Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120 Report Number: 3 Version 10 March 2015

Project Title: Coordination of the Defra MCZ data collection programme Report No 3. Title: Farnes East 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) [email protected]

David Stephens Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Dr Markus Diesing Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Dr Sue Ware Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Matthew Curtis Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Acknowledgements We thank Dr Roger Coggan (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. Although the data provided in this report has been quality assured, the final products - e.g. habitat maps – may be subject to revision following any further data provision or once they have been used in SNCB advice or assessments. Cefas Document Control

Title: Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group Date submitted: March 2015 Project Manager: David Limpenny Report compiled by: Jackie Eggleton, David Stephens, Markus Diesing, Sue Ware, Matt Curtis Quality control by: Roger Coggan, Christopher Barrio Approved by & date: Keith Weston (02/03/2015) Version: V10

Version Control History Author Date Comment Version Jackie Eggleton et al. 20/08/2012 First draft V1 Jackie Eggleton et al. 03/09/2012 Edited draft following internal QA V2 Jackie Eggleton et al. 27/09/2012 Re-edited draft to include partner logos and V3 version control document Jackie Eggleton et al. 14/11/2012 Edited following Project Steering Group V4 review Jackie Eggleton et al. 11/01/2013 Final edits ready for sign-off V5 Jackie Eggleton et al. 28/02/2013 Edited following additional PSG comments V6 and peer review Jackie Eggleton et al. 26/03/2013 Cefas final QA V7 Christopher Barrio 01/04/2014 Revised following updated mud HOCI V8 definitions Jackie Eggleton et al. 10/12/2014 Updated habitat map and report text using V9 data collected on CEND0514 Jackie Eggleton et al. 27/02/2015 PSG comments addressed V10

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... iii List of Figures ...... iv 1 Executive Summary: Report Card ...... 1 1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation ...... 1 1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation ...... 2 1.3 Evidence of human activities 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 the updated map ...... 14 4 Results ...... 16 4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map ...... 16 4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ...... 16 4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ...... 19 4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ...... 19 4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ...... 20 4.6 Species FOCI identified ...... 21 4.7 Other features identified ...... 22 4.8 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...... 22 4.9 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ...... 23 4.10 Observations of human activities within the rMCZ ...... 23 5 Conclusions ...... 25 5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ...... 25 5.2 Presence and extent of FOCI habitats ...... 25 5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ...... 26 5.4 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ...... 26 References ...... 27

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report i Data sources ...... 30 Annexes ...... 31 Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG ...... 31 Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG...... 32 Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG...... 33 Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG...... 34 Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol ...... 35 Appendices ...... 37 Appendix 1...... 37 Appendix 2. Outputs from Acoustic Surveys ...... 44 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ...... 46 Appendix 4. Species List ...... 47 Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ...... 63 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ...... 67 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ...... 75 Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI ...... 77

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .... 5 Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation...... 5 Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation...... 5 Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry and backscatter (where specified)...... 11 Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ...... 20 Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in Farnes East rMCZ...... 20 Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ...... 21 Table 8. Details of human activities found in the bathymetry data...... 24

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Farnes East rMCZ in the context of other rMCZs in the area...... 4 Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites collected on CEND0412 and CEND0514 at the Farnes East rMCZ...... 8 Figure 3. Flow chart outlining the process of producing the broadscale habitat map...... 10 Figure 4. Results of the Conditional Inference analysis showing decision tree to map Rock and Stony habitats...... 13 Figure 5. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document...... 16 Figure 6. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data...... 18 Figure 7. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map...... 19 Figure 8. Habitat FOCI identified...... 21 Figure 9. Distribution of stations where the species FOCI Arctica islandica (Ocean Quahog) was recorded...... 22

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv 1 Executive Summary: Report Card This report details the findings of dedicated seabed surveys at the Farnes East 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 had been made on the basis of best available evidence, drawn largely from historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the area. The purpose of the surveys was to provide direct evidence of the presence and extent of the broadscale habitats (BSH) and habitat FOCI (Features of Conservation Importance) that had been detailed in the original Site Assessment Document (SAD) (Net Gain, 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. Surveys of the site were conducted by Cefas in March 2012 and March 2014. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI.

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation Extent Extent according to Accordance between according updated SAD and updated Feature to SAD habitat map habitat map Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 517.59 km2 0.47 km2*  -517.12 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 247.32 km2 191.33 km2  -55.99 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 177.59 km2 192.73 km2  +15.14 km2 A5.3 Subtidal mud 13.22 km2 120.79 km2  +107.57 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 3.31 km2 438.25 km2  +434.94 km2 Habitat FOCI Peat and Clay Exposures 4.05 km2 Not found  -4.05 km2 Species FOCI None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A *A4 Circalittoral rock

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1 1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation Extent Extent according Accordance between according to updated SAD and updated Feature to SAD habitat map habitat map Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent None identified N/A N/A N/A N/A Habitat FOCI Subtidal Sands and Gravels (modelled) N/A 384.06 km2 N/A +384.06 km2 Mud Habitats in Deep Water N/A 120.79 km2 N/A +120.79 km2 Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities N/A 9 records N/A 9 records Species FOCI Low/limited mobility species Arctica islandica (Ocean Quahog) None 25 records  N/A

1.3 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ Seven wrecks were noted in the multibeam echosounder (MBES) survey, all of which are shown on the UKHO Admiralty Chart. There is also evidence from the MBES backscatter image of the seabed that several areas within the site have been disturbed by towed demersal fishing gear.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 2 2 Introduction In accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the UK is committed to the development and implementation of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The network will incorporate existing designated sites (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) along with a number of newly designated sites which, within the English territorial waters and offshore waters of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be termed Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). In support of this initiative, four Regional MCZ Projects were set up to select sites that could contribute to the network because they contain one or more features specified in the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG; Natural England and the JNCC, 2010). The Regional MCZ Projects proposed a total of 127 recommended MCZs (rMCZs) and compiled a Site Assessment Document (SAD) for each site. The SAD summarised what evidence was available for the presence and extent of the various habitat, species and geological features specified in the ENG and for which the site was being recommended. 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, however, that the best available evidence on features for which some sites had been recommended as MCZs was of variable quality. Consequently, Defra initiated a number of measures aimed at improving the evidence base, one of which took the form of a dedicated survey programme, implemented and coordinated by Cefas, to collect and interpret new survey data at selected rMCZs. This report provides an interpretation of the survey data collected jointly by Cefas and the JNCC at the Farnes East rMCZ during March 2012 and March 2014, and updates the evidence base to support the site’s designation as a MCZ.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 3 2.1 Location of the rMCZ The Farnes East rMCZ is located approximately 11 km off the Berwickshire region of the Northumberland coast in northeast England (Figure 1). The site also includes a recommended Reference Area (Farnes Clay rRA) specifically to protect subtidal peat and clay exposures, a habitat FOCI identified by local stakeholder evidence (Lawrence, W., pers. comm.).

Figure 1. Location of the Farnes East 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 Farnes East 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 and habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI). For a detailed site description see section 7.15 in Net Gain Final recommendations: Submission to Natural England and JNCC (Net Gain, 2011).

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

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 4 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 517.59 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 247.32 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 177.59 km2 A5.3 Subtidal mud 13.22 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 3.31 km2

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation Annex 2 presents all the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. The habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ was included in the recommendations for designation of this site (Table 2).

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD Peat and Clay Exposures 4.05 km2

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). Full lists of these species FOCI are 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 Farnes East rMCZ was Low (JNCC and Natural England, 2012). This site was therefore prioritised for additional evidence collection.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 5 2.4 Survey aims and objectives Primary Objectives

 To collect acoustic and ground truth data to allow the production of an updated map which could 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) within the rMCZ.

 To report evidence of human activity within the rMCZ during the course of the survey. It should be emphasised that surveys were not designed primarily to address the secondary objectives under the current programme of work. Although the newly collected data will be utilised for the purposes of reporting against the primary objectives of the current programme of work (given above), it is recognised that the data will be valuable for informing the assessment and monitoring the condition of given habitat features in future.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 6 3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition The northeast part of the Farnes East rMCZ overlapped with an area of existing Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter data acquired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) under the Civil Hydrographic Programme (CHP) in 2005. Full coverage MBES bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired for most of the remainder of the site by EGS (International) Ltd during February/March 2012, using a Reson 7125 system on the MV Neptune. This survey was conducted in accordance with IHO Standard Order 1a, and MBES backscatter data were acquired following guidelines developed and provided by Cefas. Images derived from the acoustic data acquired within the Farnes East rMCZ are shown in Appendix 2. For further detail on acoustic data acquisition see ‘Defra MCZ R&D Data Collection program-Lot 26 Farnes East Survey Report’ (EGS Ltd., 2012).

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition An initial ground truth survey at the Farnes East rMCZ was carried out onboard RV Cefas Endeavour (cruise CEND 04/12) during March 2012. As the acoustic survey was being run concurrently on another vessel, its outputs were not available to inform the selection of ground truth stations. Instead, the 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 Site Assessment Document (SAD). Sampling stations were positioned within the sedimentary habitats using a triangular lattice grid overlaid on the predicted habitat map. The resolution of the lattice grid was varied depending on the predicted total area of each habitat, to ensure adequeate representation. Stations within the predicted habitat ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ were placed at a grid spacing of 4 km, and those within the predicted habitats ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ were placed at a grid spacing of 3.5 km. Stations on the small area of predicted habitat ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’ in the south of the rMCZ were placed manually, along with additional samples placed to target a potential area of the Peat and Clay Exposures habitat FOCI indicated in the SAD. Discrepancies between the broadscale habitat map used for survey planning (UK SeaMap 2010, v7) and the habitat map presented in the SAD prompted the selection of a few more stations to ensure adequate sampling of a predicted mud patch in the southeast of the rMCZ. An updated habitat map was created using these data, which identified a significantly smaller extent of the rock habitat A4.2 ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ than predicted in the SAD. Initial sampling also did not find any evidence of the predicted habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’. Therefore, further survey work was commissioned by Defra and carried out in March 2014 on-board RV Cefas Endeavour (cruise CEND 05/14) with the specific aim to collect additional evidence on the presence and extent of these two habitats. The full array of stations collected on CEND04/12 and CEND05/14 is illustrated in Figure 2.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 7

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites collected on CEND0412 and CEND0514 at the Farnes East 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 washed over a 1 mm mesh sieve to collect the benthic macrofauna. Retained material was preserved in buffered 4% formaldehyde for later processing ashore. On CEND04/12 video footage and still images of the seabed were collected with an underwater camera system mounted on a towed sledge. The camera sledge (CS) was deployed at a subset of stations sampled by the grab. The frequency of use of the CS was informed by the type of sediment obtained in the grab sample; where this was consistent with the predicted broadscale habitat (BSH), the CS was deployed at approximately every third station, where the grab sample was not consistent with the predicted BSH, the CS was used at every station. Acquired images helped to characterise the surficial sediments and associated epifaunal communities. On CEND05/14, a frame-mounted drop-camera (DC) system was used given the potential of encountering bedrock and stony reef. The DC frame was comprised of lighting, a stills camera with capability to capture video footage, a synchronised flash unit for the capture of high resolution still images, and an Ultra Short Base Line (USBL) beacon to geo reference the images collected

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 8 For both camera systems (DC and CS), the field of view was illuminated using a suite of high intensity LED strip-lights, and the camera’s underwater housing was fitted with a four-spot laser-scaling device to provide a reference scale in the video footage and digital still images. Set-up and operation followed the MESH ‘Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques’ and the Cefas operating procedure for seabed imagery acquisition. Video was recorded simultaneously to a Sony GV-HD700 DV tape recorder and a computer hard drive (in duplicate). A video overlay was used to provide station metadata, time and GPS position (of the vessel) in the recorded video footage. Camera tows lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the CS being towed at c. 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s-1) and the DC being towed at c. 0.3 knots (c. 0.2 ms-1) across a 100 m diameter ‘bullring’ centred on the target sampling station. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals on both systems 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). A total of 102 ground truth stations were visited in 2012 (Figure 2), and Hamon grabs were sucessfully acquired at 100, with the other two returning no valid sample after three attempts. CS tows were completed at 34 stations. In 2014, three Hamon grabs and 56 DC tows were collected. Station metadata are presented in Appendix 1. For further detail on ground truth sample collection see the Farnes East rMCZ Survey Report 2012 (Whomersley et al., 2012) and the Farnes East rMCZ Survey Report 2014 (McIlwaine, 2014).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map It was initially envisaged that existing acoustic data from the CHP covering the northeast of the rMCZ would be integrated with the newly acquired acoustic data collected by EGS, and both datasets analysed as a whole. However, this was not possible because the backscatter dataset from the CHP was incomplete and there were inconsistencies between the backscatter datasets from the two surveys. Consequently, the analysis was carried out separately for the two datasets. The CHP dataset had a coarser resolution (20 m grid size) and was augmented with data from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) produced for Defra (Astrium, 2011). The EGS dataset had a higher resolution (4 m grid size) and covered the largest part of the rMCZ. The analysis carried out on each dataset was largely the same, with only minor changes in data preparation and the calculated derivatives. The final outputs were integrated into a single broadscale habitat map. All new maps and their derivatives are based on a WGS84 datum. A new habitat map for the site was produced by analysing and interpreting the available acoustic data (as detailed above) and the ground truth data collected by the dedicated surveys of this site. The process is a combination of two approaches, statistical modelling and image analysis, and is described below. To predict sediment type across the study area, a modelling approach referred to as regression-kriging was used (Hengl et al., 2007). This consists of (i) a regression model aiming to predict a target variable (sediment composition in this case) based

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 9 on exhaustively sampled auxiliary variables (in this case the acoustic data), and (ii) a geostatistical interpolation of the target variables exploiting spatial autocorrelation known as kriging (Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989). Similar techniques have been used before in predicting sediment parameters (Verfaillie et al., 2009; Li et al., 2011a). Li et al. (2011b) showed that using the Random Forest1 algorithm (Breiman, 2001) for the regression component, combined with kriging of the residuals outperformed a range of other techniques for predicting seabed sediment composition. The technique used here is similar; using the Random Forest algorithm to predict sediment type from acoustic data along with a kriging interpolation of the model residuals. The analysis was carried out in the statistical programming environment R (R Development Core Team, 2012). For mapping circalittoral rock, an object-based image analysis (OBIA; Blaschke, 2010) was implemented in the software package eCognition v9.0.2. Figure 3 shows the process used in creating the broadscale habitat map. Each stage in the process is numbered and described in detail below.

Figure 3. Flow chart outlining the process of producing the broadscale habitat map.

Stage 0. Data Preparation Prior to analysis, the bathymetry and backscatter data layers collected by EGS were resampled onto a common grid at 4 m resolution. A 2D Fourier filter was applied to the backscatter data to reduce ‘stripe noise’ along the vessel track (Wilken et al., 2012). Bathymetry and backscatter grids were also low-pass filtered to reduce

1 ‘Random Forest’ is a trademark of Leo Breiman and Adele Cutler. It is an ensemble machine learning technique that ‘learns’ by constructing many decision trees using random samples of the training data (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_forest). [Accessed 01/04/2014]).

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 10 noise. This data preparation results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 4 m x 4 m grid cell, and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process. Bathymetric data from the CHP survey and the Defra DEM were combined to a gridded data layer of 20 m resolution.

Stage 1. Derivatives calculated From the two primary acoustic datasets, bathymetry and backscatter, a range of derivatives was calculated, as detailed in Table 4.

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) For 4 m grid; radii of 3, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100 cells For 20 m grid; radii of 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 cells Aspect Expressed as eastness and northness (Wilson et al., 2007) *calculated for backscatter as well as bathymetry

Stage 2. Rock segmentation OBIA is a two-step process consisting of segmentation and classification. The segmentation divides the image into meaningful objects, based on their spectral and spatial characteristics. The resulting objects can be characterised by their various features, such as layer values (mean, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.), texture, and many others. The subsequent classification (Stage 3) of the objects is based on combinations of these features. The input layers used were the primary acoustic data layers (bathymetry and backscatter strength) and their derivatives mentioned above (Table 4). Segmentation was carried out using the multiresolution segmentation algorithm in eCognition. This is an optimisation procedure that starts with an individual pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels to form an object. The process continues until a threshold value for a scale parameter is reached, the threshold being determined by the operator following a series of test runs. The goal of the segmentation is to create meaningful objects in the map image. The size of the objects is influenced by the scale parameter mentioned above and the heterogeneity of the image. For a fixed value of the scale parameter, a homogeneous area of seabed will have larger objects than a heterogeneous area. Likewise for fixed seabed heterogeneity, larger values of the scale parameter produce larger objects than smaller values. Following test runs using a range of values for the scale parameter, a value of 2 was selected for use with the 4 m grid. No attempts were made to map rock in areas exclusively covered with the 20 m grid as ground truth data did not indicate any rock habitats.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 11 The object heterogeneity, to which the scale parameter refers, is defined by the composition of the homogeneity criterion. This criterion defines the relative importance of colour (the main information from an image) versus shape of objects. If a high weighting is given to colour, the object boundaries will be determined predominantly by variations in colour of the image (e.g., backscatter strength). The shape criterion is influenced by values representing smoothness and compactness, both of which can be weighted. A high value for smoothness results in smoother boundaries of the objects, whereas a high value for compactness increases the overall compactness of image objects. Values of 0.9 for colour, 0.1 for shape, 0.9 for smoothness and 0.1 for compactness were applied.

Stage 3. Classification of rock/hard substrate For each image object that coincided with a location of a still image, mean values of the primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives were calculated (e.g. the mean backscatter value for the grid cells lying within the object) and exported. The distribution of the extracted values was analysed to find the variables that best distinguished rock habitat from sediment habitat. Conditional Inference analysis (Hothorn et al., 2006) was used to identify the acoustic variables that most successfully differentiated between the observed broadscale habitats in the ground truthing datasets, and to establish the best cut-off values for those variables for classification of OBIA objects. The ground truth data used in the analysis consisted of 711 video stills. Rock habitats observed in ground truth data were limited to ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. It was noticed, however, that the rock habitats included bedrock exposures as well as those habitats represented by stable cobbles and boulders. Therefore, training samples were split into the classes Rock, Stony and Sediment. The resulting decision tree of the Conditional Inference analysis is shown in Figure 4. At the first node of the tree, Rock habitats are split from all other habitats based on the object mean BPI50 with values larger than 7.342 (terminal node 15). At the two subsequent nodes Stony habitats are differentiated based on object mean slope and bathymetry (terminal nodes 13 and 14). All the remaining splits result in Sediment habitats (terminal nodes 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12). Rock and Stony classes were subsequently merged to represent ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 12

Figure 4. Results of the Conditional Inference analysis showing decision tree to map Rock and Stony habitats.

Stage 4. Sediment segmentation Previously existing image objects in areas classed by Conditional Inference analysis as Sediment were removed and a second multiresolution segmentation specifically tailored towards mapping sediment habitats was carried out. Following test runs using a range of values for the scale parameter, a value of 50 was selected for use with the 4 m grid and a scale parameter of 10 was selected for the 20 m grid. For the 4 m grid, segmentation was carried out at pixel level on backscatter strength and a BPI with a neighbourhood radius of 25 (equalling 100 m). For the 20 m grid, the segmentation was carried out at pixel level on bathymetry and a BPI with a neighbourhood radius of 5 (equalling 100 m). Values of 0.9 for colour, 0.1 for shape, 0.5 for smoothness and 0.5 for compactness were applied.

Stage 5. Extraction of object features For those image objects that were not classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ in Stage 3, mean values of the primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives were calculated. These object-feature mean values were exported as a GIS shapefile for further use in the final sediment predictions (Stage 9).

Stage 6. Values extracted for ground truth sample locations At the location of each ground truth sample the values of the acoustic data and associated derivatives were extracted to provide a training dataset for the Random Forest regression model.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 13 Stage 7. Random Forest model trained to predict sediment type The Random Forest algorithm was trained to predict substrate composition from the acoustic data. The sediment data are compositional (percentage mud, sand and gravel), meaning that each of the three fractions depends on the other two and their sum must equal 1 (or 100%). For this reason it is preferable to transform the data into log-ratios for analysis (Aitchison, 2003). The analysis was carried out using the randomforest package (Liaw and Wiener, 2002) in R.

Stage 8. Geostatistical analysis of model residuals To improve the prediction accuracy, the residuals from the Random Forest model (i.e. the unexplained variability) were interpolated using a geostatistical technique called kriging. This employs a weighted combination of local observations to predict the value at a nearby unobserved location. The weightings used are determined mathematically by fitting what is known as a variogram model to the spatial dependency of the data (Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989). Variogram modelling and kriging were carried out using the gstat package (Pebesma, 2004) in R.

Stage 9. Final sediment predictions Predictions of sediment composition were produced for the objects created by image segmentation in eCognition (Stage 7). The trained Random Forest model was used to predict sediment composition for each object, which was combined with the interpolated estimate of model residuals. The predicted sediment composition (% mud, sand and gravel) was used to assign each object to one of the four sediment classes defined by Long (2006), namely coarse sediment, sand, mud and mixed sediment, which are used in the classification of broadscale habitats. The way that the Random Forest algorithm is constructed means that a cross- validated error estimate is produced, providing a reliable estimate of the true predictive accuracy of the model (Liaw and Wiener, 2002). It is also possible to produce an error estimate of the kriging estimates using a ‘leave-one-out’ cross validation. This is not strictly an independent validation because all samples were used in the specification of the variogram model; however, it does give a useful indication of the predictive capabilities of the model. From these validation estimates, the percentage agreement (i.e. proportion of samples assigned to the correct sediment class) were calculated. The broadscale habitat map was finally derived by combining the outputs of OBIA (Stage 3) and regression kriging (Stage 9).

3.4 Quality of the updated map The technical quality of the updated habitat map was assessed using the MESH ‘Confidence Assessment’ Tool2, originally developed by an international consortium of marine scientists working on the MESH (Mapping European Seabed Habitats) project. This tool considers the provenance of the data used to make a biotope/habitat map, including the techniques and technology used to characterise the physical and biological environment and the expertise of the people who made the map. In its original implementation it was used to make an auditable judgement

2 http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 01/04/2014]

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 14 of the confidence that could be placed in a range of existing, local biotope maps that had been developed using different techniques and data inputs, but were to be used in compiling a full coverage map for 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 score 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 was altered; that is, the tool was applied in its standard form, as downloaded from the internet.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 15 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, and anecdotal information acquired through stakeholder consultation. The predicted extent of the main broadscale habitats shown in the SAD habitat map are reproduced in Figure 5. Note that the extent of the BSH ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and the ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ habitat FOCI represented here have been redrawn from the SAD report, because the original GIS data layers were not available. For further detail see the original SAD; Section 7.15 in the Net Gain Final Recommendations Report (Net Gain, 2011).

Figure 5. 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 Defra DEM, CHP and EGS acoustic data, and the 2012 and 2014 dedicated ground truth survey data, is presented in Figure 6. It shows far less rock and far more mixed sediment than depicted in the SAD map, and better defines the areas of coarse sediment, sand and mud. A formal, external test of model accuracy was not carried out. However, an internal test of the accuracy of the classified sediment predictions, using PSA training data, gave an overall agreement of 82%. Moreover, a cross-validated estimate of model

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 16 accuracy was performed for the combined sediment predictions. This gave an overall agreement of 67% for the area covered by EGS data and 52% for the northern section covered by CHP and Defra DEM data. The lower value for the latter can be explained by the absence of MBES backscatter data. For the predicted presence or absence of ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ an internal accuracy of 89% was achieved, based on the stills data utilised in the Conditional Inference analysis. The list of benthic macrofaunal species found in the grab samples and identified from videos and still images is presented in Appendix 4. In all, 545 taxa were recorded from grabs, and 128 taxa identified in the video and still images, including the large, long-lived bivalve Arctica islandica and two species of sea-pen, Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea. These are noteworthy, because A. islandica is one of the species FOCI listed in the ENG, and the sea-pens can be indicative of the habitat FOCI ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’. A summary of the PSA of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 103 stations where samples were obtained, coarse sediment was recorded at 15, sand at 22, mud at 17, and mixed sediment at 49. The analysis of the seabed video and stills material is summarised in Appendix 6. Example images taken during the survey of the BSHs and habitat FOCI recorded in the video analysis are given in Appendix 7 and 8, respectively.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 17

Figure 6. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data.

Farnes East 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 7. The main area covered by the newly acquired EGS data is given a score of 82 out of a possible 88 for a purely physical habitat map. The confidence score is lowest (69) where only Defra DEM data were available, in the extreme northwestern corner of the rMCZ. The differences in confidence reflect the differences in the underlying acoustic datasets used for interpretation. However, note that the difference in score for the EGS dataset (82) and CHP dataset (80) is caused by the vintage of the latter (5-10 years old). The confidence assessment does not take account of whether or not MBES backscatter data were utilised in the analysis or the spatial resolution selected for the analysis.

Figure 7. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map.

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified The spatial extent of the BSH classes shown in the updated habitat map are given in Table 5. The BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ is the most extensive, covering approximately 46% of the area of the rMCZ. The BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ both cover roughly 20%, and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ covers 13% of the total area. In contrast to the SAD map, the extent of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ is more restricted, accounting for just 0.05% of the rMCZ area.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 19 Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. Broadscale Habitat Type Spatial extent Spatial extent according to (EUNIS Level 3) according to the SAD the updated habitat map A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 517.59 km2 0.47 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 247.32 km2 191.33 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 177.59 km2 192.73 km2 A5.3 Subtidal mud 13.22 km2 120.79 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 3.31 km2 438.25 km2

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified Three habitat FOCI have been identified at Farnes East rMCZ: ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’; ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’; and ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’. The latter habitat FOCI was only identifiable from photographs and video footage of the seabed, as the criteria used for its definition (i.e., the presence of burrows in stable mud) cannot be detected on remotely acquired acoustic data or from grab samples, therefore, only point records of this habitat FOCI are provided where it was observed. The spatial extent and distribution of the other two habitat FOCI is presented in Table 6 and Figure 8. The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ (a combination of BSHs A5.1 and A5.2) covers approximately 40% of the area of the rMCZ, predominantly around the northern half and the eastern half of the rMCZ. The habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ (equivalent to BSH A5.3) covers approximately 13% of the area, most of which is in the deeper, south-eastern extent of the rMCZ. The ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ habitat FOCI was observed at three video sampling stations (each consisting of three stills) clustered on a patch of subtidal mud in the southeast of the rMCZ (the northern edge of Farnes Deep). It is possible that this whole patch, presently designated as the habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’, provides a suitable habitat for ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’. Further camera sampling would be necessary to confirm this. The habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’, was listed in the SAD, but its presence was not verified by the 2012 or 2014 dedicated surveys. Nevertheless, this should not be interpreted as proof of absence; establishing the presence and extent of such patchy, localised features requires a more targeted survey design.

Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in Farnes East rMCZ. Spatial extent according Spatial extent to the updated habitat Habitat FOCI according to the SAD map Subtidal Sands and Gravels (modelled) N/A 384.06 km2 Mud Habitats in Deep Water N/A 120.79 km2 Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities N/A 9 records

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 20

Figure 8. Habitat FOCI identified.

4.6 Species FOCI identified The species FOCI Arctica islandica (Ocean Quahog) was recorded at this site; it was not mentioned among the SAD recommendations for designating the site as an MCZ (Table 7). Twenty-five specimens of A. islandica (mostly juveniles) were recorded across 18 stations, mostly in the east and southwest of the site, as shown in Figure 9. Twenty one of the specimens were recorded as juveniles. No other species FOCI were found. The list of all taxa identified from grab and video samples collected is presented in Appendix 4.

Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Previously recorded Identified during evidence Species FOCI within rMCZ gathering survey Low or Limited Mobility Species FOCI Arctica islandica (Ocean Quahog) None recorded 25 records Highly Mobile Species FOCI None recorded None recorded None recorded

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 21

Figure 9. Distribution of stations where the species FOCI Arctica islandica (Ocean Quahog) was recorded.

4.7 Other features identified The presence of subglacial landforms is noted in the rMCZ, most likely megalineations, megaflutes, megadrumlins and drumlins. These can be seen in the acoustic data as north–northwest to south–southeast trending lineations (Appendix 2).

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

4.8.1 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 specialist Cefas 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.

4.8.2 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) of sediments PSA was carried out by Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd in 2012 and by Cefas in 2014 following standard laboratory practice, and the results were checked by specialist

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 22 Cefas staff following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011).

4.8.3 Infaunal samples from grabs Infaunal samples collected in 2012 were processed by Thomson Unicomarine; those collected in 2014 were processed by APEM Ltd. Both laboratories followed standard laboratory practices. Results checked by specialist Cefas staff following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.8.4 Video and still images and analysis Video and photographic stills were processed by Envision Mapping Ltd in 2012 and by OceanEcology in 2014 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).

4.9 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map The quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be High (MESH assessment tool). All dedicated surveys have provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence and extent of the mapped habitats. However, because it is impractical (and undesirable) to sample the entire area of the site with grabs and video, there is a chance that BSHs or FOCI may exist within the site but have not been recorded, especially if they are limited in extent. Peat and clay exposures have been recorded in the area previously (Net Gain, 2011), but the presence of this feature cannot be confirmed by the newly acquried data. The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale habitats depicted on the updated habitat map should be regarded as indicative, not definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt. Instead, it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a transitional boundary. In contrast, the mapped boundaries are abrupt and have been placed using best professional judgement supported by the rigorous predictive procedures detailed above in Section 3.3. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI. It is known that the broadscale habitats ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ have similar acoustic signatures (Diesing et al., 2014). As a consequence, it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish these two broadscale habitats in acoustic data. In this case, both were mapped separately. This was only possible by interpolating the residuals of the Random Forest model. In this way, it was possible to account for the spatial clustering of Subtidal coarse sediment and Subtidal mixed sediment as evident from the ground truth data.

4.10 Observations of human activities within the rMCZ Seven wrecks were identified in the MBES bathymetry data; all are shown on the UKHO Admiralty Chart (see Table 8). There is also evidence from the MBES

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 23 backscatter data that several areas within this site have been disturbed by towed demersal fishing gear (see Appendix 3).

Table 8. Details of human activities found in the bathymetry data. Obstruction Latitude Longitude Shoal depth Length Width Wreck 1 55.495038 -1.4153551 57.8 m 31.4 m 7.5 m Wreck 2 55.494746 -1.41291315 57.4 m 54.4 m 8.7 m Wreck 3 55.546803 -1.38989249 66.3 m 31.5 m 11.1 m Wreck 4 55.577652 -1.23371951 66.3 m 79.0 m 13.5 m Wreck 5 55.621608 -1.25952033 84.2 m 53.0 m 12.2 m Wreck 6 55.598482 -1.417822 54.7 m 45.9 m 11.2 m Wreck 7 55.551692 -1.32813441 70.0 m 30.0 m 7.0 m

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 24 5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence  The analysis of available data in conjunction with data acuqired during the 2012 and 2014 dedicated surveys confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. All were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.1.2 Extent  The spatial extent of the ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ BSH according to the SAD was 517.59 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this BSH is 0.47 km2, 517.12 km2 less than the spatial extent listed in the SAD.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ BSH according to the SAD was 247.32 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 191.33 km2, 55.99 km2 less than the spatial extent listed in the SAD.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH according to the SAD was 177.59 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 192.73 km2, 15.14 km2 greater than the spatial extent listed in the SAD.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ BSH according to the SAD was 13.22 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 120.79 km2, 107.57 km2 greater than the spatial extent listed in the SAD.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ BSH according to the SAD was 3.31 km2. According to the updated habitat map, the extent of this habitat is 438.25 km2, 434.94 km2 greater than the spatial extent listed in the SAD.

5.2 Presence and extent of FOCI habitats

5.2.1 Presence  The analysis of available data in conjunction with data acquired during the 2012 and 2014 dedicated surveys confirmed the presence of three habitat FOCI: ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’; ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’; and ‘Sea- Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’; none of which were included as part of the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 25  Although the ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ habitat FOCI was not observed during the 2012 and 2014 dedicated surveys, this should not be interpreted as proof of absence within the rMCZ. A more targeted, higher resolution survey may be required to establish the presence and extent of these often patchy and highly localised features.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution  The spatial extent of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI on the updated habitat map is 384.06 km2. This habitat FOCI was not proposed as part of the designations for this rMCZ.

 The spatial extent of the ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ habitat FOCI on the updated habitat map is 120.97 km2. This habitat FOCI was not proposed as part of the designations for this rMCZ.

 The ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ habitat FOCI was observed at nine video sampling locations in the south-eastern corner of the rMCZ. This habitat FOCI was not proposed as part of the designations for this rMCZ.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species  The mollusc Arctica islandica (Ocean Quahog) was recorded at 18 stations in the rMCZ area. The majority were identified as juveniles. A maximum of three specimens were present in any single grab sample collected as part of the survey.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI  No highly mobile species FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2012 and 2014 dedicated surveys. These observations are consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.4 Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ Human activity in the rMCZ area is evidenced by the presence of wrecks and by linear marks on the seabed consistent with the site having been disturbed by towed demersal fishing gear.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 26 References

Aitchison, J. (2003). A concise guide to Compositional Data Analysis. 134 pp. http://www.leg.ufpr.br/lib/exe/fetch.php/pessoais%253Aabtmartins%253Aa_conc ise_guide_to_compositional_data_analysis.pdf [Accessed 01/04/2014].

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.

Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning 45, 5-32.

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 01/04/2014]. Coggan, R. and Howell, K. (2005). Draft SOP for the collection and analysis of video and still images for ground truthing an acoustic basemap. Video survey SOP version 5, 10 pp. Diesing, M., Green, S. L., Stephens, D., Lark, R. M., Stewart, H. A. and Dove, D., (2014). Mapping seabed sediments: Comparison of manual, geostatistical, object-based image analysis and machine learning approaches. Continental Shelf Research 84, 107-119. EGS (International) Ltd. (2012). Defra rMCZ Data Collection Programme: Lot 26- Farnes East. Report of Survey, 55 pp.

Hengl, T., Heuvelink, G. and Rossiter, D. (2007). About regression-kriging: From equations to case studies. Computers & Geosciences 33, 1301-1315.

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

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

JNCC (in prep.). Video/Stills Camera Standard Operating Procedure for Survey and Analysis: for ground truthing and classifying an acoustic basemap, and development of new biotopes within the UK Marine Habitat Classification. JNCC Video and Stills Processing SOP v2. 6 pp. JNCC and Natural England (2012). Marine Conservation Zone Project: JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine Conservation Zones. Peterborough and Sheffield. 1455 pp.

Li, J., Heap, A., Potter, A., Huang, Z. and Daniell, J. (2011a). Can we improve the spatial predictions of seabed sediments? A case study of spatial interpolation of

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 27 mud content across the southwest Australian margin. Continental Shelf Research 31, 1365-1376.

Li, J., Heap, A., Potter, A., Daniell, J. (2011b). Application of machine learning methods to spatial interpolation of environmental variables. Environmental Modelling & Software 26, 1647-1659.

Liaw, A. and Wiener, M. (2002). Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18-22.

Long, D. (2006). BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified Folk classification. MESH project document. 7 pp. http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_se diment_classification.pdf [Accessed 01/04/2014] Lundblad, E. R., Wright, D. J., Miller, J., Larkin, E. M., Rinehart, R., Naar, D. F., Donahue, B. T., Anderson, S. M. and Battista, T. (2006). A Benthic Terrain Classification Scheme for American Samoa. Marine Geodesy 29, 89-111. Mason, C. (2011). NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2012). SNCB MCZ Advice Project-Assessing the scientific confidence in the presence and extent of features in recommended Marine Conservation Zones (Technical Protocol E) Net Gain (2011). Final Recommendations Submission to Natural England and JNCC, Version 1.1. 880 pp. Pebesma, E.J. (2004). Multivariable geostatistics in S: the gstat package. Computers Geosciences 30, 683-691. R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3- 900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org [Accessed 01/04/2014].

Verfaillie, E., Du Four, I., Van Meirvenne, M. and van Lancker, V. (2009). Geostatistical modeling of sedimentological parameters using multi‐scale terrain variables: application along the Belgian Part of the North Sea. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 23, 135-150.

Whomersley, P., Ware, S.J., Whybrow, M. and May, K. (2012). Farnes East rMCZ Survey Report. 39 pp.

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.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 28 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.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 29 Data sources

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

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 30 Annexes

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG Broadscale Habitat Type EUNIS Level 3 Code High energy intertidal rock A1.1 Moderate energy intertidal rock A1.2 Low energy intertidal rock A1.3 Intertidal coarse sediment A2.1 Intertidal sand and muddy sand A2.2 Intertidal mud A2.3 Intertidal mixed sediments A2.4 Coastal saltmarshes and saline reed beds A2.5 Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms A2.6 Intertidal biogenic reefs A2.7 High energy infralittoral rock* A3.1 Moderate energy infralittoral rock* A3.2 Low energy infralittoral rock* A3.3 High energy circalittoral rock** A4.1 Moderate energy circalittoral rock** A4.2 Low energy circalittoral rock** A4.3 Subtidal coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal sand A5.2 Subtidal mud A5.3 Subtidal mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment A5.5 Subtidal biogenic reef A5.6 Deep-sea bed*** A6 * Infralittoral rock includes habitats of bedrock, boulders and cobble which are found in the shallow subtidal zone and typically support seaweed communities ** Circalittoral rock is characterised by animal dominated communities, rather than seaweed- dominated communities *** The deep seabed broadscale habitat encompasses several different habitat sub-types, all of which should be protected within the MPA network. The broadscale habitat deep seabed habitat is found only in the 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.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 31 Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)** Cold-Water Coral Reefs *** Coral Gardens*** Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations*** Estuarine Rocky Habitats File Shell Beds*** Fragile Sponge and Anthozoan Communities on Subtidal Rocky Habitats Intertidal Underboulder Communities Littoral Chalk Communities Maerl Beds Horse Mussel (Modiolus modiolus) Beds Mud Habitats in Deep Water Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Beds Peat and Clay Exposures Honeycomb Worm (Sabellaria alveolata) Reefs Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs Seagrass Beds Sheltered Muddy Gravels Subtidal Chalk Subtidal Sands and Gravels Tide-Swept Channels * Habitat FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’ and the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’. ** Only includes ‘natural’ beds on a variety of sediment types. Excludes artificially created mussel beds and those 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.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 32 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 Burgundy Maerl Paint Weed Grateloupia montagnei Grateloup’s Little-Lobed Weed Lithothamnion corallioides Coral Maerl Phymatolithon calcareum Common Maerl Annelida Alkmaria romijni** Tentacled Lagoon-Worm** Armandia cirrhosa** Lagoon Sandworm** Teleostei Gobius cobitis Giant Goby Gobius couchi Couch’s Goby Hippocampus guttulatus Long Snouted Seahorse Hippocampus hippocampus Short Snouted Seahorse Bryozoa Victorella pavida Trembling Sea Mat Cnidaria Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-Fan Anemone Eunicella verrucosa Pink Sea-Fan Haliclystus auricula Stalked Jellyfish Leptosammia pruvoti Sunset Cup Coral Lucernariopsis campanulata Stalked Jellyfish Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Stalked Jellyfish Nematostella vectensis Starlet Sea Anemone Crustacea Gammarus insensibilis** Lagoon Sand Shrimp** Gitanopsis bispinosa Amphipod Shrimp Pollicipes pollicipes Gooseneck Barnacle Palinurus elephas Spiny Lobster Mollusca Arctica islandica Ocean Quahog Atrina pectinata Fan Mussel Caecum armoricum** Defolin’s Lagoon Snail** Ostrea edulis Native Oyster Paludinella littorina Sea Snail Tenellia adspersa** 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.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 33 Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. Group Scientific name Common Name Teleostei Osmerus eperlanus Smelt Anguilla anguilla 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.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 34 Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol The purpose of the analysis of the video/stills is to identify the habitats 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 should 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 subject to more detailed analysis. Brief changes in habitat type lasting less than one minute of the video record are considered as incidental patches and are not logged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 35 Taxon identification In all analyses, the identification of taxa should be limited to a level that can be confidently achieved from the available image. Hence, taxon identity could range from the ‘life form’ level (e.g. sponge, hydroid, anemone) to the species level (e.g. Asterias rubens, Alcyonium digitatum). Avoid the temptation to guess the species identity if it can not be determined positively from the image. For example, Spirobranchus sp. would be acceptable, but Spirobranchus triqueter would not, because the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 36 Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey Metadata (CEND 04/12) Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 09/03/2012 FE_S_22 235 HamCam 55.83823 -1.03271 10/03/2012 FE_S_21 236 HamCam 55.83413 -1.07994 10/03/2012 FE_S_20 237 HamCam 55.82989 -1.12712 10/03/2012 FE_C_23 238 HamCam 55.82577 -1.17442 10/03/2012 FE_C_22 239 HamCam 55.82145 -1.22167 10/03/2012 FE_C_27 241 HamCam 55.84248 -1.25225 10/03/2012 FE_C_27 242 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.84174 -1.25043 10/03/2012 FE_C_27 242 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.84210 -1.2519 10/03/2012 FE_C_21 243 HamCam 55.81735 -1.26916 10/03/2012 FE_C_26 244 HamCam 55.83828 -1.29937 10/03/2012 FE_C_20 245 HamCam 55.81321 -1.31613 10/03/2012 FE_C_20 246 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.81268 -1.31506 10/03/2012 FE_C_20 246 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.81327 -1.31674 10/03/2012 FE_C_25 247 HamCam 55.83418 -1.34665 10/03/2012 FE_C_18 248 HamCam 55.80901 -1.36360 10/03/2012 FE_C_24 249 HamCam 55.82994 -1.39407 10/03/2012 FE_R_39 250 HamCam 55.82135 -1.42476 10/03/2012 FE_R_39 251 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.82128 -1.42367 10/03/2012 FE_R_39 251 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.82123 -1.42586 10/03/2012 FE_C_16 252 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.80513 -1.40927 10/03/2012 FE_C_16 252 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.80467 -1.41120 10/03/2012 FE_C_16 253 HamCam 55.80482 -1.41142 10/03/2012 FE_C_10 254 HamCam 55.77967 -1.42839 10/03/2012 FE_C_08 255 HamCam 55.75439 -1.44538 16/03/2012 FE_R_38 256 HamCam 55.76610 -1.39971 10/03/2012 FE_R_38 257 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.76690 -1.39731 10/03/2012 FE_R_38 257 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.76628 -1.39899 10/03/2012 FE_C_11 258 HamCam 55.78385 -1.38067 10/03/2012 FE_C_09 259 HamCam 55.76283 -1.35031 10/03/2012 FE_C_13 260 HamCam 55.78791 -1.33330 10/03/2012 FE_R_37 261 HamCam 55.79224 -1.28593 10/03/2012 FE_R_37 262 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.79161 -1.28487 10/03/2012 FE_R_37 262 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.79218 -1.28645 10/03/2012 FE_C_14 263 HamCam 55.79620 -1.23916 10/03/2012 FE_C_15 264 HamCam 55.80037 -1.19169 10/03/2012 FE_C_17 265 HamCam 55.80489 -1.14372 10/03/2012 FE_C_19 266 HamCam 55.80874 -1.09661 10/03/2012 FE_S_19 267 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.81283 -1.04851 10/03/2012 FE_S_19 267 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.81310 -1.04988 10/03/2012 FE_S_19 268 HamCam 55.81325 -1.05015 10/03/2012 FE_C_12 269 HamCam 55.78817 -1.06661 10/03/2012 FE_S_18 270 HamCam 55.78403 -1.11429

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 37 Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 10/03/2012 FE_S_17 271 HamCam 55.77982 -1.16160 10/03/2012 FE_S_17 272 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.78050 -1.15856 10/03/2012 FE_S_17 272 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.78004 -1.16072 10/03/2012 FE_R_36 273 HamCam 55.76437 -1.24587 10/03/2012 FE_R_35 274 HamCam 55.75878 -1.30937 10/03/2012 FE_R_35 275 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.76017 -1.30876 10/03/2012 FE_R_35 275 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.75914 -1.30903 10/03/2012 FE_C_07 276 HamCam 55.73789 -1.36787 10/03/2012 FE_C_06 277 HamCam 55.73354 -1.41464 11/03/2012 FE_C_04 278 HamCam 55.70849 -1.43135 11/03/2012 FE_C_04 279 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.70943 -1.43179 11/03/2012 FE_C_04 279 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.70859 -1.43132 11/03/2012 FE_C_05 280 HamCam 55.71253 -1.38426 11/03/2012 FE_R_30 281 HamCam 55.71253 -1.38426 11/03/2012 FE_R_31 282 HamCam 55.73076 -1.26829 11/03/2012 FE_R_31 283 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.73082 -1.26675 11/03/2012 FE_R_31 283 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.73072 -1.26829 11/03/2012 FE_R_32 284 HamCam 55.73635 -1.20547 11/03/2012 FE_R_33 285 HamCam 55.74188 -1.14234 11/03/2012 FE_S_14 286 HamCam 55.75873 -1.13085 11/03/2012 FE_S_15 288 HamCam 55.76302 -1.08384 11/03/2012 FE_S_16 289 HamCam 55.76715 -1.03653 11/03/2012 FE_R_34 290 HamCam 55.7476 -1.07945 11/03/2012 FE_R_29 292 HamCam 55.71965 -1.03984 11/03/2012 FE_R_29 293 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.72045 -1.03896 11/03/2012 FE_R_29 293 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.71960 -1.03974 11/03/2012 FE_R_28 294 HamCam 55.71418 -1.10247 11/03/2012 FE_R_27 295 HamCam 55.70857 -1.16524 11/03/2012 FE_R_26 296 HamCam 55.70298 -1.22819 11/03/2012 FE_R_26 297 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.70335 -1.22733 11/03/2012 FE_R_26 297 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.70260 -1.22846 11/03/2012 FE_R_25 298 HamCam 55.69731 -1.29082 11/03/2012 FE_R_24 299 HamCam 55.69165 -1.35392 11/03/2012 FE_C_03 300 HamCam 55.68757 -1.40064 11/03/2012 FE_C_03 301 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.68691 -1.39832 11/03/2012 FE_C_03 301 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.68726 -1.39972 11/03/2012 FE_R_23 302 HamCam 55.68599 -1.41698 11/03/2012 FE_R_19 303 HamCam 55.65808 -1.37641 11/03/2012 FE_R_20 304 HamCam 55.66385 -1.31363 11/03/2012 FE_C_28 305 HamCam 55.67495 -1.29522 11/03/2012 FE_C_28 306 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.67404 -1.29355 11/03/2012 FE_C_28 306 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.67455 -1.29471 11/03/2012 FE_R_21 307 HamCam 55.66942 -1.25068 11/03/2012 FE_R_22 308 HamCam 55.67515 -1.18764 11/03/2012 FE_R_22 309 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.67467 -1.18661 11/03/2012 FE_R_22 309 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.67509 -1.18778 11/03/2012 FE_S_12 310 HamCam 55.68781 -1.13513

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 38 Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 11/03/2012 FE_S_13 311 HamCam 55.69181 -1.08785 11/03/2012 FE_S_10 312 HamCam 55.66684 -1.10500 11/03/2012 FE_S_11 313 HamCam 55.67100 -1.05791 11/03/2012 FE_S_08 314 HamCam 55.65018 -1.02784 11/03/2012 FE_S_07 315 HamCam 55.64571 -1.07533 11/03/2012 FE_S_06 316 HamCam 55.64159 -1.12252 11/03/2012 FE_R_18 317 HamCam 55.64722 -1.14766 11/03/2012 FE_S_09 318 HamCam 55.66241 -1.15241 12/03/2012 FE_R_17 319 HamCam 55.64143 -1.21078 12/03/2012 FE_R_16 320 HamCam 55.63606 -1.27352 12/03/2012 FE_R_15 321 HamCam 55.63047 -1.33616 12/03/2012 FE_C_30 322 HamCam 55.63336 -1.40296 12/03/2012 FE_C_02 323 HamCam 55.59114 -1.42156 12/03/2012 FE_C_29 324 HamCam 55.59278 -1.34888 12/03/2012 FE_R_12 325 HamCam 55.60243 -1.29583 12/03/2012 FE_R_13 326 HamCam 55.60804 -1.23316 12/03/2012 FE_R_14 327 HamCam 55.61370 -1.17027 12/03/2012 FE_R_40 328 HamCam 55.60268 -1.15871 12/03/2012 FE_S_04 329 HamCam 55.62055 -1.09199 12/03/2012 FE_S_05 330 HamCam 55.62472 -1.04488 12/03/2012 FE_S_02 331 HamCam 55.59974 -1.06211 12/03/2012 FE_S_03 332 HamCam 55.60379 -1.01470 12/03/2012 FE_S_25 333 HamCam 55.57938 -1.01831 12/03/2012 FE_S_24 334 HamCam 55.57982 -1.07489 12/03/2012 FE_S_01 335 HamCam 55.59560 -1.10889 12/03/2012 FE_S_23 336 HamCam 55.58011 -1.13438 12/03/2012 FE_S_23 337 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.57898 -1.13364 12/03/2012 FE_S_23 337 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.58001 -1.13453 12/03/2012 FE_R_11 338 HamCam 55.58010 -1.19303 12/03/2012 FE_R_10 339 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.57597 -1.25632 12/03/2012 FE_R_10 339 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.57512 -1.25510 12/03/2012 FE_R_10 340 HamCam 55.57439 -1.25576 12/03/2012 FE_R_09 341 HamCam 55.56888 -1.31854 12/03/2012 FE_R_09 342 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.56997 -1.31876 12/03/2012 FE_R_09 342 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.56923 -1.31848 12/03/2012 FE_R_08 343 HamCam 55.56329 -1.38113 12/03/2012 FE_R_05 344 HamCam 55.52989 -1.40352 12/03/2012 FE_R_05 345 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.53047 -1.40355 12/03/2012 FE_R_05 345 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.52944 -1.40314 12/03/2012 FE_R_06 346 HamCam 55.53550 -1.34088 12/03/2012 FE_R_07 347 HamCam 55.54106 -1.27835 12/03/2012 FE_R_07 348 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.54056 -1.27807 12/03/2012 FE_R_04 349 HamCam 55.51294 -1.23807 12/03/2012 FE_R_07 348 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.51294 -1.23807 12/03/2012 FE_R_04 350 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.51246 -1.23718 12/03/2012 FE_R_04 350 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.51332 -1.23834 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_05 351 HamCam 55.50764 -1.2345

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 39 Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_02 352 HamCam 55.50138 -1.23875 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_02 353 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.50084 -1.23845 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_02 353 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.50164 -1.23900 12/03/2012 FE_R_02 354 HamCam 55.47977 -1.26068 12/03/2012 FE_R_01 355 HamCam 55.47427 -1.32342 12/02/2012 FE_R_01 356 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.47309 -1.32236 12/02/2012 FE_R_01 356 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.47368 -1.32291 12/03/2012 FE_R_03 357 HamCam 55.50760 -1.30077 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_01 358 HamCam 55.49833 -1.34050 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_01 359 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.49983 -1.34059 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_01 359 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.49901 -1.34046 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_03 360 HamCam 55.50336 -1.34812 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_04 361 HamCam 55.50439 -1.33582 12/03/2012 FE_Mx_06 362 HamCam 55.50966 -1.34383 13/03/2012 FE_Mx_07 364 HamCam 55.51496 -1.35127 13/03/2012 FE_C_01 365 HamCam 55.49923 -1.3948 13/03/2012 FE_C_01 366 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.50007 -1.39473 13/03/2012 FE_C_01 366 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.49924 -1.39456 13/03/2012 FE_C_02 367 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.59167 -1.42161 13/03/2012 FE_C_02 367 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.59089 -1.42103 13/03/2012 FE_R_12 368 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.60259 -1.29680 13/03/2012 FE_R_12 368 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.60220 -1.29541 13/03/2012 FE_R_16 369 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.63495 -1.27302 13/03/2012 FE_R_16 369 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.63573 -1.27354 13/03/2012 FE_R_14 370 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.61273 -1.16914 13/03/2012 FE_R_14 370 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.60223 -1.15832 13/03/2012 FE_R_40 371 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.60226 -1.15838 13/03/2012 FE_R_40 371 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.60292 -1.15921 13/03/2012 FE_S_02 372 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.59846 -1.06054 13/03/2012 FE_S_02 372 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.59921 -1.06137 13/03/2012 FE_S_25 373 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.57841 -1.01693 13/03/2012 FE_S_25 373 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.57909 -1.01802 13/03/2012 FE_S_07 374 (SOL) Camera Sledge 55.64522 -1.07455 13/03/2012 FE_S_07 374 (EOL) Camera Sledge 55.64586 -1.07564 Key: EOL: End of line SOL: Start of line

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 40 Survey Metadata (CEND 05/14)

Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 14/03/2014 A06 1 (SOL) Drop camera 55.61648 -1.02413 14/03/2014 A06 1 (EOL) Drop camera 55.61534 -1.02414 14/03/2014 A05 2 (SOL) Drop camera 55.64119 -1.05386 14/03/2014 A05 2 (EOL) Drop camera 55.64033 -1.05281 14/03/2014 A23 3 (SOL) Drop camera 55.62911 -1.05922 14/03/2014 A23 3 (EOL) Drop camera 55.62780 -1.05919 14/03/2014 A07 4 (SOL) Drop camera 55.60989 -1.06568 14/03/2014 A07 4 (EOL) Drop camera 55.60908 -1.06705 14/03/2014 A08 5 (SOL) Drop camera 55.61996 -1.07440 14/03/2014 A08 5 (EOL) Drop camera 55.62085 -1.07449 14/03/2014 A04 6 (SOL) Drop camera 55.64471 -1.08620 14/03/2014 A04 6 (EOL) Drop camera 55.64470 -1.08475 14/03/2014 A03 7 (SOL) Drop camera 55.63141 -1.11604 14/03/2014 A03 7 (EOL) Drop camera 55.63141 -1.11464 14/03/2014 A09 8 (SOL) Drop camera 55.62032 -1.09162 14/03/2014 A09 8 (EOL) Drop camera 55.61969 -1.09054 14/03/2014 A02 9 (SOL) Drop camera 55.62624 -1.14494 14/03/2014 A02 9 (EOL) Drop camera 55.62555 -1.14627 14/03/2014 A01 10 (SOL) Drop camera 55.62064 -1.15488 14/03/2014 A01 10 (EOL) Drop camera 55.62000 -1.15600 14/03/2014 A29 11 (SOL) Drop camera 55.60498 -1.16591 14/03/2014 A29 11 (EOL) Drop camera 55.60440 -1.16698 14/03/2014 A25 12 (SOL) Drop camera 55.60402 -1.17267 14/03/2014 A25 12 (EOL) Drop camera 55.60421 -1.17419 14/03/2014 A26 13 (SOL) Drop camera 55.60276 -1.16790 14/03/2014 A26 13 (EOL) Drop camera 55.60235 -1.16595 15/03/2014 A10 14 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59977 -1.16160 15/03/2014 A10 14 (EOL) Drop camera 55.59976 -1.16301 15/03/2014 A30 15 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59343 -1.17317 15/03/2014 A30 15 (EOL) Drop camera 55.59410 -1.17434 15/03/2014 A27 16 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59803 -1.17229 15/03/2014 A27 16 (EOL) Drop camera 55.59805 -1.17405 15/03/2014 A11 17 (SOL) Drop camera 55.60040 -1.18181 15/03/2014 A11 17 (EOL) Drop camera 55.60108 -1.18284 15/03/2014 A22 18 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59208 -1.18062 15/03/2014 A22 18 (EOL) Drop camera 55.59143 -1.18141 15/03/2014 A28 19 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59198 -1.19446 15/03/2014 A28 19 (EOL) Drop camera 55.59140 -1.19565 15/03/2014 A20 20 (SOL) Drop camera 55.58745 -1.19312 15/03/2014 A20 20 (EOL) Drop camera 55.58799 -1.19453 15/03/2014 A19 21 (SOL) Drop camera 55.57326 -1.21694

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 41 Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 15/03/2014 A19 21 (EOL) Drop camera 55.57325 -1.21853 15/03/2014 A21 22 (SOL) Drop camera 55.58118 -1.22652 15/03/2014 A21 22 (EOL) Drop camera 55.58117 -1.22807 15/03/2014 A13 23 (SOL) Drop camera 55.58671 -1.24027 15/03/2014 A13 23 (EOL) Drop camera 55.58759 -1.24028 15/03/2014 A24 24 (SOL) Drop camera 55.57399 -1.24827 15/03/2014 A24 24 (EOL) Drop camera 55.57496 -1.24827 15/03/2014 A14 25 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59149 -1.25662 15/03/2014 A14 25 (EOL) Drop camera 55.59208 -1.25794 15/03/2014 A18 26 (SOL) Drop camera 55.58586 -1.26464 15/03/2014 A18 26 (EOL) Drop camera 55.58583 -1.26622 15/03/2014 A17 27 (SOL) Drop camera 55.57274 -1.27365 15/03/2014 A17 27 (EOL) Drop camera 55.57268 -1.27210 15/03/2014 A16 28 (SOL) Drop camera 55.59071 -1.31200 15/03/2014 A16 28 (EOL) Drop camera 55.58997 -1.31111 15/03/2014 A15 29 (SOL) Drop camera 55.57625 -1.36646 15/03/2014 A15 29 (EOL) Drop camera 55.57573 -1.36811 15/03/2014 A27 30 Hamon grab 55.59799 -1.17368 15/03/2014 A26 31 Hamon grab 55.60259 -1.16715 15/03/2014 A25 32 Hamon grab 55.60417 -1.17409 15/03/2014 B15 33 (SOL) Drop camera 55.69564 -1.09739 15/03/2014 B15 33 (EOL) Drop camera 55.69561 -1.09892 15/03/2014 B09 34 (SOL) Drop camera 55.70862 -1.10151 15/03/2014 B09 34 (EOL) Drop camera 55.70864 -1.10365 15/03/2014 B11 35 (SOL) Drop camera 55.73612 -1.26359 15/03/2014 B11 35 (EOL) Drop camera 55.73636 -1.26499 15/03/2014 B10 36 (SOL) Drop camera 55.75430 -1.30056 15/03/2014 B10 36 (EOL) Drop camera 55.75433 -1.30207 15/03/2014 B12 37 (SOL) Drop camera 55.74760 -1.31707 15/03/2014 B12 37 (EOL) Drop camera 55.74727 -1.31848 15/03/2014 B07 38 (SOL) Drop camera 55.74612 -1.33379 15/03/2014 B07 38 (EOL) Drop camera 55.74557 -1.33489 15/03/2014 B06 39 (SOL) Drop camera 55.75675 -1.32555 15/03/2014 B06 39 (EOL) Drop camera 55.75585 -1.32602 15/03/2014 B05 40 (SOL) Drop camera 55.76387 -1.31329 15/03/2014 B05 40 (EOL) Drop camera 55.76307 -1.31399 15/03/2014 B04 41 (SOL) Drop camera 55.76853 -1.32919 15/03/2014 B04 41 (EOL) Drop camera 55.76770 -1.33006 15/03/2014 B13 42 (SOL) Drop camera 55.76611 -1.34637 15/03/2014 B13 42 (EOL) Drop camera 55.76608 -1.34785 15/03/2014 B03 43 (SOL) Drop camera 55.76751 -1.36029 15/03/2014 B03 43 (EOL) Drop camera 55.76752 -1.36180 15/03/2014 B14 44 (SOL) Drop camera 55.76373 -1.37257

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 42 Station Date Code Station No Gear Latitude Longitude 15/03/2014 B14 44 (EOL) Drop camera 55.76381 -1.37408 16/03/2014 B01 45 (SOL) Drop camera 55.77391 -1.38705 16/03/2014 B01 45 (EOL) Drop camera 55.77389 -1.38862 16/03/2014 B08 46 (SOL) Drop camera 55.77165 -1.36913 16/03/2014 B08 46 (EOL) Drop camera 55.77208 -1.37058 16/03/2014 B02 47 (SOL) Drop camera 55.77983 -1.35815 16/03/2014 B02 47 (EOL) Drop camera 55.78058 -1.35909 16/03/2014 C01 48 (SOL) Drop camera 55.83271 -1.14113 16/03/2014 C01 48 (EOL) Drop camera 55.83272 -1.14279 16/03/2014 C12 49 (SOL) Drop camera 55.83884 -1.12329 16/03/2014 C12 49 (EOL) Drop camera 55.83879 -1.12476 16/03/2014 C15 50 (SOL) Drop camera 55.82824 -1.11923 16/03/2014 C15 50 (EOL) Drop camera 55.82888 -1.11828 16/03/2014 C02 51 (SOL) Drop camera 55.82177 -1.12678 16/03/2014 C02 51 (EOL) Drop camera 55.82203 -1.12840 16/03/2014 C11 52 (SOL) Drop camera 55.82339 -1.10854 16/03/2014 C11 52 (EOL) Drop camera 55.82277 -1.10755 16/03/2014 C09 53 (SOL) Drop camera 55.80254 -1.08712 16/03/2014 C09 53 (EOL) Drop camera 55.80193 -1.08827 16/03/2014 C14 54 (SOL) Drop camera 55.79500 -1.08713 16/03/2014 C14 54 (EOL) Drop camera 55.79385 -1.08673 16/03/2014 C08 55 (SOL) Drop camera 55.78799 -1.07690 16/03/2014 C08 55 (EOL) Drop camera 55.78862 -1.07597 16/03/2014 C07 56 (SOL) Drop camera 55.78281 -1.05898 16/03/2014 C07 56 (EOL) Drop camera 55.78366 -1.05908 16/03/2014 C04 57 (SOL) Drop camera 55.77630 -1.05710 16/03/2014 C04 57 (EOL) Drop camera 55.77712 -1.05714 16/03/2014 C06 58 (SOL) Drop camera 55.77309 -1.02912 16/03/2014 C06 58 (EOL) Drop camera 55.77305 -1.03068 16/03/2014 C05 59 (SOL) Drop camera 55.76556 -1.02931 16/03/2014 C05 59 (EOL) Drop camera 55.76625 -1.02849 Key: EOL: End of line SOL: Start of line

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 43 Appendix 2. Outputs from Acoustic Surveys

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 44 Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 45 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 46 Appendix 4. Species List Species list for grab samples (2012 and 2014) (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present) ranked by percentage occurrence for each major taxon group, calculated as the ‘number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples’ x 100.

Taxa % Occurrence FORAMINIFERA Astrorhiza 7 Astrorhizidae (Type C) 3 CILIOPHORA Lagotia viridis 5 SPONGES PORIFERA 23 Clathrina 1 HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Edwardsia claparedii 58 Cerianthus lloydii 42 Sertularia 22 Campanulariidae 11 Hydrallmania falcata 9 HYDROZOA 7 Halopteris catharina 7 Diphasia 6 Thuiaria thuja 6 Hydractiniidae 6 Alcyonium digitatum 6 Pennatula phosphorea 6 Sertularella 5 Lafoea dumosa 4 Caryophyllia smithii 4 Calycella syringa 3 Halecium 3 Nemertesia 3 Tubulariidae 3 ACTINIARIA 3 Bougainvilliidae 2 Eudendrium 2 Clytia hemisphaerica 2 Lovenella producta 1 Plumulariidae 1 Kirchenpaueria similis 1 Plumularia setacea 1 Polyplumaria frutescens 1 Abietinaria abietina 1 Campanularia hincksii 1

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 47 Taxa % Occurrence Clytia gracilis 1 Virgularia mirabilis 1 FLATWORMS TURBELLARIA 15 RIBBON WORMS NEMERTEA 87 Tubulanus polymorphus 1 Cerebratulus 1 NEMATODES NEMATODA 31 PENIS!!! WORMS Priapulus caudatus 2 ENTOPROCTS Pedicellina 2 Loxosomella atkinsae 1 ARROW WORMS Sagittidae 1 PEANUT WORMS Nephasoma (?) 16 Golfingia elongata 15 Phascolion strombus 10 Golfingia vulgaris 7 Thysanocardia procera 5 Nephasoma minutum 1 Aspidosiphon muelleri 1 SEGMENTED WORMS Galathowenia oculata 100 Owenia fusiformis 88 Scoloplos armiger 74 Glycera alba 71 Lumbrineris gracilis 70 Notomastus 70 Paramphinome jeffreysii 63 Anobothrus gracilis 61 Diplocirrus glaucus 60 Glycera lapidum (agg) 52 Paradoneis lyra 49 Spiophanes kroyeri 49 Goniada maculata 48 Trichobranchus roseus 44 Pholoe baltica (sensu Petersen) 42 Terebellides stroemi 42 Hydroides norvegicus 39 Polycirrus 38 Peresiella clymenoides 37

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 48 Taxa % Occurrence Glycinde nordmanni 34 Spiophanes bombyx 33 Minuspio (Type A) 32 Nephtys hombergii 31 Myriochele 31 Serpulidae 31 Mediomastus fragilis 30 Sabellaria spinulosa 30 Sabellides octocirrata 29 Chaetozone setosa 28 Ampharete lindstroemi 28 Rhodine gracilior 26 Nephtys (juv) 24 Anaitides groenlandica 24 Clymenura 24 Malmgrenia arenicolae 23 Ophelia borealis 23 Aphelochaeta "species A" 21 Poecilochaetus serpens 20 Phisidia aurea 19 Harmothoe impar (agg) 18 Euclymene lombricoides 18 Sphaerodorum gracilis 17 Podarkeopsis capensis 17 Laonice bahusiensis 17 Scolelepis korsuni (Type A) 17 Scalibregma inflatum 17 Eunereis longissima 15 Aphrodita aculeata (juv) 14 Eumida sanguinea 14 Glyphohesione klatti 14 Exogone verugera 14 Dipolydora coeca (agg) 14 Nephtys caeca 13 Pseudonotomastus southerni 13 Praxillella affinis (Type A) 13 Trichobranchus glacialis 13 Spirobranchus triqueter 13 Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) 12 Magelona alleni 12 Aonides paucibranchiata 12 Euclymene "species A" 12 Euclymene droebachiensis 12 Cirratulus (juv) 11 Amphictene auricoma 11

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 49 Taxa % Occurrence Eteone longa (agg) 10 Aricidea simonae 10 Glycera rouxii 9 Nereimyra punctata 9 Pholoe pallida 9 Hypereteone foliosa 9 Chaetozone zetlandica 9 Tharyx killariensis 9 Praxillura longissima 9 Sthenelais limicola 8 Syllis armillaris 8 Scolelepis bonnieri 8 Maldanidae 8 Praxillella affinis 8 Melinna elisabethae 8 Goniadella gracilis 7 Pseudomystides limbata 7 Sphaerosyllis taylori 7 Abyssoninoe hibernica 7 Heteromastus filiformis 7 Euclymene oerstedii 7 Ophelina acuminata 7 Streblosoma bairdi 7 Aricidea cerrutii 6 Levinsenia gracilis 6 Chaetopterus 6 Ampharete falcata 6 Lagis koreni 6 Lanice conchilega 6 Eumida bahusiensis 5 Nereiphylla lutea 5 Exogone naidina 5 Apistobranchus tullbergi 5 Aurospio banyulensis 5 Samytha sexcirrata 5 Sabella pavonina 5 Aglaophamus agilis 4 Nephtys kersivalensis 4 Pholoe assimilis 4 Anaitides lineata 4 Anaitides rosea 4 Malmgrenia mcintoshi 4 Notocirrus scoticus 4 Nothria conchylega (Type A) 4 Dipolydora caulleryi 4

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 50 Taxa % Occurrence Ampharete baltica 4 Chone 4 Grania 4 Nephtys pente 3 Eulalia mustela 3 Eumida sanguinea (agg) 3 Gattyana cirrhosa 3 Exogone hebes 3 Lumbrineris cingulata (agg) 3 Hyalinoecia tubicola 3 Orbinia sertulata 3 Chaetozone 3 Cirratulus cirratus 3 Dodecaceria 3 Prionospio fallax 3 Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata 3 Nicomache 3 Polyphysia crassa 3 Amphicteis gunneri 3 Thelepus cincinnatus 3 Tubificoides amplivasatus 3 Glycera fallax 2 Nephtys cirrosa 2 Eulalia bilineata 2 Sige fusigera 2 Lepidonotus squamatus 2 Autolytus 2 Myrianida 2 Syllides 2 Syllis 2 Syllis "species G" ? 2 Syllis cornuta (agg) 2 Drilonereis 2 Aricidea catherinae 2 Cirrophorus branchiatus 2 Cirriformia (juv) 2 Cirriformia tentaculata 2 Prionospio cirrifera 2 Spio armata (agg) 2 Clymenella cincta 2 Proclymene muelleri 2 Ampharete octocirrata 2 Pista cristata 2 Pistella lornensis 2 Jasmineira caudata 2

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 51 Taxa % Occurrence Jasmineira elegans 2 Limnodriloides 2 Aphrodita aculeata 1 Glycera oxycephala 1 Ophiodromus pallidus 1 Nephtys assimilis 1 Nephtys hystricis 1 Nephtys longosetosa 1 Nereis zonata 1 Anaitides maculata 1 Eulalia viridis 1 Mystides caeca 1 Notophyllum foliosum 1 Pisione remota 1 Eunoe nodosa 1 Harmothoe clavigera 1 Malmgrenia andreapolis 1 Polynoe scolopendrina 1 Eusyllis blomstrandi 1 Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 1 Sphaerosyllis tetralix 1 Syllis cornuta 1 Spinther arcticus 1 Aphelochaeta marioni 1 Chaetozone christiei 1 Cirratulus caudatus 1 Cirratulus incertus 1 Magelona filiformis 1 Polydora ciliata (agg) 1 Pseudopolydora pulchra 1 Scolelepis foliosa 1 Spio filicornis 1 Notoproctus 1 Petaloproctus 1 Proclymene muelleri (?) 1 Rhodine loveni 1 Melinna palmata 1 Amaeana trilobata 1 Eupolymnia nesidensis 1 Nicolea venustula 1 Pista elongata 1 Thelepus setosus 1 Pseudopotamilla reniformis 1 Spirobranchus lamarcki 1 Circeis spirillum 1

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 52 Taxa % Occurrence CRUSTACEANS Urothoe elegans 30 Nototropis vedlomensis 25 Ampelisca spinipes 18 Harpinia antennaria 18 Paraphoxus oculatus 18 Cheirocratus (female) 17 Verruca stroemia 14 Sarsinebalia 14 Ampelisca tenuicornis 13 Galathea intermedia (juv) 13 Bodotria scorpioides 12 Callianassa subterranea 11 Galathea intermedia 10 Ampelisca diadema 9 Westwoodilla caecula 9 Diastylis laevis 9 Lepidepecreum longicorne 8 Arcturella (juv) 8 Gnathia oxyuraea 8 Cheirocratus assimilis 7 Othomaera othonis 7 Gammaropsis maculata 6 Callianassa subterranea (juv) 6 Paguridae (juv) 6 COPEPODA 5 Phtisica marina 5 Urothoe marina 5 Diastylis rugosa 5 Diastyloides biplicatus 5 Petalosarsia declivis 5 Anapagurus laevis 5 Callipallene 4 MYODOCOPIDA 4 Acidostoma obesum (sensu Stoddart & Lowry) 4 Aoridae (female) 4 Leptocheirus hirsutimanus 4 Cheirocratus sundevallii 4 Siphonoecetes striatus 4 Photis longicaudata 4 Metopa norvegica 4 Anoplodactylus petiolatus 3 Ampelisca brevicornis 3 Gammaropsis cornuta 3 Photis reinhardi 3

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 53 Taxa % Occurrence Jassa (female) 3 Pseudoprotella phasma 3 Gnathiidae (juv) 3 Gnathia dentata 3 Janira maculosa 3 Ebalia tuberosa 3 Liocarcinus depurator 3 Monodaeus couchii 3 Ampelisca typica 2 Bathyporeia tenuipes 2 Scopelocheirus hopei 2 Tmetonyx 2 Maerella tenuimana 2 Stenopleustes nodifera 2 Metopa propinqua 2 Stenothoe marina 2 Gnathiidae (female) 2 Eudorella truncatula 2 Pontophilus spinosus 2 Galathea nexa 2 Hyas coarctatus 2 Liocarcinus (juv) 2 THORACICA 1 Selioides bocqueti 1 Cancerilla tubulata 1 Herpyllobius polynoes 1 Nebalia 1 Iphimedia minuta 1 Iphimedia spatula 1 Acidostoma neglectum 1 Ampelisca (juv) 1 Ampelisca macrocephala 1 Haploops tubicola 1 Amphilochus manudens 1 Bathyporeia elegans 1 Caprella equilibra 1 Unciola planipes 1 Themisto compressa 1 Protomedeia fasciata 1 Ericthonius (female) 1 Ericthonius rubricornis 1 Jassa falcata 1 Hippomedon denticulatus 1 Orchomenella nana 1 Tryphosites longipes 1

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 54 Taxa % Occurrence Oedicerotidae 1 Perioculodes longimanus 1 Pontocrates (Type A) 1 Pontocrates arenarius 1 Harpinia crenulata 1 Harpinia pectinata 1 Parapleustes assimilis 1 Parapleustes bicuspis 1 Dyopedos porrectus 1 Metopa alderi 1 Astacilla 1 Gyge branchialis 1 Ione thoracica 1 Tanaopsis graciloides 1 Bodotria pulchella 1 Diastylis (juv) 1 Diastylis cornuta 1 Diastylis lucifera 1 Diastylis tumida 1 Hemilamprops rosea 1 Pseudocuma longicornis 1 DECAPODA 1 Galathea dispersa 1 Munida rugosa 1 Ebalia (juv) 1 Eurynome aspera 1 Hyas araneus (juv) 1 Inachus (juv) 1 Paguridae 1 Pagurus bernhardus 1 Pandalina brevirostris 1 Pisidia longicornis 1 MOLLUSCS Nuculoma tenuis 48 Kurtiella bidentata 47 Thyasira flexuosa 40 Leptochiton asellus 36 Lucinoma borealis 32 Lucinoma borealis (juv) 32 Antalis entalis 25 Chaetoderma nitidulum 23 Timoclea ovata 20 Parvicardium ovale 18 Acteon tornatilis 17 Astartidae (juv) 17

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 55 Taxa % Occurrence Nucula nucleus 17 Tridonta montagui 17 Tellimya ferruginosa 17 Abra prismatica 17 Dosinia (juv) 17 Jupiteria minuta 16 Phaxas pellucidus 16 Euspira montagui 15 Cylichna cylindracea 15 Arctica islandica (juv) 15 Euspira nitida 13 Onchidoris 12 Modiolus (juv) 12 Astarte sulcata 12 Thyasira polygona 12 Thracia (juv) 11 Lyonsia norwegica 9 Hiatella arctica 8 Spisula (juv) 7 Moerella pygmaea 7 Doto 6 Musculus subpictus 6 Anomiidae (juv) 6 Parvicardium scabrum 6 Chamelea striatula (juv) 6 Neomenia carinata 5 Turritella communis 5 Dosinia lupinus 5 Eulima bilineata 4 Abra nitida 4 Arctica islandica 3 Velutina velutina 3 Pododesmus patelliformis 3 Gari fervensis (juv) 3 Cochlodesma praetenue 3 Emarginula fissura 2 Gibbula tumida 2 Capulus ungaricus (juv) 2 Epitonium trevelyanum 2 Naticidae (juv) 2 Lamellaria latens 2 Hinia incrassata 2 Oenopota trevelliana 2 Flabellinidae 2 Pectinidae (juv) 2

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 56 Taxa % Occurrence Palliolum furtivum 2 Parvicardium minimum 2 Mysia undata 2 Gari (juv) 2 Clausinella fasciata 2 Cochlodesma praetenue (juv) 2 Iothia fulva 1 Jujubinus montagui 1 Aporrhais pespelecani 1 Vitreolina philippi 1 Alvania beanii 1 Turritella communis (juv) 1 Buccinum undatum (juv) 1 Teretia anceps 1 Odostomia acuta 1 Turbonilla crenata 1 Roxania utriculus 1 Philine scabra 1 Coryphella 1 Goniodoris nodosa 1 Onchidoris muricata 1 Cuthona 1 Arca tetragona 1 Crenella decussata 1 Limaria loscombi 1 Anomia ephippium 1 Palliolum striatum (juv) 1 Parvicardium pinnulatum 1 Kellia suborbicularis 1 Spisula solida (juv) 1 Spisula subtruncata 1 Gari fervensis 1 Chamelea striatula 1 Clausinella fasciata (juv) 1 Gouldia minima 1 Saxicavella jeffreysi 1 Mya truncata (juv) 1 Cuspidaria (juv) 1 Thracia phaseolina 1 Thracia villosiuscula 1 BRYOZOANS Cellaria 10 Escharella immersa 10 Alcyonidium diaphanum 6 Escharella ventricosa 6

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 57 Taxa % Occurrence Scrupocellaria scruposa 5 Alcyonidium parasiticum 3 Bicellariella ciliata 3 Parasmittina trispinosa 3 Tubulipora 2 Bugula plumosa 2 Bugula purpurocincta 2 Dendrobeania fruticosa 2 Alderina imbellis 2 Amphiblestrum auritum 2 Microporella ciliata 2 Plagioecia sarniensis 1 Disporella hispida 1 Alcyonidioides mytili 1 Schizomavella linearis 1 Porella concinna 1 Dendrobeania murrayana 1 Amphiblestrum flemingii 1 Cribrilina punctata 1 Pyripora catenularia 1 Hippothoa divaricata 1 Reteporella 1 Rhynchozoon bispinosum 1 Smittoidea marmorea 1 HORSESHOE WORMS Phoronis 50 SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Amphiuridae (juv) 81 Echinocyamus pusillus 74 Amphiura filiformis 70 Ophiuridae (juv) 36 Ophiactis balli 17 Echinocardium flavescens 15 Cucumariidae (juv) 14 SPATANGOIDA (juv) 13 Leptosynapta inhaerens 12 ASTEROIDEA (juv) 11 Amphipholis squamata 10 Ophiothrix fragilis (juv) 10 ECHINOIDA (juv) 10 Labidoplax buskii 9 Ophiothrix fragilis 8 Ophiocten affinis 8 Echinocardium 6 Ophiactis balli (juv) 5

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 58 Taxa % Occurrence Leptopentacta elongata 4 ECHINOIDEA (juv) 3 Psolus (juv) 3 Astropecten irregularis 2 Amphiura chiajei 2 Brissopsis lyrifera 2 Echinocardium cordatum 2 Labidoplax digitata 2 Leptosynapta bergensis 2 Leptosynapta decaria 2 Henricia oculata 1 Asterias rubens 1 Acrocnida brachiata 1 Amphiura securigera 1 Ophiura albida 1 Echinus esculentus (juv) 1 Psammechinus miliaris 1 Psammechinus miliaris (juv) 1 Pseudothyone raphanus 1 Psolus phantapus (juv) 1 Leptosynapta 1 ACORN WORMS ENTEROPNEUSTA 19 SEA SQUIRTS Ascidiella scabra 15 ASCIDIACEA (juv) 5 Dendrodoa grossularia 4 Didemnidae 1 Perophora listeri 1 LANCELETS Branchiostoma lanceolatum 1

Species list for video samples (2012 and 2014) (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). ranked by percentage occurrence for each major taxon group, calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples’ x 100.

Taxa % Occurrence SPONGES PORIFERA 46 Polymastia penicillus 2 HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES HYDROZOA 91 Thuiaria thuja 55 Nemertesia 54

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 59 Taxa % Occurrence ANTHOZOA 45 ACTINIARIA 33 Halecium 32 Alcyonium digitatum 28 Pennatula phosphorea 28 Sertulariidae 24 Urticina 18 Tubularia 17 Urticina eques 14 Adamsia palliata 14 Sagartia 9 Caryophyllia smithii 9 Nemertesia ramosa 8 CERIANTHARIA 8 Nemertesia antennina 8 Diphasia 4 Hydrallmania falcata 2 Bolocera tuediae 2 Abietinaria abietina 1 Tubularia indivisa 1 Obelia 1 Stomphia coccinea 1 Peachia cylindrica 1 COMB JELLIES CTENOPHORA 3 SEGMENTED WORMS Sabellidae (tubes) 60 Serpulidae (tubes) 60 Spirobranchus 27 Salmacina dysteri 20 Lanice conchilega (tubes) 14 Sabellaria spinulosa (tubes) 3 Nephtys 2 Sabella pavonina 2 Terebellidae 1 Aphroditidae 1 Aphrodita aculeata 1 SEA SPIDERS PYCNOGONIDA 1 CRUSTACEANS Munida rugosa 70 DECAPODA 46 Paguridae 45 Pandalidae 29 Pagurus bernhardus 29 Cancer pagurus 25 Liocarcinus depurator 25 Luidia ciliaris 21 Pagurus prideaux 17 MYSIDA 8

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 60 Taxa % Occurrence Crangonidae 8 Galathea 8 Macropodia 8 Majidae 7 Maja squinado 7 CIRRIPEDIA 5 Palaemonidae 5 Pandalus montagui 5 Liocarcinus 5 Ebalia 4 Nephrops norvegicus 3 Lithodes maja 3 Galatheidae 2 Pisidia longicornis 2 DENDROBRANCHIATA 1 Hyas araneus 1 EUMALACOSTRACA 1 ISOPODA 1 Luidia 1 Luidia sarsi 1 MOLLUSCS Aequipecten opercularis 14 Pecten maximus 13 Flabellina 9 Polycera 7 NUDIBRANCHIA 5 Neptunea antiqua 4 GASTROPODA 4 Dentalium entalis 3 Turritella communis 3 Calliostoma 3 Pectinidae 3 POLYPLACOPHORA 2 Aporrhais pespelecani 1 OSTEROIDA 1 Eledone cirrhosa 1 SEAMATS BRYOZOA 62 Cellaria 29 Flustridae 25 Reteporella 16 Crisia 7 Flustra foliacea 7 Securiflustra securifrons 7 Alcyonidium 1 SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS ASTERIODEA 51 Ophiuroidea 45 Hippasteria phrygiana 35 Echinus esculentus 33

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 61 Taxa % Occurrence Echinaster sepositus 29 Henricia 25 Asterias rubens 21 Crossaster papposus 21 Luidia ciliaris 21 Ophiura 9 Astropecten irregularis 3 VALVATIDA 3 Ophiura ophiura 2 Holothuria 1 Luidia 1 Luidia sarsi 1 Stichastrella rosea 1 Echinocardium chordatum 1 SEA SQUIRTS ASCIDIACEA 36 Ascidiella aspersa 5 Clavelina lepadiformis 1 HAGFISH Myxine glutinosa 4 FISH ACTINOPTERYGII 23 Gadidae 23 PLEURONECTIFORMES 15 Gadus 13 Agonus cataphractus 13 Gobiidae 11 Callionymus 9 Ammodytes 4 Solea solea 3 Pomatoschistus minutus 2 Raniceps raninus 1 Pleuronectes platessa 1

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 62 Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition CEND04/12

Gravel Sand Silt/clay Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH (%) (%) (%) 235 FE_S_22 55.8382 -1.03271 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.92 75.14 22.94 236 FE_S_21 55.8341 -1.07994 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.06 81.78 18.17 237 FE_S_20 55.8299 -1.12712 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.19 82.05 15.75 238 FE_C_23 55.8258 -1.17442 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 6.05 81 12.95 239 FE_C_22 55.8215 -1.22167 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.29 88.16 11.55 241 FE_C_27 55.8425 -1.25225 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 5.68 84.23 10.08 243 FE_C_21 55.8174 -1.26916 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 13.3 70.21 16.49 244 FE_C_26 55.8383 -1.29937 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 8.82 78.09 13.09 245 FE_C_20 55.8132 -1.31613 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 36.24 62.16 1.61 247 FE_C_25 55.8342 -1.34665 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 5.98 81.29 12.73 248 FE_C_18 55.809 -1.3636 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 32.22 59.27 8.51 249 FE_C_24 55.8299 -1.39407 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 8.19 78.34 13.48 250 FE_R_39 55.8214 -1.42476 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 10.37 88.05 1.59 253 FE_C_16 55.8048 -1.41142 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 22.07 72.99 4.94 254 FE_C_10 55.7797 -1.42839 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 13.14 82.22 4.64 255 FE_C_08 55.7544 -1.44538 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 45.11 49.47 5.43 256 FE_R_38 55.7661 -1.39971 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 26.29 64.06 9.65 258 FE_C_11 55.7839 -1.38067 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 10.18 84.98 4.83 259 FE_C_09 55.7628 -1.35031 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 3.42 88.6 7.98 260 FE_C_13 55.7879 -1.3333 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 39.85 58.41 1.74 261 FE_R_37 55.7922 -1.28593 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 17.61 68.45 13.94 263 FE_C_14 55.7962 -1.23916 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 34.96 57.31 7.73 264 FE_C_15 55.8004 -1.19169 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.42 92.74 6.84 265 FE_C_17 55.8049 -1.14372 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 35.48 52.95 11.57 266 FE_C_19 55.8087 -1.09661 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.1 80.41 19.49 268 FE_S_19 55.8133 -1.05015 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 4.65 75.67 19.67

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 63 Gravel Sand Silt/clay Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH (%) (%) (%) 269 FE_C_12 55.7882 -1.06661 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.4 95.32 4.28 270 FE_S_18 55.784 -1.11429 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 32.7 59.72 7.58 271 FE_S_17 55.7798 -1.1616 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 48.32 40.19 11.49 274 FE_R_35 55.7588 -1.30937 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.14 71.53 27.34 276 FE_C_7 55.7379 -1.36787 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 7.96 84.34 7.7 277 FE_C_06 55.7335 -1.41464 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 30.02 61.13 8.85 278 FE_C_04 55.7085 -1.43135 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 34.07 55.9 10.03 280 FE_C_05 55.7125 -1.38426 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 9.43 79.07 11.5 281 FE_R_30 55.7253 -1.33098 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 7.71 82.63 9.66 282 FE_R_31 55.7308 -1.26829 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 7.51 79.22 13.27 284 FE_R_32 55.7364 -1.20547 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 6.33 90.74 2.94 285 FE_R_33 55.7419 -1.14234 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.11 98.76 1.13 286 FE_S_14 55.7587 -1.13085 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 3.97 84.06 11.97 288 FE_S_15 55.763 -1.08384 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.37 88.99 10.64 289 FE_S_16 55.7672 -1.03653 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.58 85.61 13.81 290 FE_R_34 55.7476 -1.07945 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.06 85.71 14.23 292 FE_R_29 55.7197 -1.03984 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.39 89.97 9.64 294 FE_R_28 55.7142 -1.10247 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 34.8 57.67 7.53 295 FE_R_27 55.7029 -1.19746 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 44.68 52.77 2.56 296 FE_R_26 55.7086 -1.16524 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 28.52 66.25 5.23 298 FE_R_25 55.6973 -1.29082 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 25.35 68.71 5.93 299 FE_R_24 55.6917 -1.35392 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.98 97.63 1.39 300 FE_C_03 55.6876 -1.40064 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 24.65 65.51 9.83 302 FE_R_23 55.686 -1.41698 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 21.04 56.65 22.31 303 FE_R_19 55.6581 -1.37641 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 26.9 64.02 9.08 304 FE_R_20 55.6639 -1.31363 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.07 97.6 1.34 305 FE_C_28 55.675 -1.29522 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 15.59 79.36 5.05 307 FE_R_21 55.6694 -1.25068 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 16.14 75.76 8.1 308 FE_R_22 55.6752 -1.18764 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.23 95.6 3.18 310 FE_S_12 55.6878 -1.13513 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.92 87.57 9.52

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 64 Gravel Sand Silt/clay Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH (%) (%) (%) 311 FE_S_13 55.6918 -1.08785 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.59 94.68 4.72 312 FE_S_10 55.6668 -1.105 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.02 78.27 21.71 313 FE_S_11 55.671 -1.05791 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.06 80.48 19.45 314 FE_S_08 55.6502 -1.02784 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.21 75.23 24.56 315 FE_S_07 55.6457 -1.07533 coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 13.73 77.88 8.39 316 FE_S_06 55.6416 -1.12252 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.17 70.92 27.91 317 FE_R_18 55.6472 -1.14766 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.19 79.69 20.12 318 FE_S_09 55.6624 -1.15241 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.03 91.67 8.3 319 FE_R_17 55.6414 -1.21078 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.06 74.86 25.08 320 FE_R_16 55.6361 -1.27352 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 11.41 79.32 9.28 321 FE_R_15 55.6305 -1.33616 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 11.42 78.92 9.66 322 FE_C_30 55.6334 -1.40296 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 7.72 70.32 21.96 323 FE_C_02 55.5911 -1.42156 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 14.2 69.55 16.25 325 FE_R_12 55.6024 -1.29583 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.26 73.05 26.69 326 FE_R_13 55.608 -1.23316 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 25.17 54.84 19.99 327 FE_R_14 55.6137 -1.17027 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 27.59 51.25 21.16 328 FE_R_40 55.6027 -1.15871 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 33.45 48.54 18.01 329 FE_S_04 55.6206 -1.09199 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 40.92 42.58 16.5 330 FE_S_05 55.6247 -1.04488 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 11.99 62.32 25.69 331 FE_S_02 55.5997 -1.06211 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.06 75.82 24.12 332 FE_S_03 55.6038 -1.0147 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 18.5 62.59 18.91 333 FE_S_25 55.5794 -1.01831 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.03 77.1 22.87 334 FE_S_24 55.5798 -1.07489 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0 68.1 31.9 335 FE_S_01 55.5956 -1.10889 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.49 78.67 20.84 336 FE_S_23 55.5801 -1.13438 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.13 76.77 23.09 338 FE_R_11 55.5801 -1.19303 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 10.18 78.45 11.37 340 FE_R_10 55.5744 -1.25576 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 34.89 52.46 12.65 341 FE_R_09 55.5689 -1.31855 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 23.77 61.23 15 343 FE_R_08 55.5633 -1.38113 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 17.41 69.6 12.99 344 FE_R_05 55.5299 -1.40352 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 9.1 75.29 15.61

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 65 Gravel Sand Silt/clay Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH (%) (%) (%) 346 FE_R_06 55.5355 -1.34088 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 13.9 60.98 25.12 347 FE_R_07 55.5411 -1.27835 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 11.81 71.41 16.78 349 FE_R_04 55.5129 -1.23807 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 2.27 73.16 24.56 351 FE_Mx_05 55.5076 -1.2345 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.6 75.81 23.59 352 FE_Mx_02 55.5013 -1.23892 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 36.79 45.97 17.24 354 FE_R_02 55.4798 -1.26068 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.71 70.4 28.89 355 FE_R_01 55.4743 -1.32342 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 15.15 71.08 13.77 357 FE_R_03 55.5074 -1.30077 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 20.08 62.76 17.16 358 FE_Mx_01 55.4983 -1.3405 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 21.68 67.76 10.55 360 FE_Mx_03 55.5034 -1.34812 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.33 87.58 11.09 361 FE_Mx_04 55.5044 -1.33582 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 29.11 57.23 13.66 362 FE_Mx_06 55.5097 -1.34383 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 10.91 77.64 11.45 364 FE_Mx_07 55.515 -1.35127 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.08 93.04 4.88 365 FE_C_01 55.4992 -1.3948 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 6.36 76.73 16.91

CEND05/14

Gravel Sand Silt/clay Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH (%) (%) (%) 30 A27 55.59799 -1.17368 mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments 47.25 35.69 17.05 31 A26 55.60259 -1.16715 mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments 29.75 42.92 27.33 32 A25 55.60417 -1.17409 mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments 41.93 43.81 14.26

Farnes East rMCZ: Post-survey Site Report 66 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills CEND04/12

Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. Code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Code 242 FE_C_27 55.84174 -1.25043 1 3 Rippled sand with some cobbles, pebbles and A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS broken shells sediment 246 FE_R_20 55.81268 -1.315056 1 3 Coarse sand with shell gravel and pebbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment 251 FE_R_39 55.82128 -1.42367 1 3 Rippled sand with patches of shell gravel and A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS pebbles sediment 252 FE_C_16 55.80513 -1.40927 1 3 Rippled sand with cobbles and pebbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment 257 FE_R_38 55.7669 -1.39731 1 3 Rippled sand with patches of pebble A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment 262 FE_R_37 55.79161 -1.28487 1 3 Coarse sediment with gravel and pebble A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment 267 FE_S_19* 55.81283 -1.04851 1 3 Rippled muddy sand A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu 272 FE_S_17 55.7805 -1.15856 1 3 Rippled sand with pebble/gravel A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment 275 FE_R_35 55.76017 -1.30876 1 3 Coarse sediment with patches of pebble/cobble A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 279 FE_C_04 55.70943 -1.43179 1 3 Coarse sediment with gravel, broken shells, A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx pebble, and occasional cobble sediments 283 FE_R_31 55.73082 -1.26675 1 3 Coarse sediment with patches of pebble/ cobble A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 287 FE_S_14 55.7587 -1.13085 1 0 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 293 FE_R_29 55.72045 -1.03896 1 3 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 297 FE_R_26 55.70335 -1.22733 1 3 Coarse sediment with gravel, empty shells A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 301 FE_C_03 55.68691 -1.39832 1 3 Coarse sediment with gravel, broken shells, A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx pebble, cobble and occasional boulder sediments 306 FE_C_28 55.67404 -1.29355 1 3 Rippled sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 67 Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. Code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Code 309 FE_R_22 55.67467 -1.18661 1 3 Rippled muddy sand A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu 337 FE_S_23* 55.57898 -1.13364 1 3 Rippled muddy sand A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu 339 FE_R_10 55.57597 -1.25632 1 3 Cobbles, pebbles and gravel with coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse SS.SCS sediment sediment 342 FE_R_09 55.56997 -1.31876 1 3 Coarse muddy sediment with pitted pebbles and A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx broken shell sediments 345 FE_R_05 55.53047 -1.40355 1 3 Rippled muddy sand with some broken shell A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 348 FE_R_07 55.54056 -1.27807 1 3 Coarse muddy sediment with gravel and A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx occasional broken shell sediments 350 FE_R_04 55.51246 -1.23718 1 3 Muddy sand with broken shells and small A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx patches of cobble sediments 353 FE_Mx_02 55.50084 -1.23845 1 3 Muddy sediment with broken shells, pebbles and A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx occasional cobble sediments 356 FE_R_01 55.47309 -1.32236 1 3 Muddy gravel with cobbles, shells and A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx occasional boulder sediments 359 FE_Mx_01 55.49983 -1.34059 1 3 Muddy sediment with broken shells, pebbles and A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx occasional cobble sediments 363 FE_Mx_06 55.51144 -1.345212 1 3 Rippled sand with broken shells A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 366 FE_C_01 55.50007 -1.39473 1 3 Rippled sand with some shell fragments A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 367 FE_C_02 55.59167 -1.42161 1 3 Muddy gravel with broken shells A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 368 FE_R_12 55.60259 -1.2968 1 3 Rippled muddy sand A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu 369 FE_R_16 55.63495 -1.27302 1 3 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 370 FE_R_14 55.61273 -1.16914 1 3 Muddy sand with lots of empty shells and shell A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx gravel sediments 371 FE_R_40 55.60226 -1.15838 1 3 Rippled muddy sand with gravel and pebbles A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 372 FE_S_02* 55.59846 -1.06054 1 3 Rippled muddy sand A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu 373 FE_S_25* 55.57841 -1.01693 1 3 Rippled muddy sand A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu 374 FE_S_07 55.64522 -1.07455 1 3 Gravelly muddy sand with occasional patches of A5.4 Subtidal mixed SS.SMx pebble and cobble sediments

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 68 CEND05/14

Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH code 001 A06 55.61643 -1.024161 1 10 Muddy sand A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa 001 A06 55.61568 -1.024235 2 5 Muddy sand with cobbles and gravel A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 002 A05 55.64114 -1.053917 1 20 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 003 A23 55.62908 -1.0592782 1 25 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 004 A07 55.60975 -1.065941 1 14 Mud with some underlying coarse sediment, A5.3 - Subtidal mud SS.SMu burrows 005 A08 55.61999 -1.074539 1 14 Pebbles & cobbles with mud veneer A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 005 A08 55.62049 -1.0745775 2 4 Mud with burrows A5.3 - Subtidal mud SS.SMu

006 A04 55.64474 -1.086345 1 15 Pebbles & cobbles with mud veneer A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 007 A03 55.63145 -1.116212 1 13 Pebbles & cobbles with mud veneer A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 008 A09 55.62035 -1.091783 1 22 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 009 A02 55.62623 -1.145079 1 8 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 009 A02 55.62596 -1.1456083 2 13 Stoney reef A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 010 A01 55.62062 -1.155002 1 24 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 011 A29 55.60497 -1.166013 1 10 Stoney reef A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 011 A29 55.60460 -1.166719 2 1 Stoney/bedrock ridge with cobbles A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 69 Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH code 011 A29 55.60497 -1.166013 3 2 Stoney reef A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 012 A25 55.60400 -1.172736 1 6 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 012 A25 55.60406 -1.1731998 2 6 Boulder/cobble reef A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 012 A25 55.60411 -1.1738095 3 5 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 013 A26 55.60273 -1.167997 1 9 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 013 A26 55.60249 -1.1668681 2 11 Boulder/cobble reef A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 014 A10 55.59977 -1.161621 1 12 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 015 A30 55.59338 -1.173280 1 10 Boulder/cobble reef A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 015 A30 55.59378 -1.1739923 2 4 Mud plain with sea-pens, burrows & occasional A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx boulders sediments 016 A27 55.59795 -1.172297 1 15 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 016 A27 55.59794 -1.173478 2 2 Boulder/cobble reef A4.2 - Moderate SS.SCS energy circalittoral rock 017 A11 55.60030 -1.181758 1 6 Boulder/cobble reef A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 017 A11 55.60056 -1.1821329 2 2 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 017 A11 55.60074 -1.182344 3 4 Boulder/cobble reef A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 018 A22 55.59200 -1.180641 1 5 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 018 A22 55.59181 -1.1809362 2 2 Coarse shelly sand A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 70 Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH code 018 A22 55.59169 -1.1810706 3 5 Boulder/cobble reef A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 019 A28 55.59193 -1.194469 1 12 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 020 A20 55.58743 -1.193165 1 4 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 020 A20 55.58754 -1.1934757 2 8 Cobble reef A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 020 A20 55.58786 -1.19431 3 3 Mud plain with sea-pens, burrows & some A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx pebbles sediments 021 A19 55.57327 -1.217021 1 12 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 022 A21 55.58121 -1.226624 1 11 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 023 A13 55.58674 -1.2403901 1 4 Boulder/cobble reef A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 023 A13 55.58713 -1.2403915 2 5 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 024 A24 55.57403 -1.2484172 1 18 Cobble reef & patches of mixed sediment A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 025 A14 55.59160 -1.256808 1 12 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 026 A18 55.58597 -1.2647631 1 8 Boulder/cobble reef A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 026 A18 55.58591 -1.2656484 2 5 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 027 A17 55.57280 -1.2736734 1 11 Patchy boulder/cobble reef A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 028 A16 55.59071 -1.3119918 1 3 Cobble reef & patches of mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 028 A16 55.59060 -1.3118355 2 1 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 71 Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH code 028 A16 55.59050 -1.3117423 3 8 Cobble reef & patches of mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 029 A15 55.57619 -1.3664214 1 10 Bedrock ridge with Ophiothrix bed A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 029 A15 55.57590 -1.3672557 2 7 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 033 B15 55.69559 -1.0974506 1 12 Coarse sediment with shell fragments A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 034 B09 55.70857 -1.1016515 1 15 Mixed sediment A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 035 B11 55.73602 -1.2632184 1 13 Cobble reef A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 036 B10 55.75434 -1.3006509 1 16 Stony reef with mud and sand A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 036 B10 55.75437 -1.3017893 2 4 Mixed sediment. A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 037 B12 55.74767 -1.3171394 1 11 Mixed coarse sediments with sand and gravel, A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx occasional cobble. sediments 038 B07 55.74624 -1.3339117 1 10 Rippled sand with fine shell fragments. A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 039 B06 55.75688 -1.3257336 1 3 Coarse sediments with sand and gravel. A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 039 B06 55.75674 -1.3258215 2 3 Mixed coarse sediments with occasional boulder A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock 039 B06 55.75647 -1.3259242 3 6 Coarse sediments with sand and gravel. A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 040 B05 55.76383 -1.3133211 1 13 Stony reef with mud and sand A4.2 - Moderate CR.MCR energy circalittoral rock

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 72 Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH code 041 B04 55.76860 -1.3293254 1 14 Coarse sediment with pebble and occasional A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS cobble coarse sediment 042 B13 55.76612 -1.3466741 1 11 Mixed sediment with cobble and boulder A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 043 B03 55.76750 -1.3603867 1 11 Coarse mixed sediment with occasional cobble A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS and boulder coarse sediment 044 B14 55.76371 -1.3727043 1 10 Mixed sediments, occasional cobble A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx 556 sediments 045 B01 55.77389 -1.3871306 1 12 Mixed sediments with cobble A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 046 B08 55.77161 -1.3691915 1 14 Stony reef with mud and sand A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 047 B02 55.77980 -1.3582415 1 13 Mixed sediments with occasional boulder A5.1 - Subtidal SS.SCS coarse sediment 048 C01 55.83266 1.1412199 1 13 Sandy mud with gravel patches. A5.3 - Subtidal mud SS.SMu 049 C12 55.83880 -1.1233306 1 13 Muddy sand with gravel patches. A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 050 C15 55.82822 -1.1193215 1 12 Muddy sand with gravel patches. A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa 051 C02 55.82175 -1.1268821 1 11 Sandy mud with gravel patches. A5.3 - Subtidal mud SS.SMu 052 C11 55.82344 -1.1086955 1 12 Rippled sand with some gravel. A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 053 C09 55.80264 -1.0871988 1 9 Coarse sediment with rippled sand A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 053 C09 55.80210 -1.0881675 2 2 Rippled sand with shell fragments. A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa 054 C14 55.79520 -1.087309 1 13 Rippled sands with gravel, some coarser A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa sediment in patches. 055 C08 55.78805 -1.0771345 1 11 Coarse sediment with rippled sand. A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 056 C07 55.78283 -1.0591577 1 15 Rippled sand, some shell fragments A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa

057 C04 55.77635 -1.0573254 1 6 Coarse sediment with muddy sand. A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 73 Stn Station Habitat No. of MNCR No. code Latitude Longitude No. stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH code 057 C04 55.77643 -1.0572543 2 7 Rippled sandy mud with some shell. A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa 058 C06 55.77315 -1.0293106 1 4 Rippled sands with some mud and shell. A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments 058 C06 55.77311 -1.0295178 2 10 Coarse sediment with rippled sand. A5.2 - Subtidal sand SS.SSa 059 C05 55.76558 -1.0295149 1 12 Coarse sediment with rippled sand. A5.4 - Subtidal mixed SS.SMx sediments * The habitat FOCI ‘Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities’ was recorded at these stations

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 74 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats Broadscale Habitat Description Example Image taken during survey A4.2 Moderate energy Circalittoral rock is circalittoral rock characterised by animal dominated communities A13 (CEND05/14) (a departure from the algae dominated communities in the infralittoral zone).

A5.1 Subtidal coarse Coarse sediments sediment including coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle FE_R_37 and cobbles which are often unstable because of tidal currents and/or wave action.

A5.2 Subtidal sand Clean medium to fine sands or non-cohesive FE_R_29 slightly muddy sands on open coasts, offshore or in estuaries and marine inlets.

A5.3 Subtidal mud Sublittoral mud and cohesive sandy mud FE_S_23 extending from the extreme lower shore to offshore, circalittoral habitats.

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 75 Broadscale Habitat Description Example Image taken during survey A5.4 Subtidal mixed Sublittoral mixed sediments (heterogeneous) sediments found from FE_R_07 the extreme low water mark to deep offshore circalittoral habitats.

Station FE_R_10: Classed as ‘coarse sediment’ on the basis of video analysis but contains discrete patches of flat angular cobbles, suggesting bedrock near the seabed surface

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 76 Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI Habitat FOCI & Station Code Description Example Image taken during survey Subtidal Sands and Sand and gravel Gravels seabeds widespread around the UK FE_R_37

Mud Habitats in Deep Sublittoral mud and Water cohesive sandy mud extending from the FE_S_23 extreme lower shore to offshore, circalittoral habitats.

Sea-Pen and Areas of stable muddy Burrowing Megafauna seabed, where animals Communities burrow below and sea- pens protrude from the FE_S_02 surface

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 77 This page intentionally left blank

Farnes East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 78

© Crown Copyright 2015