Coquet to St Mary's Rmcz Summary Site Report V5
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Contract Reference: MB0120 Report Number: 36 Version 5 September 2015 Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 36. Title: Coquet to St Mary’s 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 Clare Fitzsimmons Newcastle University [email protected] Fabrice Stephenson Newcastle University [email protected] Paula Lightfoot Newcastle University [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Chris Barrio Frojan and Markus Diesing from Cefas 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 have 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: Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group Date submitted: September 2015 Project Manager: David Limpenny Report compiled by: Clare Fitzsimmons, Fabrice Stephenson and Paula Lightfoot Quality control by: Chris Barrio Frojan, Markus Diesing Approved by & date: Keith Weston (17/09/2015) Version: V5 Version Control History Author Date Comment Version Clare Fitzsimmons, 21/01/2015 First draft of report to Cefas 1 Fabrice Stephenson Paula Lightfoot Clare Fitzsimmons, 04/02/2015 Second draft of report to Cefas 2 Fabrice Stephenson Paula Lightfoot Keith Weston 10/06/2015 Updated following external reviewers’ comments 3 Keith Weston 09/09/2015 Updated following Defra comments 4 Keith Weston 17/09/2015 Updated following Defra comments 5 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ i List of Tables .............................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iv 1 Executive Summary: Report Card ................................................................. 1 1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation ...... 1 1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ ............................... 2 2 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Location of the rMCZ ..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Rationale for site position and designation .................................................... 4 2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection ........... 5 2.4 Survey aims and objectives .......................................................................... 6 3 Methods ........................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Acoustic data acquisition ............................................................................... 7 3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition .................................................................... 7 3.3 Production of the updated habitat map ......................................................... 8 3.4 Quality of the updated map ......................................................................... 11 4 Results ........................................................................................................ 13 4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map .......................................... 13 4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ........................................ 14 4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 16 4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 16 4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 17 4.6 Species FOCI identified .............................................................................. 19 4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...................................... 20 4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 20 4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed .......................................... 21 5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 22 5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ............................................... 22 5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI .......................................................... 23 5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ................................................. 23 5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 23 References ............................................................................................................... 24 Data sources ............................................................................................................ 26 Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report i Annexes ................................................................................................................... 27 Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. ..................................... 27 Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................ 28 Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ....................... 29 Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ..................................... 30 Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol. .................................................... 31 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 33 Appendix 1. Survey metadata (2ENC30914, 2ENC30714) ................................. 33 Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ......................................................... 37 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ................................. 39 Appendix 4. Species list ....................................................................................... 40 Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 48 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 50 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ..................... 54 Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI ................................ 56 Coquet to St Mary’s 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. Confidence scores for the presence and extent of BSH for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. ........................................................................... 6 Table 5: Derivatives calculated from bathymetry data ............................................... 9 Table 6: Feature values included in the Feature Space Optimization analysis ....... 11 Table 7. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. .............................................. 17 Table 8. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ......................................................... 18 Table 9. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ....................................................... 19 Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ, showing the proximate MCZ North East of Farnes Deep, and rMCZ Farnes East.. ........................................ 4 Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ. ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 13 Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. ................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified. ............................................................................ 18 Figure 7. Distribution of stations where the species FOCI ‘Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)’ was recorded.