravelly) A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.45 81.61 15.93

433 EHF_C25 50.53615 -6.64630 Sand: Muddy sand with shell A5.2 Subtidal sand 4.16 87.97 7.87

430 EHF_C26 50.54188 -6.60522 Sand: Shelly sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 21.67 71.25 7.08

427 EHF_C27 50.54815 -6.56338 Mixed: Gravelly Mud with Pebbles A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 17.78 63.44 18.78

425 EHF_C28 50.55426 -6.52174 Sand: Muddy shelly sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 20.24 73.18 6.59

453 EHF_C29 50.56803 -6.59243 Sand: Sand with broken shell, muddy, slightly gravelly A5.2 Subtidal sand 25.69 59.15 15.16

364 EHF_C3 50.43210 -6.54330 Sand: Coarse sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 27.03 64.62 8.35

355 EHF_C4 50.43348 -6.69611 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.23 73.90 24.88

376 EHF_C5 50.43963 -6.65503 Coarse: Pebbles and sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 48.01 47.68 4.31

373 EHF_C6 50.44552 -6.61412 Mud: Sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 5.51 89.16 5.33

371 EHF_C7 50.45145 -6.57237 Coarse: Gravelly sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 10.53 75.41 14.06

380 EHF_C8 50.45300 -6.72484 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.56 87.39 11.06

369 EHF_C9 50.45777 -6.53075 Mixed: Gravelly, shelly mud A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 28.65 49.32 22.04

350 EHF_R1 50.42311 -6.78009 Coarse: Gravelly sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 5.31 87.91 6.78

357 EHF_S1 50.41227 -6.66946 Mixed: Gravelly Mud A5.4: Subtidal mixed sediments 48.02 35.12 16.86

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 50

Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

Silt/clay (%)

436 EHF_S10 50.53008 -6.68781 Sand: Muddy sand with shell fragments (slightly gravelly)

A5.2 Subtidal sand 3.34 88.12 8.54

443 EHF_S11 50.54364 -6.75805 Mud: Sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.38 84.93 14.68

446 EHF_S12 50.54959 -6.71690 Mud: Sandy mud with shell A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.13 83.21 15.66

448 EHF_S13 50.55564 -6.67529 Sand: Shelly sand (slightly gravelly, muddy) A5.2 Subtidal sand 26.42 69.61 3.97

451 EHF_S14 50.56179 -6.63379 Sand: Sand with broken shell (muddy) A5.2 Subtidal sand 14.91 80.55 4.54

468 EHF_S15 50.56311 -6.78712 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.12 79.31 20.57

466 EHF_S16 50.56923 -6.74562 Mud: Sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.28 81.54 18.17

463 EHF_S17 50.57561 -6.70412 Sand: Slightly muddy medium sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.14 95.98 3.88

461 EHF_S18 50.58142 -6.66240 Sand: Slightly gravelly, shelly sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 6.89 83.10 10.01

458 EHF_S19 50.58759 -6.62130 Sand: Sand with broken shell A5.2 Subtidal sand 9.33 88.14 2.53

360 EHF_S2 50.41992 -6.62591 Mixed: Gravelly Mud A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 20.42 66.17 13.41

353 EHF_S3 50.42718 -6.73756 Sand: Medium sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.20 93.92 4.88

378 EHF_S4 50.44682 -6.76651 Mud: Sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.64 79.04 19.32

405 EHF_S5 50.47239 -6.75401 Sand: Shelly muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.97 79.00 20.03

407 EHF_S6 50.49210 -6.78275 Sand: Fine sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.58 94.68 4.73

410 EHF_S7 50.49827 -6.74165 Sand: Muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.25 74.40 24.36

441 EHF_S8 50.51801 -6.77091 Mud: Sandy mud with shell A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.08 89.86 9.06

438 EHF_S9 50.52383 -6.72916 Mud: Sandy mud with shell A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.29 83.22 15.49

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 51

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

Stn No.

Station Code

Habitat No. Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

MNCR Code

345 EHF_C1 1 Muddy gravel A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx

365 EHF_C3 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

374 EHF_C6 1 Rippled sand and cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

374 EHF_C6 2 Rippled sand and cobbles A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

374 EHF_C6 3 Rippled sand and cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

382 EHF_C10 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

389 EHF_C13 1 Rippled sand with very occasional cobbles A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

403 EHF_C14 1 Rippled sand with some small areas of clustered cobbles on sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

395 EHF_C18 1 Rippled sand with occasional cobbles A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

413 EHF_C20 1 Rippled sand with occasional boulders and cobbles A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

413 EHF_C20 2 Mixed sediments of sand, boulders and cobbles A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

413 EHF_C20 3 Rippled sand with occasional boulders and cobbles A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

413 EHF_C20 4 Mixed sediments with sand, boulders and cobbles A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx

413 EHF_C20 5 Rippled sand with occasional boulders and cobbles A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

418 EHF_C22 1 Rippled sand with occasional boulders, cobbles and small patches of mixed sediment

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

423 EHF_C24 1 Rippled sand with occasional boulders and cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

423 EHF_C24 2 Mixed sediments with sand, boulders and cobbles A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

423 EHF_C24 3 Rippled sand with occasional boulders and cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

423 EHF_C24 4 Mixed sediments with sand, boulders and cobbles A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

423 EHF_C24 5 Rippled sand with occasional boulders and cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

434 EHF_C25 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

428 EHF_C27 1 Rippled sand and occasional cobbles. A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

454 EHF_C29 1 Rippled sand and occasional cobbles. A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

351 EHF_R1 1 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

351 EHF_R1 2 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

351 EHF_R1 3 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

351 EHF_R1 4 Rippled sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 52

Stn No.

Station Code

Habitat No. Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

MNCR Code

351 EHF_R1 5 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

351 EHF_R1 6 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

358 EHF_S1 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

358 EHF_S1 2 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

358 EHF_S1 3 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

408 EHF_S6 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

408 EHF_S6 2 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

408 EHF_S6 3 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

408 EHF_S6 4 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

408 EHF_S6 5 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

408 EHF_S6 6 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

408 EHF_S6 7 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

408 EHF_S6 8 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

408 EHF_S6 9 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

439 EHF_S9 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

439 EHF_S9 2 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

444 EHF_S11 1 Rippled sand and occasional cobbles. A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

449 EHF_S13 1 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

449 EHF_S13 2 Rippled sand and occasional cobbles. A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

449 EHF_S13 3 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

449 EHF_S13 4 Rippled sand and occasional cobbles. A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

469 EHF_S15 1 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

469 EHF_S15 2 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

469 EHF_S15 3 Rippled sand and occasional cobbles. A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

469 EHF_S15 4 Boulders, cobbles and pebbles with sand A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

464 EHF_S17 1 Rippled sand with occasional and clustered cobbles A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

459 EHF_S19 1 Rippled sand with occasional and clustered cobbles A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

115 EOHF01 1 Mostly boulders and cobbles with some pebbles between patches of gravelly sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

115 EOHF01 2 Fine sand with sparse cobbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 53

Stn No.

Station Code

Habitat No. Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

MNCR Code

116 EOHF02 1 Mixture of various sized cobbles and pebbles with a few boulders between large patches of slightly gravelly sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

117 EOHF03 1 Coarse sand patches throughout between cobbles and pebbles plus segment of sand for last 4 minutes of video.

A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR

117 EOHF03 2 Fine sand with sparse cobbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

118 EOHF04 1 Silted sand and pebbles between dense and scattered patches of pebbles, cobbles and boulders

A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR

118 EOHF04 2 Fine, silted sand with some pebbles and cobbles. A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

119 EOHF05 1 Both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between areas of coarse to fine sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

112 EOHF06 1 Slightly gravelly sand with some shell, followed by a mixture of sand and both dense and scattered cobbles, pebbles and boulders, followed by sand.

A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

120 EOHF07 1 Slightly gravelly sand A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

120 EOHF07 2 Slightly gravelly sand with some shell, followed by both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between small areas of sand, followed by coarse sand,

A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

120 EOHF07 3 Coarse sand A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

121 EOHF08 1 Fine sand with sparse boulders, cobbles and patches of pebbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

121 EOHF08 2 Mostly fine sand with sparse boulders, cobbles and patches of pebbles.

A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

121 EOHF08 3 Fine sand with sparse boulders, cobbles and patches of pebbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

122 EOHF09 1 Sand with occasional cobbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

122 EOHF09 2 Slightly gravelly sand with both dense and scattered patches of boulders, cobbles and pebbles, sand.

A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

122 EOHF09 3 Sand with occasional cobbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

123 EOHF10 1 Sand with occasional cobbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

123 EOHF10 2 Gravelly sand, followed by sand patches between both dense and scattered cobbles and pebbles, followed by sand.

A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

123 EOHF10 3 Sand with occasional cobbles A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

124 EOHF11 1 Sand and gravel A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 54

Stn No.

Station Code

Habitat No. Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

MNCR Code

124 EOHF11 12 Gravelly sand then dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between small areas of sand.

A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR

124 EOHF11 3 Sand and gravel A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

125 EOHF12 1 Both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between areas of coarse to fine sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

107 EOHF13 1 Gravelly sand A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

107 EOHF13 2 Slightly gravelly sand between dense patches and widely separated boulders/cobbles and pebbles.

A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR

107 EOHF13 3 Gravelly sand A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

108 EOHF14 1 Slightly gravelly sand between dense patches and widely separated boulders/cobbles and pebbles.

A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR

109 EOHF15 1 Slightly gravelly sand between dense patches and widely separated boulders/cobbles and pebbles.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

110 EOHF16 1 Gravelly sand A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

110 EOHF16 2 Both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between areas of coarse to fine sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

110 EOHF16 3 Gravelly sand A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

111 EOHF17 1 Both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between areas of coarse to fine sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

111 EOHF17 2 Gravelly sand with cobbles A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

113 EOHF18 1 Gravelly sand with cobbles A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

113 EOHF18 2 Gravelly sand followed by both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between small areas of sand.

A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR

113 EOHF18 3 Gravelly sand with cobbles A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

114 EOHF19 1 Gravelly sand with cobbles A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

114 EOHF19 2 Both dense and scattered patches of cobbles and pebbles with some boulders between areas of coarse to fine sand.

A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR

114 EOHF19 3 Gravelly sand with cobbles A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS

.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 55

Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats

Broadscale Habitat & Station Code

Description Example Image taken during survey

A4.1: High energy circalittoral rock

Image from station code EOHF14

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

A4.2: Moderate energy circalittoral rock

Image from station code EHF_S13

Deeper water rock, with some shelter from waves and currents.

A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment

Image from station code EHF_C14

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

A5.2: Subtidal sand

Image from station code EHF_C3

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

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 56

Broadscale Habitat & Station Code

Description Example Image taken during survey

A5.3: Subtidal mud

Image from station code EHF_S15

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

A5.4: Subtidal Mixed Sediment

Image from station code EHF_C1

Mixed seabeds can have a range of different types of sediment from muddy, gravelly sands to mosaics of cobbles and pebbles in or on a sand, gravel or mud seabed.

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 57

Appendix 8. Example image from survey for habitat FOCI

Habitat FOCI & Station Code

Description Example Image taken during survey

Subtidal Sands and Gravels

Image from station code EHF_C25

Sand and gravel seabeds widespread around the UK

East of Haig Fras rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 58

This page intentionally left blank

© Crown Copyright 2013