Compass Rose Rmcz Summary Site Report V4

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120 Report Number: 38 Version 4 May 2016

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 38. Title: Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Defra Project Code: MB0120 Defra Contract Manager: Carole Kelly

Funded by:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Marine Science and Evidence Unit Marine Directorate Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR

Authorship

Heather Stewart British Geological Survey (BGS) [email protected]

Sophie Green British Geological Survey (BGS) [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We thank Christopher Barrio Frojan and Alex Callaway for reviewing 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 report’s 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: Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group Date submitted: May 2016 Project Manager: Sue Ware Report compiled by: Heather Stewart and Sophie Green Quality control by: Christopher Barrio Frojan, Alex Callaway and Anna Downie Approved by & date: Keith Weston (03/05/2016) Version: V4

Version Control History Author Date Comment Version Heather Stewart 02/03/2015 Submitted to Cefas for internal review V1 and Sophie Green Heather Stewart 12/03/2015 Final version sent to Cefas for approval V2 and Sophie Green Heather Stewart 01/07/2015 Update after external reviewers’ comments V3 and Sophie Green Heather Stewart 26/04/2016 Updated following additional reviewers’ comments V4 and Sophie Green

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 occurring within the rMCZ ...... 2 2 Introduction ...... 3 2.1 Location of the rMCZ ...... 3 2.2 Rationale for site position and designation ...... 4 2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection ...... 5 2.4 Survey aims and objectives ...... 5 3 Methods ...... 7 3.1 Acoustic data acquisition ...... 7 3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition ...... 7 3.3 Production of the updated habitat map ...... 9 3.4 Quality of the updated map ...... 9 4 Results ...... 10 4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map ...... 10 4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ...... 10 4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ...... 12 4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ...... 12 4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ...... 13 4.6 Species FOCI identified ...... 14 4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...... 15 4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ...... 15 4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed ...... 16 5 Conclusions ...... 17 5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ...... 17 5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI ...... 17 5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ...... 18 5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed ...... 18 References ...... 19 Data sources ...... 20 Annexes ...... 21

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report i Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG...... 21 Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG...... 22 Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG...... 22 Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG...... 23 Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol...... 25 Appendices ...... 27 Appendix 1. Survey metadata (CEND 04/12) ...... 27 Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ...... 29 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ...... 31 Appendix 4. Species list ...... 32 Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ...... 37 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ...... 39 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ...... 40 Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI ...... 41

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .... 4 Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation...... 5 Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation...... 5 Table 4. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ...... 13 Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ...... 14 Table 6. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ...... 14

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Compass Rose rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011)...... 4 Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Compass Rose rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011)...... 8 Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document...... 10 Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data...... 11 Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map...... 12 Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified...... 13 Figure 7. Distribution of stations where species FOCI ‘Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)’ was recorded...... 14

Corrigendum

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

• The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat features, subtidal sand and/or subtidal coarse sediment, and is no longer included within MCZ designations. • The species FOCI ‘Stalked Jellyfish (Haliclystus auricula)’ is now referred to as ‘Haliclystus species’ for the purpose of MCZ protection, to account for potential presence of Haliclystus octoradiatus that has not been consistently differentiated within scientific records. The species are therefore considered jointly as an MCZ feature. • The species FOCI ‘Fan Mussel (Atrina pectinata)’ should be correctly referred to as ‘Fan Mussel (Atrina fragilis)’. • MCZs are no longer considered to be an appropriate tool for the protection of the species FOCI ‘European eel (Anguilla anguilla)’. They have been identified as habitat generalists for which it is particularly difficult to identify unique nursery or foraging grounds due to their wide distribution across coastal and freshwater zones. Conservation and management of European eels is considered to be more effectively achieved through the Eel Regulations and Eel Management Plans. • The species FOCI ‘Sea snail (Paludinella littorina)’ has been removed from Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that it is no longer a FOCI so has been removed as a feature for MCZ designation.

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

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

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

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv 1 Executive Summary: Report Card This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Compass Rose recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ). The site is being considered for inclusion in a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters, designed to meet conservation objectives under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Prior to the dedicated survey, the site assessment had been made on the basis of best available evidence, drawn largely from historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the area. The purpose of the survey was to provide direct evidence of the presence and extent of the broadscale habitats 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 that result from the survey of the site conducted by Cefas in March 2012. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI.

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation Extent Extent according Accordance between according to to updated SAD and updated habitat Feature SAD habitat map map Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 244.95 km2* 0 km2  -244.95 km2 Habitat FOCI None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A Species FOCI None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A * The value given in the SAD was 244.88 km2. Calculating the area within the rMCZ boundary reveals the area to be 244.95 km2. The total surface area covered by the site is 551.32 km2.

Compass Rose 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 to Accordance between according to updated SAD and updated habitat Feature SAD habitat map map Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 4.73 km2 N/A*  N/A A5.2 Subtidal sand 301.84 km2 361.57 km2  +59.73 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments N/A N/A*  N/A A5.1/4 Subtidal coarse/mixed N/A 189.75 km2 N/A +189.75 km2 sediments Habitat FOCI Subtidal Sands and Gravels** 546.79 km2*** 551.32 km2  +4.53 km2 Species FOCI 11 records at Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) Not reported 10 stations N/A N/A * Observed to be present in ground truth samples. The available data did not allow an assessment of extent. ** The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat features, subtidal sand and/or subtidal coarse sediment, and is no longer included within MCZ designations. *** Includes modelled area as provided in the SAD.

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ There is no conclusive evidence from the multibeam echosounder bathymetry and backscatter data of wrecks or of fishing activities present within the boundaries of the rMCZ. Two pipelines and one fibre optic cable are exposed at sea bed in the north of the rMCZ area.

Compass Rose 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 projects were set up to select sites that could contribute to this network because they contain one or more features specified in the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG; Natural England and the JNCC, 2010). The regional projects proposed a total of 127 recommended MCZs (rMCZs) and compiled a Site Assessment Document (SAD) for each site. The SAD summarises what evidence was available for the presence and extent of the various habitat, species and geological features specified in the ENG and for which the site was being recommended for designation. Due to the scarcity of survey-derived seabed habitat maps in UK waters, these assessments were necessarily made using best available evidence, which included historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the areas concerned. It became apparent that the best available evidence on features for which some sites had been recommended as MCZs was of variable quality. Consequently, Defra initiated a number of measures aimed at improving the evidence base, one of which took the form of a dedicated survey programme, implemented and co-ordinated by Cefas, to collect and interpret new survey data at selected rMCZ sites. This report provides an interpretation of the survey data collected jointly by Cefas and the JNCC personnel at the Compass Rose rMCZ site during March 2012.

2.1 Location of the rMCZ The Compass Rose rMCZ is located in the North Sea, approximately 43 km off the north Yorkshire coast (Figure 1).

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 3

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

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation The Compass Rose rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to ENG criteria to broadscale habitats (BSH), and its added ecological importance. For a detailed site description see Final Recommendations for Marine Conservation (Net Gain, 2011) and The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance (Natural England and the JNCC, 2010).

2.2.1 Broadscale habitats proposed for designation The BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ was included in the recommendations for designation at this site (Table 1). See Annex 1 for full list of broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. EUNIS code & Broadscale Habitat Spatial extent according to the SAD A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 244.95 km2* * The value given in the SAD was 244.88 km2. Calculating the area within the rMCZ boundary reveals the area to be 244.95 km2.

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation No habitat FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this rMCZ (Table 2). Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 4 Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD None proposed N/A

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

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Species FOCI Occurrence according to SAD Low or limited mobility species FOCI None proposed N/A Highly mobile species FOCI None proposed N/A

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection Prioritisation of rMCZ sites for further evidence collection was informed by a gap analysis and evidence assessment. The prime objective was to elevate the confidence status for as many rMCZs as feasible to support designation in terms of the amount and quality of evidence for the presence and extent of broadscale habitat features and habitat FOCI and, where possible, species FOCI. The confidence status was originally assessed in the SAD according Technical Protocol E (Natural England and the JNCC, 2012). The confidence score for the presence and extent of BSH and habitat FOCI reported for the Compass Rose rMCZ was Low (Net Gain, 2011; JNCC and Natural England, 2012). This site was therefore prioritised for additional evidence collection.

2.4 Survey aims and objectives Primary Objectives

 To collect acoustic and groundtruthing data to allow the production of an updated map which could be used to inform the presence of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI, and allow estimates to be made of their spatial extent within the rMCZ. Secondary Objectives

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

 To report evidence of human activity occurring within the rMCZ found during the course of the survey. It should be emphasised that surveys were not primarily designed to address the secondary objectives under the current programme of work.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 5 Whilst the newly collected data will be utilised for the purposes of reporting against the primary objectives of the current programme of work (given above), it is recognised that these data will be valuable for informing the assessment and monitoring of condition of given habitat features in the future.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 6 3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition New multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired by Cefas opportunistically during transit between groundtruthing stations for the purpose of mapping the Compass Rose rMCZ. The survey was carried out in March 2012 on RV Cefas Endeavour (cruise code: CEND0412). MBES data were acquired using a Kongsberg EM3002D system, operated at 300kHz. MBES data were processed using CARIS HIPS on board RV Cefas Endeavour to the highest standard achievable with data acquired. The software package QPS FM Geocoder Toolkit (FMGT) was used to produce fully compensated and corrected backscatter mosaic images, and these were exported as Floating Point Geotiff for further analysis. Both bathymetry and backscatter were gridded at 2 m resolution for analysis (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data).

New MBES data did not provide complete coverage of the Compass Rose rMCZ. Therefore, bathymetry data compiled for Defra (Astrium, 2011) were used to guide interpretations in areas not covered by the site specific survey data (Whomersley and Ware, 2012). Further details about data compilation, processing and resolution can be found in Astrium (2011).

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition Selection and positioning of groundtruthing stations was informed by the predicted BSH derived from the SAD habitat map. Ground truth samples were collected from 54 stations which were positioned within the sedimentary habitats using a triangular lattice grid overlaid on the SAD habitat map. An underwater camera system was deployed at 19 stations to collect video and still images of the seabed. (Figure 2; Appendix 1). Sampling equipment comprised a 0.1 m2 mini Hamon grab fitted with a video camera, the combined gear being known as a HamCam. This allowed an image of the undisturbed seabed surface to be obtained immediately before each grab sample was taken. On recovery, the grab was emptied into a large plastic bin and a representative sub-sample of sediment (c. 0.5 litres) taken for Particle Size Analysis (PSA). The remaining sample was photographed and sieved over a 1 mm mesh sieve to collect the benthic fauna. Fauna were preserved in buffered 4% formaldehyde for later processing ashore. Within the BSH areas identified in the SAD, camera sledge deployments were made at a subset of stations sampled by the grab. The frequency of use of the camera sledge was informed by the type of sediment obtained in the grab sample. Where this was consistent with the BSH predicted in the SAD, the camera was deployed at approximately every third station. Where the grab sample was not consistent with the predicted BSH, the camera was used at every station. The camera images helped to characterise the surficial sediments and associated epifaunal communities. The total number of camera deployments for each BSH varied depending on the uniformity of the habitat and its spatial extent.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 7 The towed camera sledge was able to collect both video and still images. A 4-point laser scaling device was used to provide a reference scale in the video and stills images. Set-up and operation followed the MESH Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques (Coggan et al., 2007). Video was recorded simultaneously to a Sony GV-HD700 DV tape and a computer hard drive. A video overlay was used to provide station metadata, time and GPS position (of the vessel) in the recorded video image. Camera sledge tows lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the sledge being towed at c. 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s-1) across a 50 m ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling station. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals and opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered. Video and still images were analysed following an established protocol developed and used by Cefas (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; see Annex 5). In total, 54 HamCam sample stations were analysed for PSA, 56 still images and 19 camera sledge tows were provided for analysis. For further detail on ground truth sample collection see Whomersley and Ware (2012).

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Compass Rose rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 8 3.3 Production of the updated habitat map All new maps and their derivatives have been based on a WGS84 datum. A new BSH map for the site was produced by analysing and interpreting the available acoustic data (as detailed above) and the ground truth data collected by the dedicated survey of this site. The process solely relies on expert interpretation as automated or semi-automated approaches were not possible given the spatial extent of geophysical and ground truth sample data in the Compass Rose rMCZ. Geophysical and groundtruthing data were reviewed manually to assign sedimentological characterisations in accordance with the EUNIS habitat classification system. Using an understanding of geological processes and characteristics in relation to the distribution of BSH, the analyst can extrapolate the BSH classification to areas where high resolution geophysical and ground truth data are not available. The mapping initially stemmed from the corridors of geophysical data acquired during the dedicated survey (Whomersley and Ware, 2012) where data resolution was suitable to detect a change in substrate. This was corroborated with ground truth sample stations where available. Finally, the polygons were extended into the area of lower resolution bathymetric data using expert judgement developed from the interpretation of data within the geophysical corridors. The map produced should be considered as a representation of the dominant sediment type present within a polygon area.

3.4 Quality of the updated map The technical quality of the updated habitat map was assessed using the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool1, originally developed by an international consortium of marine scientists working on the MESH (Mapping European Seabed Habitats) project. This tool considers the provenance of the data used to make a biotope/habitat map, including the techniques and technology used to characterise the physical and biological environment and the expertise of the people who had made the map. In its original implementation, it was used to make an auditable judgement of the confidence that could be placed in a range of existing, local biotope maps that had been developed using different techniques and data inputs, but were to be used in compiling a full coverage map for north-west Europe. Where two of the original maps overlapped, that with the highest MESH confidence score would take precedence in the compiled map. Subsequent to the MESH project, the confidence assessment tool has been applied to provide a benchmark score that reflects the technical quality of newly developed habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100 but, as the current rMCZ exercise requires the mapping of broadscale physical habitats not biotopes, it excludes the need for biological data. In the absence of biological data, the maximum score attainable for a purely physical map is 88. In applying the tool to the current work, none of the weighting options were altered; that is, the tool was applied in its standard form, as downloaded from the internet.

1 http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 26/04/2016]

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 9 4 Results The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples is presented in Appendix 4; in total, 117 infaunal and 49 epifaunal taxa were recorded. The list includes 10 records of the Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica). A summary of the PSA of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 54 stations where a sample was obtained, ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ was recorded at 3 stations, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ was recorded at 5 stations and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ was recorded at 46 stations. The analysis of the seabed video and stills 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.

4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map The SAD habitat map (Figure 3) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap (McBreen et al., 2011). For further detail see Net Gain (2011).

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document.

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data The updated habitat map resulting from an integrated analysis of the 2012 dedicated survey corridor data (MBES and groundtruthing data) and bathymetry data compiled for Defra (Astrium, 2011) is presented in Figure 4.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 10

Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 11 4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map Two sources of geophysical data were used to create the updated BSH map. The survey data acquired in 2012 and the lower resolution DEM bathymetry data (Astrium, 2011). Differences between the quality and accuracy of the geophysical data have led to the calculation of two MESH confidence scores according to the data used. In areas covered by the 2012 survey, the map attained a score of 76 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 5), which is moderate, given that the maximum possible score for a purely physical map is 88. Areas outside of the 2012 survey attained a lower score of 67 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 5) due to the lower quality bathymetric data used for the purposes of mapping.

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

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified The BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ is the most widespread, occupying almost two thirds of the rMCZ site (Figure 4; Table 4). The BSH ‘A5.1/4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ occupies approximately one third of the total area. Coarse/mixed sediments are most prominent in the shallowest water depths of the rMCZ, located on the north-eastern and south-western flanks of the bathymetric low that trends roughly northwest-southeast across the site. The BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ is found throughout the rMCZ site and is not constrained by water depth or sea bed morphology. ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ has not been identified from any of the groundtruthing samples or from the acoustic data and, therefore, does not feature in the updated habitat map.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 12 It should be noted that in the SAD, anecdotal evidence suggests that areas of the sea bed are covered in large boulders and rocky scars (Net Gain, 2011). It is also possible that the thickness of the seabed sediments is less than 0.5 m in places which may sometimes be exposed as areas of rock and/or cobbles as a result of sediment transport by prevalent currents. However, using currently available data, there was no way of determining the distribution of these mixed sediments or the depth of the sediment layer. The whole area is consequently mapped as sedimentary habitats.

Table 4. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. Broadscale Habitat Type Spatial extent according to Spatial extent according to (EUNIS Level 3) the SAD the updated habitat map A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 244.95 km2 0 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 4.73 km2 N/A A5.1/4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments N/A 189.75 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 301.84 km2 361.57 km2

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified The SAD estimates that almost the entire area of the rMCZ area is covered by the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ (modelled) although it was not put forward for designation. For completeness, the updated extent of this habitat FOCI has been included here (Figure 6). Following interpretation of the currently available data the whole rMCZ area has been assigned as potential habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’, and has a calculated extent of 551.32 km2 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 13

Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Spatial extent according Spatial extent according to the updated habitat Habitat FOCI to the SAD map Subtidal Sands and Gravels 546.79 km2* 551.32 km2 * Includes modelled area as provided in the SAD.

4.6 Species FOCI identified The ‘Low or limited mobility’ species FOCI, the Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) was recorded in 10 samples collected during the survey (Figure 7; Table 6). However, this species was not included in the SAD as part of the recommendations for site designation, and its distribution is presented here for the sake of completeness. No other species FOCI were found.

Figure 7. Distribution of stations where species FOCI ‘Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)’ was recorded.

Table 6. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Previously recorded Identified during evidence Species FOCI within rMCZ gathering survey Low or Limited Mobility Species FOCI Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)* N/A 11 records at 10 stations * This species FOCI was not proposed in the SAD for recommending this site as an MCZ.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 14 4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)

4.7.1 Acoustic data Acquisition and processing of the bathymetry data aimed to comply with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys- Order 1 where possible (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). However, due to the nature of the survey this standard was not universally achieved. The accompanying MBES backscatter data were reviewed and processed by specialist Cefas staff to ensure these data were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretations and production of the updated habitat map.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis of sediments PSA was carried out by Cefas following standard laboratory practice and the results checked by specialist Cefas staff following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011).

4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs Infaunal samples were processed by Seastar Survey following standard laboratory practices and results checked following the recommendations of the NMBAQC scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis Video and photographic stills were processed by MES Ltd in accordance with the guidance documents developed by Cefas and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) for the acquisition and processing of video and stills data (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; summarised in Annex 5).

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map The quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be Moderate (MESH assessment tool). A source of potential misclassification of habitats arises from the location of groundtruthing samples in relation to habitat types and misinterpretation in areas where acoustic data was not of high enough quality to confidently delineate boundaries between BSH or FOCI. The limited number of ground truth samples prevented a thorough external accuracy assessment of the mapping model, which would have been a more reliable indicator of the quality of the map. The survey has provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence of the mapped habitats. However, as it is impractical (and undesirable) to sample the entire area of the site with grabs and video, there is a chance that a BSH or FOCI may exist within the site but has not been recorded, especially if it was limited in extent. The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale habitats depicted on the map should be regarded as indicative, not definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt. Instead it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 15 transitional boundary. In contrast, the mapped boundaries are abrupt and have been placed using best professional judgment. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI. The relationship between MBES backscatter and substratum can be complicated by acquisition parameters although broad relationships between MBES backscatter intensity and seabed composition can be described. This is more scientifically robust where full-coverage acoustic data have been acquired rather than corridors of acoustic data as in the Compass Rose rMCZ area of interest. A derived layer of slope and contours at 2m intervals were derived from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011) bathymetry layer and used to expand the areas of ‘Subtidal sand’ and ‘Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ identified in the MBES backscatter across the wider area of interest.

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed There is no conclusive evidence from the MBES data of wrecks or evidence of anthropogenic activities such as trawl marks present within the boundaries of the rMCZ. Two pipelines and one fibre optic cable are exposed at sea bed in the north of the rMCZ area (Appendices 2 and 3). They are the 3 inch diameter monoethylene glycol pipeline from shore to the Breagh platform, the 20 inch diameter gas pipeline from the Breagh platform to the shore, and the fibre optic cable link between the Breagh platform and the shore.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 16 5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence  The 2012 dedicated survey has not confirmed the presence of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

 The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A5.1/4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. These BSHs were not 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 on the updated habitat map is 0 km2. This is 244.95 km2 less than its extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.1/4 Subtidal coarse/mixed sediments’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 189.75 km2. This is 189.75 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 361.57 km2. This is 59.73 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence  The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ at this site. This habitat FOCI was mentioned in the SAD but not included in the recommendations for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution  The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ on the updated habitat map is 551.32 km2. This is 4.53 km2 more than its modelled spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 17 5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species  The 2012 dedicated survey recorded the species FOCI ‘Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)’ at 10 stations in the rMCZ area. This species was not mentioned in the SAD for this site.

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

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed There is no conclusive evidence from the MBES data of wrecks or evidence of anthropogenic activities present within the boundaries of the rMCZ. Two pipelines and one fibre optic cable are exposed at sea bed in the north of the rMCZ area.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 18 References

Astrium (2011). Creation of a high resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the British Isles continental shelf: Final Report. Prepared for Defra, Contract Reference: 13820. 26 pp. 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 05/03/2015] Coggan, R. and Howell, K. (2005). Draft SOP for the collection and analysis of video and still images for groundtruthing an acoustic basemap. Video survey SOP version 5, 10 pp. JNCC (in prep.). Video/Stills Camera Standard Operating Procedure for Survey and Analysis: for groundtruthing and classifying an acoustic basemap, and development of new biotopes within the UK Marine Habitat Classification. JNCC Video and Stills Processing SOP v2. 6 pp. JNCC and Natural England (2012). Marine Conservation Zone Project: JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine Conservation Zones. Peterborough and Sheffield. 1455 pp. Mason, C. (2011). NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis. McBreen, F., Askew, N., Cameron, A., Connor, D., Ellwood, H. and Carter, A. (2011). UKSeaMap 2010: Predictive mapping of seabed habitats in UK waters. JNCC Report, No. 446. Available online from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukseamap [Accessed 12/06/2015]. 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. Whomersley, P. and Ware, S. (2012). Compass Rose rMCZ Survey Report. 47 pp. Worsfold, T.M., Hall., D.J. and O’Reilly, M. (2010). Guidelines for processing marine macrobenthic invertebrate samples: a processing requirements protocol version 1 (June 2010). Unicomarine Report NMBAQCMbPRP to the NMBAQC Committee. 33 pp. http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20- %20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf [Accessed 05/03/2015]

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 19 Data sources

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

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 20 Annexes

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

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 21 Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)** Cold-Water Coral Reefs *** Coral Gardens*** Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations*** Estuarine Rocky Habitats File Shell Beds*** Fragile Sponge and Anthozoan Communities on Subtidal Rocky Habitats Intertidal Underboulder Communities Littoral Chalk Communities Maerl Beds Horse Mussel (Modiolus modiolus) Beds Mud Habitats in Deep Water Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Beds Peat and Clay Exposures Honeycomb Worm (Sabellaria alveolata) Reefs Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs Seagrass Beds Sheltered Muddy Gravels Subtidal Chalk Subtidal Sands and Gravels**** Tide-Swept Channels * Habitat FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’ and the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’. ** Only includes ‘natural’ beds on a variety of sediment types. Excludes artificially created mussel beds and those which occur on rocks and boulders. *** Coldwater coral reefs, coral gardens, deep sea sponge aggregations and file shell beds currently do not have distributional data which demonstrate their presence within the MCZ project area. **** Subtidal Sands and Gravels are considered to be adequately protected by its component habitat features subtidal sand and/or subtidal coarse sediment, and is no longer included within MCZ designations. ***** ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat feature ‘Subtidal mud’ and is no longer included within MCZ designation.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 22 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*** Leptopsammia 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 projects. *** Fan mussel should be correctly described as Atrina fragilis. **** The stalked jellyfish Haliclystus auricula is now referred to as Haliclystus species for the purpose of MCZ protection to account for potential presence of Haliclystus octoradiatus that has not been consistently differentiated within scientific records. The species are therefore considered jointly as an MCZ feature. ***** The sea snail (Paludinella littorina) has been removed from Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that it is no longer a Feature of Conservation Importance (FOCI) so has been removed as a feature for MCZ designation.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 23 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. ** MCZs are no longer considered to be an appropriate tool for the protection of European eels. They have been identified as habitat generalists for which it is particularly difficult to identify unique nursery or foraging grounds due to their wide distribution across coastal and freshwater zones. Conservation and management of European eels is considered to be more effectively achieved through the Eel Regulations and Eel Management Plans

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 24 Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol. The purpose of the analysis of the video and still images is to identify which habitats exist in a video record, provide semi-quantitative data on their physical and biological characteristics and to note where one habitat changes to another. A minimum of 10% of the videos should be re-analysed for QA purposes. Video Analysis

 The video record is initially viewed rapidly (at approximately 4x normal speed) in order to segment it into sections representing different habitats. The start and end points of each segment are logged, and each segment subsequently subject to more detailed analysis. Brief changes in habitat type lasting less than one minute of the video record are considered as incidental patches and are not logged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 25 Taxon identification In all analyses, the identification of taxa should be limited to a level that can be confidently achieved from the available image. Hence, taxon identity could range from the ‘life form’ level (e.g. sponge, hydroid, anemone) to the species level (e.g. Asterias rubens, Alcyonium digitatum). Avoid the temptation to guess the species identity if it cannot be determined positively from the image. For example, Spirobranchus sp. would be acceptable, but Spirobranchus triqueter would not, as the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 26 Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (CEND 04/12) Cruise Date Stn No. Stn Code Gear Latitude Longitude CEND 04/12 03/03/2012 8 CR_S_29 HC 54.62213 0.16421 CEND 04/12 03/03/2012 9 CR_S_29 SOL CS 54.62342 0.16402 CEND 04/12 03/03/2012 9 CR_S_29 EOL CS 54.62352 0.16391 CEND 04/12 03/03/2012 10 CR_S_28 HC 54.62435 0.11108 CEND 04/12 03/03/2012 11 CR_R_22 HC 54.59305 0.14356 CEND 04/12 03/03/2012 13 CR_S_25 HC 54.58871 0.09010 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 14 CR_S_25 SOL CS 54.58973 0.09122 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 14 CR_S_25 EOL CS 54.58892 0.09047 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 16 CR_S_22 HC 54.56414 0.12383 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 18 CR_R_21 HC 54.56829 0.17685 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 20 CR_S_19 HC 54.54322 0.21053 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 21 CR_S_19 SOL CS 54.54251 0.21204 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 21 CR_S_19 EOL CS 54.54308 0.21093 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 25 CR_R_20 HC 54.53918 0.15681 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 27 CR_S_18 HC 54.53512 0.10343 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 29 CR_R_18 HC 54.50989 0.13646 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 30 CR_R_18 SOL CS 54.51167 0.13486 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 30 CR_R_18 EOL CS 54.51091 0.13556 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 32 CR_S_15 HC 54.51420 0.19015 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 34 CR_R_14 HC 54.48519 0.16969 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 36 CR_S_13 HC 54.48104 0.11621 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 37 CR_S_13 SOL CS 54.48245 0.11581 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 37 CR_S_13 EOL CS 54.48161 0.11617 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 39 CR_S_11 HC 54.45621 0.14977 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 41 CR_R_10 HC 54.46052 0.20305 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 43 CR_S_08 HC 54.43132 0.18246 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 44 CR_S_08 SOL CS 54.43264 0.18285 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 44 CR_S_08 EOL CS 54.43183 0.18271 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 46 CR_S_06 HC 54.42714 0.12894 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 48 CR_S_01 HC 54.39806 0.10883 CEND 04/12 04/04/2012 49 CR_S_1 SOL CS 54.39951 0.10939 CEND 04/12 04/04/2012 49 CR_S_1 EOL CS 54.39860 0.10917 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 51 CR_S_3 HC 54.40239 0.16224 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 53 CR_C_01 HC 54.38927 0.21185 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 56 CR_S_05 HC 54.40641 0.21591 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 57 CR_S_05 SOL CS 54.40676 0.21630 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 57 CR_S_05 EOL CS 54.40612 0.21526 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 60 CR_R_03 HC 54.41096 0.26944 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 61 CR_R_03 SOL CS 54.41093 0.27081 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 61 CR_R_03 EOL CS 54.41078 0.26931 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 63 CR_C_02 HC 54.39270 0.24550 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 64 CR_C_02 SOL CS 54.39139 0.24592 CEND 04/12 04/03/2012 64 CR_C_02 EOL CS 54.39246 0.24533 CEND 04/12 05/05/2012 73 CR_R_01 HC 54.39012 0.35596 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 74 CR_R_04 HC 54.41508 0.32283

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 27 Cruise Date Stn No. Stn Code Gear Latitude Longitude CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 76 CR_S_09 HC 54.43565 0.23628 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 78 CR_R_07 HC 54.43977 0.28981 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 78 CR_R_07 HC 54.43975 0.28980 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 80 CR_R_11 HC 54.46467 0.25657 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 82 CR_R_15 HC 54.48942 0.22336 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 84 CR_S_14 HC 54.49356 0.27702 CEND 04/12 05/03/2012 86 CR_S_16 HC 54.51844 0.24381 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 88 CR_S_20 HC 54.54768 0.26423 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 90 CR_S_23 HC 54.57236 0.23120 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 92 CR_S_26 HC 54.59725 0.19747 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 92 CR_S_26 HC 54.59729 0.19741 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 94 CR_S_30 HC 54.62633 0.21805 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 97 CR_S_27 HC 54.60141 0.25114 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 99 CR_S_24 HC 54.57664 0.28438 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 100 CS_S_24 SOL CS 54.57531 0.28433 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 100 CS_S_24 EOL CS 54.57621 0.28437 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 102 CR_S_21 HC 54.55196 0.31802 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 104 CR_S_17 HC 54.52694 0.35108 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 106 CR_R_19 HC 54.52285 0.29719 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 107 CR_R_19 SOL CS 54.52357 0.29691 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 107 CR_R_19 EOL CS 54.52272 0.29722 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 109 CR_R_16 HC 54.49800 0.33033 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 111 CR_R_17 HC 54.50211 0.38402 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 113 CR_S_12 HC 54.47724 0.41708 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 114 CR_S_12 CS 54.47781 0.41640 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 116 CR_R_13 HC 54.47310 0.36349 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 118 CR_12_R HC 54.46879 0.30992 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 119 CR_R_12 SOL CS 54.46973 0.30829 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 119 CR_R_12 EOL CS 54.46910 0.30934 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 121 CR_R_08 HC 54.44402 0.34319 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 123 CR_S_10 HC 54.44822 0.39688 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 125 CR_R_09 HC 54.40661 0.21603 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 127 CR_S_07 HC 54.42754 0.48322 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 129 CR_S_04 HC 54.40244 0.51616 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 130 CR_S_02 SOL CS 54.40175 0.51615 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 130 CR_S_02 EOL CS 54.40261 0.51599 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 132 CR_S_02 HC 54.39850 0.46293 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 134 CR_R_06 HC 54.42347 0.43028 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 135 CR_R_06 SOL CS 54.42258 0.43070 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 135 CR_R_06 EOL CS 54.42326 0.43005 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 137 CR_R_02 HC 54.39442 0.40950 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 139 CR-R_05 HC 54.41921 0.37654 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 141 CR_R_04 SOL CS 54.41626 0.32289 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 141 CR_R_04 EOL CS 54.41544 0.32289 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 143 CR_R_10 SOL CS 54.46155 0.20282 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 143 CR_R_10 EOL CS 54.46065 0.20301 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 145 CR_R_19 SOL CS 54.52467 0.29631 CEND 04/12 06/03/2012 145 CR_R_19 EOL CS 54.52366 0.29669 Key: HC – HamCam; CS – Camera sledge.

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 28 Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 29

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 30 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 31 Appendix 4. Species list Species list for grab samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/Total number of samples x 100’.

Taxa % Occurrence FORAMINIFERA Astrorhiza limicola 50 HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Edwardsia claparedii 26 Cerianthus lloydii 7 Virgularia mirabilis 7 FLATWORMS Platyhelminthes 4 RIBBON WORMS Nemertea 43 ARROW WORMS Spadella cephaloptera 2 SEGMENTED WORMS Scoloplos armiger 94 Owenia fusiformis 85 Goniada maculata 81 Galathowenia oculata 74 Paramphinome jeffreysii 61 Ophelia borealis 48 Nephtys longosetosa 41 Sthenelais limicola 37 Spiophanes bombyx 31 Anaitides groenlandica 24 Diplocirrus glaucus 24 Cirratulus cirratus 20 Aonides paucibranchiata 19 Nephtys hombergii 17 Hypereteone foliosa 13 Pholoe baltica (sensu Petersen) 13 Aricidea simonae 11 Poecilochaetus serpens 11 Scolelepis squamata 9 Glycera alba 7 Magelona filiformis 7 Nephtys assimilis 7 Scolelepis bonnieri 7 Nephtys cirrosa 6 Polycirrus medusa 6 Sabellidae 6 Aphelochaeta marioni 4 Lumbrineris gracilis 4 Mysta picta 4 Podarkeopsis capensis 4 Polynoidae 4

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 32 Taxa % Occurrence Prionospio cirrifera 4 Spiophanes kroyeri 4 Spiophanes wigleyi 4 Amphicteis gunneri 2 Anaitides rosea 2 Aphroditidae 2 Aricidea 2 Aricidea cerrutii 2 Chaetozone christiei 2 Eteone longa 2 Eumida bahusiensis 2 Glycinde nordmanni 2 Glyphohesione klatti 2 Spionidae 2 CRUSTACEANS Bathyporeia elegans 61 Harpinia antennaria 56 Urothoe elegans 15 Pontocrates arenarius 13 Eudorellopsis deformis 9 Lepidepecreum longicorne 9 Diastylis tumida 7 Siphonoecetes kroyeranus 7 Nototropis vedlomensis 6 Westwoodilla caecula 6 Ampelisca brevicornis 4 Ebalia tuberosa 4 Gammaropsis 4 Hippomedon denticulatus 4 Perioculodes longimanus 4 Abludomelita obtusata 2 Ampelisca tenuicornis 2 Arcturella dilatata 2 Atylus swammerdamei 2 Liocarcinus holsatus 2 Paguridae 2 Pagurus pubescens 2 Photis reinhardi 2 MOLLUSCS Nucula nitidosa 50 Clausinella fasciata 24 Abra nitida 19 Arctica islandica 19 Kurtiella bidentata 17 Tellimya ferruginosa 17 Thracia villosiuscula 17 Chaetoderma nitidulum 15 Dosinia lupinus 15 Lucinoma borealis 15 Cylichna cylindracea 13

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 33 Taxa % Occurrence Chamelea striatula 7 Eulima bilineata 7 Phaxas pellucidus 7 Fabulina fabula 6 Timoclea ovata 6 Tridonta elliptica 6 Abra prismatica 4 Bivalvia 4 Euspira nitida 4 Moerella donacina 4 Myrtea spinifera 4 Spisula elliptica 4 Antalis entalis 2 Cochlodesma praetenue 2 Diaphana minuta 2 Epitonium trevelyanum 2 Gari costulata 2 Philine aperta 2 Retusa obtusa 2 Thracia 2 HORSESHOE WORMS Phoronis muelleri 22 SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Ophiuroidea 93 Amphiura 56 Amphiura filiformis 54 Echinocardium 33 Echinocyamus pusillus 30 Echinocardium cordatum 13 Echinocardium flavescens 7 Asteroidea 2 Luidia sarsi 2 Ophiocten affinis 2

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 34 Species list for video samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/Total number of samples x 100’.

Taxa % Occurrence SPONGES Porifera 63 Polymastia 5 HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Alcyonium digitatum 95 Actiniaria 26 Hydrozoa 26 Nemertesia 11 Virgularia mirabilis 11 Cerianthidae 5 Diphasia 5 Pennatulacea 5 Zoantharia 5 SEGMENTED WORMS Sabellidae 37 Nephtyidae 32 Aphrodita aculeata 11 Lanice conchilega 11 Sabellaria spinulosa 11 Spirobranchus 11 CRUSTACEANS Paguridae 84 Liocarcinus 11 Cancer pagurus 5 Decapoda 5 Pagurus prideaux 5 Pandalidae 5 MOLLUSCS Aeolidiidae 5 Aporrhais pespelecani 5 Buccinidae 5 Buccinum undatum 5 Neptunea antiqua 5 Onchidorididae 5 BRYOZOANS Flustra foliacea 42 Bryozoa 11 Securiflustra securifrons 11 Alcyonidium 5 SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Asterias rubens 68 Asteroidea 32 Luidia ciliaris 32 Ophiura 32 Ophiothrix fragilis 26 Ophiuroidea 11

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 35 Taxa % Occurrence Astropecten irregularis 5 Echinus 5 Psammechinus miliaris 5 FISH Callionymus 42 Pleuronectes platessa 21 Gobiidae 5 Osteichthyes 5 Pleuronectidae 5 Solea 5 Taurulus bubalis 5

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 36 Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%) 8 CR_S_29 54.62213 0.16421 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 93.20 6.80 10 CR_S_28 54.62435 0.11108 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 91.93 8.07 11 CR_R_22 54.59305 0.14356 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 89.89 10.11 13 CR_S_25 54.58862 0.09000 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.43 88.56 10.01 16 CR_S_22 54.56414 0.12383 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 93.95 6.05 18 CR_R_21 54.56829 0.17685 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 92.32 7.68 20 CR_S_19 54.54322 0.21053 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 88.38 11.62 25 CR_R_20 54.53918 0.15681 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 91.95 8.05 27 CR_S_18 54.53512 0.10343 mixed A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 40.79 52.82 6.39 29 CR_R_18 54.50989 0.13646 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 95.66 4.34 32 CR_S_15 54.51420 0.19015 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.08 86.16 13.77 34 CR_R_14 54.48519 0.16969 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.79 91.86 7.35 36 CR_S_13 54.48104 0.11621 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 92.68 7.32 39 CR_S_11 54.45621 0.14977 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.55 90.24 9.21 41 CR_R_10 54.46052 0.20305 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 15.10 77.85 7.05 43 CR_S_08 54.43132 0.18246 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.03 85.03 14.94 46 CR_S_06 54.42714 0.12894 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.76 90.80 7.44 48 CR_S_01 54.39806 0.10883 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.28 96.87 2.84 51 CR_S_03 54.40239 0.16224 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.14 95.88 3.97 53 CR_C_01 54.38927 0.21185 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.24 93.28 6.48 56 CR_S_05 54.40641 0.21591 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 90.35 9.65 60 CR_R_03 54.41096 0.26944 mixed A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 36.53 56.51 6.96 63 CR_C_02 54.39270 0.24550 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.02 93.56 6.42 73 CR_R_01 54.39007 0.35595 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.01 96.47 2.52 74 CR_R_04 54.41508 0.32283 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 49.94 46.16 3.91 76 CR_S_09 54.43565 0.23628 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.05 95.22 4.73 78 CR_R_07 54.43975 0.28980 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.13 93.31 6.57 80 CR_R_11 54.46467 0.25657 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.07 93.20 6.72 82 CR_R_15 54.48942 0.22336 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.05 93.38 6.56 84 CR_S_14 54.49356 0.27702 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 90.06 9.94 86 CR_S_16 54.51844 0.24381 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 26.77 67.78 5.45 88 CR_S_20 54.54768 0.26423 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.08 93.22 6.69 90 CR_S_23 54.57236 0.23120 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 91.23 8.77 92 CR_S_26 54.59729 0.19741 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.09 92.06 7.85

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 37 Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%) 94 CR_S_30 54.62633 0.21805 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.03 90.13 9.84 97 CR_S_27 54.60141 0.25114 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.60 93.56 5.83 99 CR_S_24 54.57664 0.28438 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.10 92.85 7.06 102 CR_S_21 54.55196 0.31802 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.19 95.06 4.74 104 CR_S_17 54.52694 0.35108 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.09 94.92 5.00 106 CR_R_19 54.52285 0.29719 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.14 90.88 7.98 109 CR_R_16 54.49800 0.33033 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.28 95.32 4.40 111 CR_R_17 54.50211 0.38402 mixed A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 33.81 58.72 7.47 113 CR_S_12 54.47729 0.41706 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 10.89 84.49 4.63 116 CR_R_13 54.47310 0.36349 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 4.24 86.62 9.13 118 CR_R_12 54.46879 0.30992 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.07 89.38 10.55 121 CR_R_08 54.44402 0.34319 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.00 88.13 11.87 123 CR_S_10 54.44822 0.39688 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.46 92.70 6.85 125 CR_R_09 54.40661 0.21603 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.23 88.59 9.17 127 CR_S_07 54.42754 0.48322 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.42 91.82 7.76 129 CR_S_04 54.40244 0.51616 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.06 91.74 8.20 132 CR_S_02 54.39850 0.46293 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.02 89.64 10.34 134 CR_R_06 54.42347 0.43028 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.97 90.70 8.33 137 CR_R_02 54.39439 0.40952 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 2.54 91.23 6.23 139 CR_R_05 54.41899 0.37643 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 12.75 83.72 3.53

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 38 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills Station No. Station Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code 9 CR_S_29 54.624154 0.16384 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 14 CR_S_25 54.590094 0.091639 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 21 CR_S_19 54.54222 0.212538 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 30 CR_R_18 54.511892 0.134667 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 37 CR_S_13 54.482672 0.115752 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 44 CR_S_08 54.432977 0.182969 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 49 CR_S_01 54.399764 0.109528 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 57 CR_S_05 54.406997 0.216804 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 61 CR_R_03 54.410939 0.271543 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 64 CR_C_02 54.390955 0.246086 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 100 CR_S_24 54.574893 0.284269 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 107 CR_R_19 54.54222 0.212538 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 114 CR_S_12 54.47891 0.414702 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.OCS 119 CR_R_12 54.470065 0.307648 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 130 CR_S_04 54.400875 0.516215 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 135 CR_R_06 54.422163 0.43106 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 141 CR_R_04 54.416525 0.322959 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa 143 CR_R_10 54.462007 0.202782 coarse A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.OCS 145 CR_R_19 54.525229 0.295986 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.OSa

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 39 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey A5.1 Subtidal coarse Coarse sediments sediment including coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles which are often unstable due to tidal currents and/or wave action.

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

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 40 Appendix 8. Example image from survey for habitat FOCI Habitat FOCI Description Example Image taken during survey

Subtidal Sands and Sand and gravel Gravels seabeds widespread around the UK

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 41 This page intentionally left blank

Compass Rose rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 42