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...... 19

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv 1 Executive Summary: Report Card This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Coquet to St Mary’s recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ). The site is being considered for inclusion in a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters, designed to meet conservation objectives under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Prior to the dedicated survey, the site assessment had been made on the basis of best available evidence, drawn largely from historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the area. The purpose of the survey was to provide direct evidence of the presence and extent of the broadscale habitats (BSH) and habitat FOCI (Features of Conservation Importance) that had been detailed in the original Site Assessment Document (SAD; 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 and the Environment Agency in January and September 2014. The comparison covers BSH and habitat FOCI.

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation Extent Extent according Accordance between according to updated SAD and updated habitat Feature to SAD habitat map map Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent A1.2 Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.33km2 N/A* N/A* N/A* A1.3 Low energy intertidal rock 0.05 km2 N/A* N/A* N/A* A2.1 Intertidal coarse sediment 0.15 km2 N/A* N/A* N/A* A2.2 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.03 km2 N/A* N/A* N/A* A2.3 Intertidal mud 0.03 km2 N/A* N/A* N/A* A2.4 Intertidal mixed sediments 0.29 km2 N/A* N/A* N/A* A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock 73.39 km² 0.00 km2  -73.39 km2 A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral 48.33 km² 0.00 km2  -48.33 km2 rock A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral 69.42 km² 64.13 km2  -5.29 km2 rock A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 1.00 km² 0.00 km2  -1.00 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.13 km² 51.76 km2  +51.63 km2 A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.16 km² 47.00 km2  +46.84 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 2.58 km² 0.00 km2  -2.58 km2 Habitat FOCI 6 Point Intertidal Underboulder Communities records N/A* N/A* N/A* Species FOCI None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A *The 2014 dedicated survey of this MCZ did not extend into the intertidal zone.

Coquet to St Mary’s 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 to updated SAD and updated habitat Feature SAD habitat map map Broadscale Habitats (BSH) Presence Extent None found N/A N/A N/A N/A Habitat FOCI Sheltered Muddy Gravels Not reported N/A* N/A* N/A* Subtidal Sands and Gravels 1.13 km² 51.76 km2  +50.63 km2 Estuarine Rocky Habitats Not reported N/A* N/A* N/A* Mud Habitats in Deep water Not reported 43.68 km2  +43.68 km2 Species FOCI 13 Point Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) Not reported N/A Records N/A *The 2014 dedicated survey of this MCZ did not extend into the intertidal zone.

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ There is evidence from the acoustic data of several previously charted wrecks present within the boundaries of the rMCZ (Appendix 3).

Coquet to St Mary’s 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. 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. 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 Environment Agency at the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ site between January and September 2014.

2.1 Location of the rMCZ The Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ is located in the northern North Sea, on the Northumberland coast (Figure 1). The inshore boundary of the rMCZ runs from Whitley Bay in the south to Alnmouth in the north and includes both St Mary’s and Coquet Islands. The depth across the site ranges from 10 m above the mean low water mark and -30 m at its seaward extent, and covers a total area of 198.75 km².

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 3

Figure 1. Location of the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ, showing the proximate MCZ North East of Farnes Deep, and rMCZ Farnes East. Bathymetry is from the EMODnet Bathymetry portal (Accessed: January 2015).

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation The Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) criteria to broadscale habitats, and its added ecological importance (Natural England and the JNCC, 2010). The site contains a mosaic of rock and sediment features, including intertidal underboulder communities and estuarine rocky habitats of conservation importance. St Mary’s Island is an existing voluntary marine reserve to protect the presence of rocky reef, large numbers of edible and shore crabs and some lobsters (The Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and Seasearch, 2010). Coquet Island has international importance for breeding seabirds during late March until mid-September, as well as being a foraging location for other birds throughout the year (Net Gain, 2011). In recent years, Coquet Island has been a haul out site for seals and their pups (Net Gain, 2011). It is proposed for designation to maintain the condition of 13 broadscale habitats and one habitat FOCI. For a detailed site description see Net Gain (2011).

2.2.1 Broadscale habitats proposed for designation The BSH included in the recommendations for designation of this site are listed in Table 1. See Annex 1 for full list of broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.

Coquet to St Mary’s 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 A1.2 Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.33 km2 A1.3 Low energy intertidal rock 0.05 km2 A2.1 Intertidal coarse sediment 0.15 km2 A2.2 Intertidal sand and muddy sand 0.03 km2 A2.3 Intertidal mud 0.03 km2 A2.4 Intertidal mixed sediments 0.29 km2 A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock 73.39 km² A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock 48.33 km² A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 69.42 km² A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 1.00 km² A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.13 km² A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.16 km² A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 2.58 km²

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation The habitat FOCI ‘Intertidal Underboulder Communities’ was included in the recommendations for designation (Table 2). Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG.

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD Intertidal Underboulder Communities 6 Point Records

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 list of all species FOCI is presented in Annexes 3 and 4.

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Species FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD Low or limited mobility species FOCI None proposed None Highly mobile species FOCI None proposed None

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection Prioritisation of rMCZ sites for further evidence collection was informed by a gap analysis and evidence assessment. The prime objective was to elevate the confidence status for as many rMCZs as feasible to support designation in terms of the amount and quality of evidence for the presence and extent of BSH features and habitat FOCI and, where possible, species FOCI. The confidence status was originally assessed in the SADs according Technical Protocol E (Natural England and the JNCC, 2012).

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 5 The confidence scores for the presence and extent of BSH for the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ are shown in Table 4 (JNCC and Natural England, 2012). Many of the broadscale habitats had ‘Low’ or ‘Moderate’ confidence scores for presence and extent. This site was therefore prioritised for additional evidence collection.

Table 4. Confidence scores for the presence and extent of BSH for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Feature Confidence in Presence Confidence in Extent Broadscale Habitats (BSH) A1.2 Moderate energy intertidal rock Moderate Low A1.3 Low energy intertidal rock Moderate Low A2.1 Intertidal coarse sediment High Moderate A2.2 Intertidal sand and muddy sand High Moderate A2.3 Intertidal mud High Moderate A2.4 Intertidal mixed sediments High Moderate A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock Moderate Low A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock Low Low A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock Low Low A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment Moderate Low A5.2 Subtidal sand Low Low A5.3 Subtidal mud Low Low A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments Moderate Low

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 sublittoral BSH 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. 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 6 3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition Acoustic data acquisition was carried out between January and March 2014 from the survey vessel CSV Humber Guardian (Environment Agency, 2014). Bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired using a side mounted Reson Seabat 7101 multibeam echosounder (MBES) system. This was used in conjunction with Hypack Hysweep, a multibeam data collecting and editing software module. An Ohmex Sonarmite v3 single beam echosounder and a Leica Viva GS10 GNSS receiver were used to collect ground truth single beam data at a number of indicative sites across the survey area to provide a quality control check of the multibeam elevation data. All acquired data meet the position and elevation accuracy specification of IHO S-44 Order 1A (Environment Agency, 2014). Post-survey data processing was performed using CARIS HIPS/SIPS version v.8.1.9 to produce a backscatter mosaic image for export as a geotiff file. Both bathymetry and backscatter were gridded at 1 m resolution for analysis (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data). For further information on acoustic data collection and processing, see the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ survey cruise report (Environment Agency, 2014).

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition The Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ ground truth survey was carried out between July and September 2014 by the Environment Agency from the survey vessel CSV Humber Guardian (Godsell, 2014). Ninety-five target sampling stations were identified for the collection of ground truth data within the rMCZ. This selection of stations was deemed to give the best possible representation of the MCZ and potential BSHs, based on interpreted MBES bathymetry and backscatter data and UKHO Admiralty charts. A drop camera survey was carried out, and stations were selected for grab sampling if suitable sediment was observed in at least 50% of the images collected. Drop video camera equipment was used to collect video and still images of the seabed at all 95 stations. Benthic grabs were used at 60 of the 95 stations to collect sediments and infauna (Figure 2 and Appendix 1).

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 7

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the EMODnet Bathymetry portal (Accessed: January 2015).

The drop camera system was deployed in accordance with the MESH recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques (Coggan et al., 2007). SES SeaSpyder systems were used to collect both video and still images. A 2-point laser scaling device was used to provide a reference scale. Video files and still images were recorded on a computer hard- drive, and a video overlay was used to annotate the footage with time, GPS position and station metadata.

Images of the seabed were captured approximately every 10 to 15 metres over a distance of > 150 metres. Extra photographs were taken in heterogeneous areas and when particular features of interest were observed. A mini-Hamon grab was deployed to collect sediment and fauna from the seabed. On recovery, a sub-sample of sediment was taken for Particle Size Analysis (PSA). The remaining sample was photographed and washed over a 1 mm sieve to collect the benthic macrofauna. Fauna were preserved in buffered 8% formaldehyde for later processing ashore. For further detail on ground truth sample collection see Godsell (2014).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map All new maps and their derivatives have been based on a WGS84 datum. A new habitat map for the site was produced by analysing and interpreting the acoustic data

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 8 and ground truth data collected by the dedicated surveys of this site, using an object based image analysis process which is described below. Object based image analysis (OBIA) was employed for this analysis. OBIA is a two- step approach consisting of segmentation and classification (Blaschke, 2010), implemented in the software package eCognition® v9.0. The combined backscatter and bathymetry image (Appendix 2) is segmented into objects (sections of the image with homogeneous backscatter characteristics). For each of these objects, feature values of the primary acoustic data layers (bathymetry and backscatter) and their derivatives were calculated and used, in a K-nearest neighbour model with ground truth data, to predict substrate type. Each stage in the process is numbered and described in detail below.

Stage 1. Data preparation Prior to analysis, the bathymetry and backscatter data were re-sampled onto a common grid at 1 m resolution. 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 1 m x 1 m grid cell and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process.

Stage 2. Derivatives calculated A bathymetric position index (BPI) derivative was calculated from the bathymetric data. BPI indicates where a point sits in relation to its neighbours, aiding the identification of benthic features such as crests and gullies. The value of the BPI indicates the size of the search radius used. BPI layers were created at 10, 25, 50 and 100 pixel scale. A slope derivative was also calculated from the bathymetric data. Table 5 summarises the derivatives calculated from the primary acoustic data.

Table 5: Derivatives calculated from bathymetry data Derivative Description Slope The slope in degrees using the maximum change in elevation of each cell and its 8 neighbours BPI Bathymetric position index (Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 10, 25, 50, 100 cells

Stage 3. Visual interpretation in ArcGIS showed that BPI50 and BPI100 were the most useful scales for identifying features within the rMCZ, so BPI10 and BPI25 were not included in the Feature Space Optimization analysis to determine the most useful feature values for the nearest neighbour model (Table 6). Stage 4. Project creation A new project was created in eCognition®. The input layers were the primary acoustic data layers (bathymetry and backscatter strength) and the BPI 100, BPI 50 and slope derivatives. ‘Empty’ pixels were removed from the acoustic layers and derivatives using the ‘Assign No Data Values’ dialogue box in eCognition® to save processing time and to prevent extreme values from influencing the segmentation and classification processes. The ground truth data vector layers were loaded as thematic layers.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 9 Stage 5. Segmentation Segmentation divides the image into objects, based on their spectral and spatial characteristics. The resulting objects can be characterised by their various features, such as layer values (e.g. mean backscatter, maximum depth), geometry (e.g. size, compactness, direction), texture and many others. Segmentation was carried out using the multi-resolution 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 determining the variability allowed in the objects is reached. The threshold is determined by the operator. The goal of the segmentation is to create meaningful objects that represent areas of homogeneous values 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 a fixed seabed heterogeneity, larger values of the scale parameter produce larger objects than do smaller values. The scale parameter used in the process was 23, with a shape value of 0.1 and a compactness value of 0.9. This scale was selected by trialling progressively smaller scales, starting from 80, and evaluating the outputs visually. The scale factor of 23 performed best at identifying genuine features, such as small rock outcrops surrounded by sediment, whilst minimising the erroneous creation of objects from artefacts in the backscatter. Only the bathymetry and backscatter layers were used in segmentation. The segmentation process created 78,875 objects.

Stage 6. Classification Habitat classes were created for three of the five BSHs for which ground truth data had been captured by the 2014 survey: ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’; ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’; and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’. ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ were included in early iterations of the classification process, but not included in the final version used to create the updated BSH map (see sections 4.4 and 4.8 for details). ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ were not included in the classification as they were not recorded during the 2014 ground truth survey. As a result, there is a probable overestimation of ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ in the updated habitat map. Infralittoral rock is likely to occur in the inshore area (see Section 4.8 for details), and the map could be amended in future if evidence can be collected to support this. Classification was carried out in four steps: 1. Rule-based classification of ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ based on thresholds of mean backscatter and slope. 2. Nearest neighbour classification of ‘A5.3 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ using the following object features: mean bathymetry, mean backscatter, standard deviation BPI 100, grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) homogeneity bathymetry and GLCM correlation backscatter.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 10 3. Manual re-classification in ArcGIS of an area of sediment which is misclassified as rock due to artefacts in the backscatter. The acoustic survey cruise report states that these artefacts could not be edited out from the data, but that areas of different bed type are visibly identifiable although they may not be distinguished by automated software (Environment Agency, 2014). It was therefore necessary to re-classify these areas using visual interpretation of the backscatter data. Samples to train the nearest neighbour classifications were created by selecting objects that overlapped PSA ground truth points. The Feature Space Optimization tool in eCognition® was used to identify the optimum combination of features for separating the classes using the nearest neighbour classification. The Feature Space Optimization tool helps users to find the most suitable combination of features for separating classes in conjunction with a nearest neighbour classifier. It compares the features of selected classes to mathematically calculate the combination of features that produces the largest average minimum distance between the samples of the different classes (Trimble, 2014). The features included in the Feature Space Optimisation Tool are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Feature values included in the Feature Space Optimization analysis Feature Value Layer(s) Mean Bathymetry, Backscatter, Slope, BPI50, BPI100 Standard deviation Bathymetry, Backscatter, Slope, BPI50, BPI100 Maximum pixel value Slope GLCM Correlation Bathymetry, Backscatter GLCM Homogeneity Bathymetry, Backscatter GLCM Entropy Bathymetry, Backscatter GLCM Contrast Bathymetry, Backscatter GLCM Mean Bathymetry, Backscatter GLCM Standard deviation Bathymetry, Backscatter

The classified objects were merged and the resulting habitat map was exported as a shapefile containing 2,174 classified polygons.

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

1 http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 06/01/2015]

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 11 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 12 4 Results

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map The SAD habitat map (Figure 3) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap (McBreen, 2010). For further details see Net Gain (2011).

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 13 4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data The updated habitat map resulting from an integrated analysis of the 2014 dedicated survey data is presented in Figure 4.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 14

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

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 15 4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map This map attained a score of 84 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 5) which is good, given the maximum possible score for a purely physical map of 88.

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

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified A summary of the particle size analysis of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 50 stations where a sample was obtained, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ was recorded at 26 stations, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ at 19 stations and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ at 5 stations. ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ was the most widespread habitat type, occupying 39% of the rMCZ site (Figure 4; Table 7). ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ occupies 32% and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ occupies 29% of the rMCZ, the mud being predominantly distributed in deeper offshore water. ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ were identified as present from the ground truth data, but were not included in the updated BSH map as there is insufficient data to map their distribution reliably (see section 4.8 for details). ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ do not feature in the updated habitat map, as they were not identified from any of the ground truth samples. It is likely that infralittoral rock occurs within the rMCZ,

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 16 because the bathymetry and backscatter data show evidence of hard substrate at depths as shallow as 5 metres below Chart Datum, notably in the areas around St Mary’s Island, Blyth Harbour, Newbiggin and Coquet Island. It is likely that these rock features continue into the landward extent of the rMCZ which was not covered by the acoustic survey. Although the ground truth survey collected 801 still images of rock, the majority of these images were taken at depths >10 metres below Chart Datum, and all images were classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ following analysis of the biological communities present in the images. The updated BSH map should be revised if evidence of infralittoral rock is collected in future.

Table 7. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. Broadscale Habitat Type Spatial extent according Spatial extent according to (EUNIS Level 3) to the SAD the updated habitat map A3.1: High energy infralittoral rock 73.39 km² 0.00 km² A3.2: Moderate energy infralittoral rock 48.33 km² 0.00 km² A4.2: Moderate energy circalittoral rock 69.42 km² 64.13 km² A5.1: Subtidal coarse sediment 1.00 km² 0.00 km² A5.2: Subtidal sand 0.13 km² 51.76 km² A5.3: Subtidal mud 0.16 km² 47.00 km² A5.4: Subtidal mixed sediments 2.58 km² 0.00 km²

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified The SAD map predicts that less than 1% of the rMCZ is covered by the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI, consisting of 1.00 km2 of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and 0.13 km2 of ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. The updated habitat map includes 51.76 km2 of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’, comprising 32% of the total area (Figure 6). The SAD map predicts 0.16 km2 of the broadscale habitat ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’. The 2014 dedicated survey identified 19 grab samples and 506 still images as ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’. The updated habitat map includes 47.00 km2 of ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’, of which 43.68 km2 is deeper than 20 m and can therefore be classed as the habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ (JNCC, 2011).

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 17

Table 8. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Spatial extent according to Spatial extent according to Habitat FOCI the SAD the updated habitat map Subtidal Sands and Gravels 1.13 km2 51.76 km2 Mud Habitats in Deep Water 0.00 km2 43.68 km2

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 18 4.6 Species FOCI identified The species FOCI Arctica islandica was recorded in 13 samples collected during the survey (Figure 7; Table 9). All A. islandica identified were juveniles. No other species FOCI were found. The list of species identified from grab and video samples collected by the 2014 dedicated survey is presented in Appendix 4.

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

Table 9. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Previously recorded within Identified during evidence Species FOCI rMCZ gathering survey Low or Limited Mobility Species FOCI Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) None recorded 13 point records Highly Mobile Species FOCI None recorded None recorded

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 19 4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)

4.7.1 Acoustic data The acoustic data utilised for production of the updated habitat map were collected as a dedicated survey under the MCZ programme. In order to maximise capture efficiency, point density does not meet Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP) specification in some areas, resulting in minor data voids, but all data meet the position and elevation accuracy specification of the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys-Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). The multibeam echosounder 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 (PSA) of sediments PSA was carried out by the Environment Agency following standard laboratory practice and the results checked by specialist Cefas staff following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011). Results of the PSA are shown in Appendix 5.

4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs Infaunal samples were processed by APEM Ltd following standard laboratory practices and results checked following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis Video and photographic stills were processed by Thomson Unicomarine 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 good, having attained a score of 84 out of a possible 88 on the MESH assessment tool. The survey has provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence of the mapped habitats. The ground truth survey also provides evidence of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’, but these were not included on the updated map as their extent was too limited to be mapped reliably. The 2014 groundtruthing survey produced 2,288 ground truth data points, of which only 95 were ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and 21 were ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’. The survey therefore provided evidence that these habitats are present within the rMCZ, but did not provide sufficient data points to predict their distribution reliably. The experimental inclusion of these two habitats in early iterations of the classification process suggests that their quantities are too small to map and monitor, namely < 2 km2 of ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and <0.5 km2 of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’. Furthermore, comparison of the ground truth data from grab samples and

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 20 video images showed that most samples of ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ are a veneer of sediment overlying rock. This explains some mismatches between the BSH predicted by the updated habitat map and the ground truth data (Figure 4). The acoustic survey did not cover the entire area of the rMCZ. An area of 34.6 km2 along the shoreward boundary of the rMCZ was not surveyed. This should consist mainly of intertidal habitat and a small area of shallow subtidal habitat. Infralittoral rock was not identified in the video and still images collected, although it was predicted to cover 121 km2, over 60% of the total site area, in the map presented in the SAD (Net Gain, 2011). Infralittoral rock is likely to be present within the rMCZ, because the bathymetry and backscatter data shows evidence of hard substrate at depths as shallow as 5 metres below Chart Datum, and it is likely that these rock features continue into the landward extent of the rMCZ which was not covered by the acoustic survey. The reason for the large discrepancy between the SAD map and the updated BSH map is that the SAD map was based on lower resolution data (McBreen, 2010). The SAD map (Figure 3) predicts that over 96% of the rMCZ consists of rock seabed, but it is clear from the 2014 acoustic and ground truth surveys that there are extensive areas of sand and mud. Furthermore, the SAD map predicts the occurrence of infralittoral rock at depths of up to 25-30 m below Chart Datum throughout the rMCZ, which is inconsistent with North Sea turbidity, and has led to a large overestimation of infralittoral rock on the SAD map. Due to rough weather conditions during the acoustic survey, there are artefacts visible within the backscatter mosaic caused by aeration at the transducer head. However, these do not affect the outcome of the mosaic as all substrata boundaries are still clearly evident therefore the backscatter is deemed to be of good quality (Environment Agency, 2014). There were also a small number of notable data gaps caused by the presence of obstacles (fishing gear and wind turbines) and the exclusion of tie lines (Environment Agency, 2014). The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale habitats depicted on the map should be regarded as indicative, not definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt. Instead it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a transitional boundary. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI

4.8.1 Presence of Species FOCI The species FOCI ‘Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) was recorded at 13 stations within this site.

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed Several previously identified and charted wrecks are visible in the multibeam echosounder backscatter and bathymetry derivatives for this site, as shown in Appendix 3.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 21 5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence  The 2014 dedicated survey has 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’. These were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

 The 2014 dedicated survey has not confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ or ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ that 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 on the updated habitat map is 64.13 km2. This is 5.29 km2 less than its extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 51.76 km2. This is 51.63 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 47.00 km2. This is 46.84 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 0.00 km2. This is 1.00 km2 less than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map. This BSH is present in the rMCZ, but its spatial extent is too small for its distribution to be reliably predicted.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 0.00 km2. This is 2.58 km2 less than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map. This BSH is present in the rMCZ, but its spatial extent is too small for its distribution to be reliably predicted.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 0.00 km2. This is 48.33 km2 less than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the ‘A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 0.00 km2. This is 73.39 km2 less than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 22 5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence  The 2014 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’. This habitat FOCI was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

 The 2014 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ at this site. This habitat FOCI was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution  The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ on the updated habitat map is 51.76 km2. This is 50.63 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ on the updated habitat map is 43.68 km2. This was not identified in the SAD habitat map.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species  The species FOCI ‘Ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica)’ has been recorded at 13 stations in the rMCZ area. A maximum of three individuals was present in any single grab sample collected as part of this survey.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI  The 2014 dedicated survey found no evidence of highly mobile species FOCI.

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed There is no evidence from the multibeam bathymetry or backscatter image of any human activity, other than the presence of previously charted wrecks (Appendix 3).

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 23 References

Blaschke, T. (2010). Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 65, 2-16. Coggan, R., Mitchell, A., White, J. and Golding, N. (2007). Recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques. www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf [Accessed 06/01/2015] 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. Environment Agency (2014). Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Survey Cruise Report, Report version 1.0 Godsell, N. (2014). Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Survey Report, Report version 1.0, Project Code: C5784A. 183 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 (2011). UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock) 2008. (Updated 2011) http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf [Accessed 10/11/2014] 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. 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. McBreen, F. (2010). UKSeaMap 2010 EUNIS model Version 3.0. UKSeaMap 2010: Predictive seabed habitat map (v5). JNCC. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK. 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 24 The Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and Seasearch (2010). Biodiverse Areas within the Net Gain region: A supportive guide to aid stakeholder identification of ecological interest areas that meet aspects of the Ecological Network Guidance. November, 2010. Trimble (2014). Trimble Germany GmbH. eCognition Developer 9.0 User Guide. Munich, Germany. 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 06/01/2015]

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 25 Data sources

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

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 26 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 27 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. *** Cold-Water 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

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 28 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. *** 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 29 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 30 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 31 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.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 32 Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (2ENC30914, 2ENC30714) Date Cruise Stn Stn Gear Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 1 GT055 DC 55.05151 -1.35551 55.05246 -1.35704 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 2 GT054 DC 55.06661 -1.37143 55.06754 -1.37359 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 3 GT053 DC 55.08597 -1.38573 55.08644 -1.38553 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 3 GT053 DC 55.08644 -1.38553 55.0873 -1.38496 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 4 GT090 DC 55.09412 -1.37966 55.09606 -1.37843 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 5 GT050 DC 55.08471 -1.41585 55.08657 -1.41459 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 5 GT050 DC 55.08657 -1.41459 55.08689 -1.41432 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 6 GT072 DC 55.09994 -1.44443 55.10199 -1.4425 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 7 GT047 DC 55.11405 -1.44935 55.11656 -1.44551 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 8 GT069 DC 55.13645 -1.4662 55.13827 -1.46373 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 9 GT041 DC 55.12691 -1.47408 55.12754 -1.47278 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 9 GT041 DC 55.12754 -1.47278 55.12851 -1.47028 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 9 GT041 DC 55.12851 -1.47028 55.12903 -1.46929 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 10 GT074 DC 55.10776 -1.46594 55.10811 -1.46495 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 10 GT074 DC 55.10811 -1.46495 55.10916 -1.46296 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 10 GT074 DC 55.10916 -1.46296 55.10975 -1.46261 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 11 GT088 DC 55.09696 -1.46379 55.09796 -1.46262 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 11 GT088 DC 55.09796 -1.46262 55.09999 -1.46038 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 11 GT088 DC 55.09999 -1.46038 55.10033 -1.45994 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 12 GT070 DC 55.08809 -1.45387 55.09117 -1.44908 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 13 GT046 DC 55.08173 -1.45094 55.08297 -1.44733 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 13 GT046 DC 55.08297 -1.44733 55.08432 -1.44461 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 14 GT048 DC 55.06843 -1.43887 55.07007 -1.43519 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 15 GT089 DC 55.05614 -1.40396 55.05859 -1.40048 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 16 GT049 DC 55.05051 -1.4211 55.05233 -1.41896 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 17 GT052 DC 55.05533 -1.38897 55.05452 -1.38735 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 18 GT073 DC 55.06885 -1.39854 55.06802 -1.39634 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 19 GT051 DC 55.07665 -1.42501 55.07615 -1.42255 03/07/2014 2ENC30714 20 GT040 DC 55.09835 -1.47484 55.09914 -1.47262 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 21 GT071 DC 55.10412 -1.47751 55.10473 -1.47519 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 21 GT071 DC 55.10473 -1.47519 55.10485 -1.47464 03/07/2014 2ENC30714 22 GT034 DC 55.11639 -1.47933 55.11721 -1.47723 03/07/2014 2ENC30714 23 GT026 DC 55.1357 -1.49749 55.13661 -1.49603 03/07/2014 2ENC30714 24 GT075 DC 55.14039 -1.50019 55.14103 -1.4988 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 25 GT019 DC 55.15325 -1.51233 55.1546 -1.51035 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 26 GT027 DC 55.16237 -1.50355 55.16427 -1.49924 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 27 GT067 DC 55.17462 -1.50475 55.17546 -1.50293 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 27 GT067 DC 55.17546 -1.50293 55.17606 -1.50148 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 27 GT067 DC 55.17606 -1.50148 55.17624 -1.50079 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 28 GT028 DC 55.19221 -1.48727 55.19416 -1.48513 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 29 GT021 DC 55.20698 -1.50585 55.20848 -1.5029 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 30 GT008 DC 55.22472 -1.51293 55.22591 -1.51069 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 31 GT013 DC 55.23264 -1.51829 55.23432 -1.51547 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 32 GT022 DC 55.23818 -1.50919 55.23967 -1.5056

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 33 Date Cruise Stn Stn Gear Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 33 GT029 DC 55.22226 -1.49867 55.22378 -1.49774 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 34 GT065 DC 55.20732 -1.48912 55.20837 -1.48758 03/07/2014 2ENC30714 35 GT036 DC 55.17739 -1.47791 55.17929 -1.47549 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 36 GT087 DC 55.16843 -1.49278 55.16927 -1.49009 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 36 GT087 DC 55.16927 -1.49009 55.16947 -1.48945 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 37 GT068 DC 55.16039 -1.48928 55.16155 -1.48685 03/07/2014 2ENC30714 39 GT035 DC 55.14285 -1.48463 55.1432 -1.4825 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 40 GT094 DC 55.34574 -1.57342 55.34507 -1.57041 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 41 GT083 DC 55.34987 -1.5773 55.34845 -1.57558 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 42 GT093 DC 55.35424 -1.58789 55.3533 -1.58588 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 43 GT092 DC 55.37009 -1.59317 55.3695 -1.59167 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 44 GT002 DC 55.37337 -1.59175 55.3729 -1.59095 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 45 GT005 DC 55.37886 -1.58221 55.37851 -1.58065 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 45 GT005 DC 55.37851 -1.58065 55.37823 -1.57976 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 45 GT005 DC 55.37823 -1.57976 55.37809 -1.57933 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 46 GT091 DC 55.38909 -1.59221 55.38898 -1.5903 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 47 GT082 DC 55.38882 -1.57967 55.38853 -1.57674 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 48 GT001 DC 55.38776 -1.55832 55.38742 -1.55492 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 49 GT007 DC 55.37903 -1.55837 55.37889 -1.55685 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 50 GT081 DC 55.37123 -1.56829 55.37106 -1.56678 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 50 GT081 DC 55.37106 -1.56678 55.37101 -1.56613 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 51 GT003 DC 55.36348 -1.5752 55.36326 -1.57376 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 52 GT012 DC 55.36314 -1.5432 55.36214 -1.54253 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 52 GT058 DC 55.3226 -1.51385 55.32153 -1.51423 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 53 GT059 DC 55.36943 -1.53419 55.36841 -1.53404 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 54 GT018 DC 55.38024 -1.52777 55.37881 -1.52764 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 55 GT033 DC 55.37828 -1.49362 55.37754 -1.49344 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 56 GT025 DC 55.36308 -1.50944 55.3613 -1.50984 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 57 GT039 DC 55.36319 -1.47908 55.36252 -1.47932 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 58 GT079 DC 55.35216 -1.47708 55.35161 -1.47754 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 59 GT032 DC 55.3469 -1.49469 55.34598 -1.49589 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 60 GT057 DC 55.33438 -1.50009 55.33366 -1.50204 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 61 GT038 DC 55.33486 -1.4754 55.33455 -1.47729 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 62 GT060 DC 55.31628 -1.51709 55.31503 -1.51837 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 63 GT061 DC 55.30247 -1.51726 55.30198 -1.51782 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 64 GT078 DC 55.29277 -1.5234 55.29215 -1.52416 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 64 GT078 DC 55.29215 -1.52416 55.29166 -1.52465 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 65 GT015 DC 55.28499 -1.53158 55.28426 -1.5323 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 66 GT063 DC 55.28616 -1.5532 55.28564 -1.55469 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 67 GT010 DC 55.29597 -1.54327 55.29556 -1.54529 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 68 GT016 DC 55.32731 -1.52776 55.3267 -1.52942 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 69 GT095 DC 55.326 -1.53325 55.32509 -1.53351 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 71 GT084 DC 55.34051 -1.55076 55.33944 -1.54953 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 72 GT006 DC 55.3502 -1.5593 55.34933 -1.55925 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 73 GT017 DC 55.3475 -1.52737 55.34674 -1.52654 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 73 GT017 DC 55.34674 -1.52654 55.34617 -1.52605 05/07/2014 2ENC30714 73 GT017 DC 55.34617 -1.52605 55.34578 -1.52553

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 34 Date Cruise Stn Stn Gear Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 75 GT080 DC 55.33423 -1.52286 55.33274 -1.52245 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 76 GT011 DC 55.33989 -1.53089 55.33852 -1.53041 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 76 GT031 DC 55.31624 -1.49448 55.31491 -1.49433 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 77 GT024 DC 55.33249 -1.51125 55.33114 -1.51098 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 80 GT045 DC 55.34155 -1.45868 55.34183 -1.46173 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 81 GT056 DC 55.32626 -1.46049 55.32645 -1.46263 07/07/2014 2ENC30714 82 GT044 DC 55.31594 -1.46364 55.31589 -1.46598 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 83 GT037 DC 55.30488 -1.47933 55.30386 -1.48067 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 84 GT085 DC 55.29427 -1.49327 55.29417 -1.4936 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 84 GT085 DC 55.29417 -1.4936 55.29367 -1.49561 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 85 GT062 DC 55.28948 -1.46956 55.28949 -1.47153 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 86 GT030 DC 55.28548 -1.49678 55.28649 -1.49894 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 87 GT043 DC 55.27715 -1.5084 55.27813 -1.51064 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 88 GT023 DC 55.27224 -1.52041 55.27348 -1.52219 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 89 GT009 DC 55.26957 -1.54221 55.27059 -1.54384 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 90 GT014 DC 55.25486 -1.52628 55.25614 -1.52813 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 91 GT004 DC 55.24712 -1.5357 55.24773 -1.53745 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 92 GT077 DC 55.24397 -1.51959 55.24524 -1.52211 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 93 GT064 DC 55.24889 -1.50971 55.25047 -1.51267 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 94 GT066 DC 55.23369 -1.50409 55.23492 -1.50532 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 95 GT086 DC 55.21284 -1.49665 55.21384 -1.49779 02/07/2014 2ENC30714 96 GT020 DC 55.17209 -1.48653 55.17322 -1.48778 06/07/2014 2ENC30714 97 GT076 DC 55.14959 -1.49459 55.14807 -1.49524 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 98 GT073 HG 55.06837 -1.39772 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 99 GT050 HG 55.08619 -1.41507 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 100 GT070 HG 55.08962 -1.45162 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 101 GT088 HG 55.09795 -1.46228 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 102 GT040 HG 55.09866 -1.47378 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 103 GT071 HG 55.10438 -1.47683 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 104 GT074 HG 55.1082 -1.46435 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 105 GT034 HG 55.11657 -1.47852 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 106 GT041 HG 55.12749 -1.4725 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 107 GT035 HG 55.14281 -1.48372 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 108 GT075 HG 55.14064 -1.4994 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 109 GT019 HG 55.15386 -1.51142 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 110 GT027 HG 55.16349 -1.50094 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 111 GT087 HG 55.16921 -1.49025 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 112 GT068 HG 55.16078 -1.48823 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 113 GT042 HG 55.15857 -1.46861 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 114 GT069 HG 55.13757 -1.46457 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 115 GT054 HG 55.06715 -1.37282 n/a n/a 04/09/2014 2ENC30914 116 GT052 HG 55.05506 -1.3884 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 130 GT018 HG 55.3797 -1.52786 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 131 GT033 HG 55.37769 -1.49331 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 132 GT039 HG 55.36284 -1.47973 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 133 GT025 HG 55.36204 -1.50974 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 134 GT059 HG 55.36886 -1.53414 n/a n/a

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 35 Date Cruise Stn Stn Gear Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 135 GT012 HG 55.36282 -1.54294 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 136 GT081 HG 55.37118 -1.56848 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 137 GT002 HG 55.37308 -1.59116 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 138 GT092 HG 55.36983 -1.59233 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 139 GT003 HG 55.36337 -1.57459 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 140 GT093 HG 55.35387 -1.58679 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 141 GT083 HG 55.34921 -1.57667 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 142 GT094 HG 55.34541 -1.57211 n/a n/a 05/09/2014 2ENC30914 143 GT006 HG 55.34977 -1.5595 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 144 GT076 HG 55.14868 -1.49479 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 145 GT043 HG 55.27763 -1.5092 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 147 GT085 HG 55.29424 -1.49351 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 148 GT062 HG 55.28958 -1.46942 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 149 GT037 HG 55.30469 -1.47977 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 150 GT044 HG 55.31578 -1.46449 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 151 GT056 HG 55.32626 -1.4619 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 152 GT038 HG 55.3346 -1.47634 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 153 GT045 HG 55.3416 -1.4599 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 154 GT079 HG 55.35169 -1.47747 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 155 GT032 HG 55.3464 -1.49486 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 156 GT057 HG 55.33403 -1.50086 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 157 GT024 HG 55.33151 -1.51108 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 158 GT016 HG 55.32748 -1.52865 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 159 GT058 HG 55.32245 -1.51385 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 160 GT031 HG 55.31551 -1.4941 n/a n/a 06/09/2014 2ENC30914 161 GT061 HG 55.30233 -1.51753 n/a n/a Key: HG - Mini Hamon Grab; SOL – Start of line; EOL - End of Line; DC - Drop Camera Equipment

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 36 Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 37 Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 38 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

There was evidence in the backscatter data and in the slope layer derived from the bathymetry data of previously charted wrecks, shown here from the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office UK Admiralty Wrecks database.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 39 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 8 CILIOPHORA

Lagotia viridis 7 HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Edwardsia claparedii 15 Campanulariidae 5 Lovenella clausa 5 Virgularia mirabilis 3 Alcyonium digitatum 2 Bougainvilliidae 2 Cerianthus lloydii 2 Edwardsiidae 2 FILIFERA 2 Sertularia 2 FLATWORMS

TURBELLARIA 3 RIBBON WORMS

NEMERTEA 42 Cerebratulus 25 Tubulanus polymorphus 17 NEMATODES

NEMATODA 2 PENIS WORMS

Priapulus caudatus 2 PEANUT WORMS

Thysanocardia procera 7 Golfingia elongata 2 Phascolion strombus 2 SEGMENTED WORMS

Magelona filiformis 62 Magelona johnstoni 60 Spiophanes bombyx 60 Lagis koreni 55 Lumbrineris aniara/cingulata 52 Scoloplos armiger 52 Sthenelais limicola 43 Chaetozone christiei 42 Pholoe baltica (sensu Petersen) 38 Nephtys hombergii 37 Galathowenia oculata 35 Peresiella clymenoides 33 Nephtys 30 Diplocirrus glaucus 25

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 40 Taxa % Occurrence Owenia 25 Glycera alba 20 Notomastus 20 Anobothrus gracilis 18 Lanice conchilega 18 Ampharete baltica 17 Phyllodoce rosea 17 Podarkeopsis capensis 17 Paramphinome jeffreysii 15 Chaetozone setosa 13 Goniada maculata 13 Polycirrus 13 Harmothoe glabra 12 Levinsenia gracilis 12 Magelona minuta 12 Phyllodoce groenlandica 12 Poecilochaetus serpens 12 Scolelepis bonnieri 12 Tharyx killariensis 12 Ampharete lindstroemi 10 Drilonereis 10 Eteone longa (agg) 10 Mediomastus ilis 10 Paradoneis lyra 10 Ampharete falcata 8 Eumida bahusiensis 8 Eunereis longissima 8 Magelona alleni 8 Nephtys assimilis 8 Nephtys kersivalensis 8 Amphictene auricoma 7 Aphelochaeta (Type A) 7 Glycera rouxii 7 Malmgrenia andreapolis 7 Pholoe pallida (sensu Petersen) 7 Sigalion mathildae 7 Sphaerodorum gracilis 7 Terebellides stroemii 7 Trichobranchus roseus 7 Glycinde nordmanni 5 Magelona mirabilis 5 Nephtys cirrosa 5 Nephtys longosetosa 5 Ophelina acuminata 5 Prionospio fallax 5 Pseudopolydora pulchra 5 Spio decoratus 5 Spiophanes kroyeri 5 Arenicola 3 Dipolydora coeca (agg) 3

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 41 Taxa % Occurrence Gattyana cirrhosa 3 Glycera fallax 3 Malmgrenia arenicolae 3 Ophelia borealis 3 Phyllodoce longipes 3 Rhodine 3 Spio goniocephala 3 Tomopteris 3 Abyssoninoe hibernica 2 Ampharete octocirrata 2 Amphicteis gunneri 2 Aonides paucibranchiata 2 Aphrodita aculeata 2 Aphroditidae 2 Apistobranchus tullbergi 2 Chaetopterus 2 Dipolydora caulleryi 2 Eusyllis blomstrandi 2 Glycera celtica 2 Glycera lapidum (agg) 2 Harmothoe impar (agg) 2 Heteromastus 2 Melinna palmata 2 Neoamphitrite 2 Orbinia latreillii 2 Oxydromus flexuosus 2 Paraonis fulgens 2 Polydora ciliata (agg) 2 Prionospio multibranchiata 2 Protodorvillea kefersteini 2 Pseudomystides limbata 2 Pseudopolydora cf. paucibranchiata 2 Sabella pavonina 2 Sabellaria spinulosa 2 Scalibregma inflatum 2 Scolelepis korsuni 2 CRUSTACEANS

Ampelisca brevicornis 40 Diastylis bradyi 35 Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana 33 DECAPODA 22 Harpinia antennaria 20 Pariambus typicus 20 Bathyporeia elegans 18 Diastylis rathkei 18 Ampelisca tenuicornis 17 Iphinoe trispinosa 17 Liocarcinus 17 Bathyporeia tenuipes 15 Pisidia longicornis 15

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 42 Taxa % Occurrence Siphonoecetes kroyeranus 15 Nototropis falcatus 13 Corystes cassivelaunus 10 Hippomedon denticulatus 10 Tanaopsis graciloides 8 Eudorella truncatula 7 Perioculodes longimanus 7 Ampelisca spinipes 5 Bodotria scorpioides 5 Paguridae 5 Processa modica modica 5 Diastylis laevis 3 Leucothoe incisa 3 Liocarcinus marmoreus 3 Philocheras trispinosus 3 Pontocrates arcticus (Type A) 3 Protomedeia fasciata 3 Ampelisca 2 Aora gracilis 2 Aoridae (female) 2 Argissa hamatipes 2 Astacilla danmoniensis 2 Balanus crenatus 2 Callianassa subterranea 2 Cheirocratus (female) 2 Cheirocratus intermedius 2 Gnathia oxyuraea 2 Jassa falcata 2 Leucon nasica 2 Munida 2 Synchelidium maculatum 2 Tryphosites longipes 2 Urothoe elegans 2 Urothoe poseidonis 2 Westwoodilla caecula 2 MOLLUSCS

Chamelea striatula 62 Nucula nitidosa 62 Tellina fabula 55 Abra prismatica 48 Kurtiella bidentata 48 Phaxas pellucidus 45 Spisula subtruncata 45 Dosinia 42 Abra nitida 38 Cylichna cylindracea 35 Ennucula tenuis 28 Thyasira flexuosa 28 Arctica islandica 22 Chaetoderma nitidulum 22

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 43 Taxa % Occurrence Tellimya ferruginosa 20 Ensis 18 Acanthocardia echinata 17 Abra alba 15 Euspira nitida 15 Turritella communis 15 Dosinia lupinus 13 Lucinoma borealis 13 Philine quadripartita 13 Gari fervensis 10 Thracia convexa 10 Lutraria 8 Philine scabra 8 Thracia 8 Cochlodesma praetenue 7 Mysia undata 7 Thyasira biplicata 7 Mactra stultorum 5 Antalis entalis 3 Mytilus edulis 3 Retusa umbilicata 3 Thracia villosiuscula 3 Timoclea ovata 3 Devonia perrieri 2 Ensis magnus 2 Laevicardium crassum 2 Mya truncata 2 Naticidae 2 Nucula nucleus 2 Nuculana minuta 2 Rissoa parva 2 Tellina tenuis 2 Thracia phaseolina 2 Venus casina 2 BRYOZOA

Crisia 3 Bugula plumosa 2 Eucratea loricata 2 Flustra foliacea 2 Scrupocellaria scruposa 2 HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 78 SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Amphiuridae 82 SPATANGOIDA 65 Amphiura filiformis 45 Ophiuridae 37 Ophiura ophiura 25 Asteroidea 13 Echinocardium cordatum 12

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 44 Taxa % Occurrence Leptopentacta elongata 10 Echinocyamus pusillus 8 Cucumariidae 7 Echinocardium flavescens 5 Leptosynapta bergensis 5 Brissopsis lyrifera 3 Ophiura albida 3 Astropecten irregularis 2 Ophiocten affinis 2 Ophiopholis aculeata 2 Pseudothyone raphanus 2 ACORN WORMS

ENTEROPNEUSTA 10 FISH

Ammodytes tobianus 5 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 43 COMB JELLIES Ctenophora 15 Pleurobrachia pileus 3 HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Alcyonium digitatum 52 Thuiaria thuja 29 Actiniaria 21 Halecium 15 Hydrozoa 14 Tubularia 14 Urticina 14 Aureliana heterocera 11 Aurelia aurita 9 Caryophyllia 6 Scyphozoa 4 Cyanea 3 Nemertesia 3 Sagartia 3 Actinia 1 Anthozoa 1 Ceriantharia 1 Cnidaria 1 Corallimorphidae 1 SEGMENTED WORMS Serpulidae 34 Annelida 16 Sabellaria 2 Sabellidae 1

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 45 Taxa % Occurrence CRUSTACEANS Decapoda 40 Paguroidea 33 Brachyura 22 Galatheoidea 16 Caridea 11 Liocarcinus 11 Thoracica 7 Crustacea 4 Hyas 4 Portunidae 3 Cancer pagurus 2 Corystes cassivelaunus 2 Macropodia 2 Carcinus maenas 1 MOLLUSCS Gastropoda 25 Nudibranchia 5 Bivalvia 4 Cephalopoda 4 Gibbula 1 Pharidae 1 Mollusca 1 BRYOZOANS Bryozoa 57 Flustra foliacea 32 Alcyonidium diaphanum 13 SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Asterias rubens 76 Echinus esculentus 48 Asteroidea 44 Ophiuroidea 34 Crossaster papposus 20 Astropecten irregularis 19 Henricia 13 Echinoidea 9 Spatangoida 4 Holothurioidea 2 SEA SQUIRTS Ascidiacea 19 Botryllus schlosseri 1 FISH Pisces 26 Gobiidae 25 Pleuronectidae 22 Pholis gunnellus 5 Callionymidae 4 Cottidae 4 Gadidae 4 Scorpaeniformes 3

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 46 Taxa % Occurrence Agonus cataphractus 1 Echiichthys 1 Labrus mixtus 1 Pleuronectes 1 Actinopterygii 1 ALGAE Chlorophyta 13 Rhodophyta 1

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 47 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 (%) 98 GT073 55.06837 -1.39772 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 48.19 28.89 22.92 99 GT050 55.08619 -1.41507 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 60.82 31.62 7.57 100 GT070 55.08962 -1.45162 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.37 89.42 10.21 101 GT088 55.09795 -1.46228 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 4.44 93.34 2.22 102 GT040 55.09866 -1.47378 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 3.32 70.89 25.79 103 GT071 55.10438 -1.47683 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.86 99.14 0 104 GT074 55.1082 -1.46435 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.04 99.96 0 105 GT034 55.11657 -1.47852 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.17 99.83 0 106 GT041 55.12749 -1.4725 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.39 96.45 3.15 107 GT035 55.14281 -1.48372 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.5 88.79 9.7 108 GT075 55.14064 -1.4994 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.16 96.75 3.09 109 GT019 55.15386 -1.51142 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.26 99.04 0.69 110 GT027 55.16349 -1.50094 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0 97.08 2.92 111 GT087 55.16921 -1.49025 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0 95.25 4.75 112 GT068 55.16078 -1.48823 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.7 95.27 4.03 113 GT042 55.15857 -1.46861 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.03 90.81 8.16 114 GT069 55.13757 -1.46457 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.29 97.06 2.65 115 GT054 55.06715 -1.37282 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 42.39 51.78 5.83 116 GT052 55.05506 -1.3884 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 2.68 57.16 40.16 130 GT018 55.3797 -1.52786 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.31 87.92 11.77 131 GT033 55.37769 -1.49331 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.74 68.97 30.29 132 GT039 55.36284 -1.47973 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.48 77.75 21.77 133 GT025 55.36204 -1.50974 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 4.19 63.8 32.01 134 GT059 55.36886 -1.53414 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.05 98.36 1.59 135 GT012 55.36282 -1.54294 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0 94.95 5.05 136 GT081 55.37118 -1.56848 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0 62.68 37.32 137 GT002 55.37308 -1.59116 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.29 99.69 0.02 138 GT092 55.36983 -1.59233 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.38 99.6 0.02 139 GT003 55.36337 -1.57459 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.26 88.46 11.28

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 48 Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%) 140 GT093 55.35387 -1.58679 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.42 99.58 0 141 GT083 55.34921 -1.57667 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.23 97.02 1.75 142 GT094 55.34541 -1.57211 Sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 1.82 94.52 3.67 143 GT006 55.34977 -1.5595 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.9 79.11 19.99 144 GT076 55.14868 -1.49479 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.34 89.02 10.64 145 GT043 55.27763 -1.5092 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.94 76.51 22.55 147 GT085 55.29424 -1.49351 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 44.56 38.28 17.16 148 GT062 55.28958 -1.46942 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.7 75.82 23.48 149 GT037 55.30469 -1.47977 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.19 68.68 31.13 150 GT044 55.31578 -1.46449 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.27 74.11 25.62 151 GT056 55.32626 -1.4619 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.16 79.24 20.59 152 GT038 55.3346 -1.47634 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.86 69.65 28.49 153 GT045 55.3416 -1.4599 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.1 94.58 5.32 154 GT079 55.35169 -1.47747 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.15 73.49 26.37 155 GT032 55.3464 -1.49486 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.04 63.57 36.39 156 GT057 55.33403 -1.50086 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.3 66.29 33.41 157 GT024 55.33151 -1.51108 mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 16.79 48.81 34.4 158 GT016 55.32748 -1.52865 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.02 75.66 24.32 159 GT058 55.32245 -1.51385 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 0.33 42.17 57.5 160 GT031 55.31551 -1.4941 mud and sandy mud A5.3 Subtidal mud 1.89 62.95 35.16 161 GT061 55.30233 -1.51753 sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 3.04 86.13 10.83

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 49 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills

Station Station Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Habitat No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code 1 GT055 55.05151 -1.35551 55.05246 -1.35704 S5 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx 2 GT054 55.06661 -1.37143 55.06754 -1.37359 S5 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx 3 GT053 55.08597 -1.38573 55.08644 -1.38553 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 3 GT053 55.08644 -1.38553 55.08730 -1.38496 S5 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx 4 GT090 55.09412 -1.37966 55.09606 -1.37843 S5 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx 5 GT050 55.08471 -1.41585 55.08657 -1.41459 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 5 GT050 55.08657 -1.41459 55.08689 -1.41432 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 6 GT072 55.09994 -1.44443 55.10199 -1.44250 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 7 GT047 55.11405 -1.44935 55.11656 -1.44551 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 8 GT069 55.13645 -1.46620 55.13827 -1.46373 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 9 GT041 55.12691 -1.47408 55.12754 -1.47278 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 9 GT041 55.12851 -1.47028 55.12903 -1.46929 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 9 GT041 55.12754 -1.47278 55.12851 -1.47028 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 10 GT074 55.10776 -1.46594 55.10811 -1.46495 S2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS 10 GT074 55.10916 -1.46296 55.10975 -1.46261 S2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS 10 GT074 55.10811 -1.46495 55.10916 -1.46296 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 11 GT088 55.09696 -1.46379 55.09796 -1.46262 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 11 GT088 55.09999 -1.46038 55.10033 -1.45994 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 11 GT088 55.09796 -1.46262 55.09999 -1.46038 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 12 GT070 55.08809 -1.45387 55.09117 -1.44908 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 13 GT046 55.08297 -1.44733 55.08432 -1.44461 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 13 GT046 55.08173 -1.45094 55.08297 -1.44733 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 14 GT048 55.06843 -1.43887 55.07007 -1.43519 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 15 GT089 55.05614 -1.40396 55.05859 -1.40048 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 16 GT049 55.05051 -1.42110 55.05233 -1.41896 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 17 GT052 55.05533 -1.38897 55.05452 -1.38735 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 18 GT073 55.06885 -1.39854 55.06802 -1.39634 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 19 GT051 55.07665 -1.42501 55.07615 -1.42255 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 50 Station Station Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Habitat No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code 20 GT040 55.09835 -1.47484 55.09914 -1.47262 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 21 GT071 55.10473 -1.47519 55.10485 -1.47464 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 21 GT071 55.10412 -1.47751 55.10473 -1.47519 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 22 GT034 55.11639 -1.47933 55.11721 -1.47723 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 23 GT026 55.13570 -1.49749 55.13661 -1.49603 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 24 GT075 55.14039 -1.50019 55.14103 -1.49880 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 25 GT019 55.15325 -1.51233 55.15460 -1.51035 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 26 GT027 55.16237 -1.50355 55.16427 -1.49924 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 27 GT067 55.17462 -1.50475 55.17546 -1.50293 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 27 GT067 55.17606 -1.50148 55.17624 -1.50079 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 27 GT067 55.17546 -1.50293 55.17606 -1.50148 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 28 GT028 55.19221 -1.48727 55.19416 -1.48513 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 29 GT021 55.20698 -1.50585 55.20848 -1.50290 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 30 GT008 55.22472 -1.51293 55.22591 -1.51069 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 31 GT013 55.23264 -1.51829 55.23432 -1.51547 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 32 GT022 55.23818 -1.50919 55.23967 -1.50560 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 33 GT029 55.22226 -1.49867 55.22378 -1.49774 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 34 GT065 55.20732 -1.48912 55.20837 -1.48758 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 35 GT036 55.17739 -1.47791 55.17929 -1.47549 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 36 GT087 55.16843 -1.49278 55.16927 -1.49009 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 36 GT087 55.16927 -1.49009 55.16947 -1.48945 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 37 GT068 55.16039 -1.48928 55.16155 -1.48685 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 39 GT035 55.14285 -1.48463 55.14320 -1.48250 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 40 GT094 55.34574 -1.57342 55.34507 -1.57041 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 41 GT083 55.34987 -1.57730 55.34845 -1.57558 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 42 GT093 55.35424 -1.58789 55.35330 -1.58588 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 43 GT092 55.37009 -1.59317 55.36950 -1.59167 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 44 GT002 55.37337 -1.59175 55.37290 -1.59095 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 45 GT005 55.37886 -1.58221 55.37851 -1.58065 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 45 GT005 55.37823 -1.57976 55.37809 -1.57933 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 51 Station Station Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Habitat No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code 45 GT005 55.37851 -1.58065 55.37823 -1.57976 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 46 GT091 55.38909 -1.59221 55.38898 -1.59030 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 47 GT082 55.38882 -1.57967 55.38853 -1.57674 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 48 GT001 55.38776 -1.55832 55.38742 -1.55492 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 49 GT007 55.37903 -1.55837 55.37889 -1.55685 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 50 GT081 55.37106 -1.56678 55.37101 -1.56613 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 50 GT081 55.37123 -1.56829 55.37106 -1.56678 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 51 GT003 55.36348 -1.57520 55.36326 -1.57376 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 52 GT012 55.36314 -1.54320 55.36214 -1.54253 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 52 GT058 55.32260 -1.51385 55.32153 -1.51423 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 53 GT059 55.36943 -1.53419 55.36841 -1.53404 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 54 GT018 55.38024 -1.52777 55.37881 -1.52764 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 55 GT033 55.37828 -1.49362 55.37754 -1.49344 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 56 GT025 55.36308 -1.50944 55.36130 -1.50984 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 57 GT039 55.36319 -1.47908 55.36252 -1.47932 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 58 GT079 55.35216 -1.47708 55.35161 -1.47754 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 59 GT032 55.34690 -1.49469 55.34598 -1.49589 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 60 GT057 55.33438 -1.50009 55.33366 -1.50204 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 61 GT038 55.33486 -1.47540 55.33455 -1.47729 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 62 GT060 55.31628 -1.51709 55.31503 -1.51837 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 63 GT061 55.30247 -1.51726 55.30198 -1.51782 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 64 GT078 55.29215 -1.52416 55.29166 -1.52465 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 64 GT078 55.29277 -1.52340 55.29215 -1.52416 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 65 GT015 55.28499 -1.53158 55.28426 -1.53230 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 66 GT063 55.28616 -1.55320 55.28564 -1.55469 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 67 GT010 55.29597 -1.54327 55.29556 -1.54529 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 68 GT016 55.32731 -1.52776 55.32670 -1.52942 S4 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.CMuSa 69 GT095 55.32600 -1.53325 55.32509 -1.53351 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 71 GT084 55.34051 -1.55076 55.33944 -1.54953 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 72 GT006 55.35020 -1.55930 55.34933 -1.55925 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 52 Station Station Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Habitat No. Code (SOL) (SOL) (EOL) (EOL) No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code 73 GT017 55.34750 -1.52737 55.34674 -1.52654 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 73 GT017 55.34617 -1.52605 55.34578 -1.52553 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 73 GT017 55.34674 -1.52654 55.34617 -1.52605 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 75 GT080 55.33423 -1.52286 55.33274 -1.52245 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 76 GT011 55.33989 -1.53089 55.33852 -1.53041 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 76 GT031 55.31624 -1.49448 55.31491 -1.49433 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 77 GT024 55.33249 -1.51125 55.33114 -1.51098 S4 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa.CMuSa 80 GT045 55.34155 -1.45868 55.34183 -1.46173 S3 A5. Subtidal sand SS.SSa 81 GT056 55.32626 -1.46049 55.32645 -1.46263 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 82 GT044 55.31594 -1.46364 55.31589 -1.46598 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 83 GT037 55.30488 -1.47933 55.30386 -1.48067 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 84 GT085 55.29417 -1.49360 55.29367 -1.49561 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 84 GT085 55.29427 -1.49327 55.29417 -1.49360 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 85 GT062 55.28948 -1.46956 55.28949 -1.47153 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 86 GT030 55.28548 -1.49678 55.28649 -1.49894 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 87 GT043 55.27715 -1.50840 55.27813 -1.51064 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 88 GT023 55.27224 -1.52041 55.27348 -1.52219 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr 89 GT009 55.26957 -1.54221 55.27059 -1.54384 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 90 GT014 55.25486 -1.52628 55.25614 -1.52813 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 91 GT004 55.24712 -1.53570 55.24773 -1.53745 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 92 GT077 55.24397 -1.51959 55.24524 -1.52211 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 93 GT064 55.24889 -1.50971 55.25047 -1.51267 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR 94 GT066 55.23369 -1.50409 55.23492 -1.50532 S4 A5.3 Subtidal mud SS.SMu.CSaMu 95 GT086 55.21284 -1.49665 55.21384 -1.49779 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 96 GT020 55.17209 -1.48653 55.17322 -1.48778 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa 97 GT076 55.14959 -1.49459 55.14807 -1.49524 S3 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 53 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey A3.2 Moderate energy Predominantly infralittoral rock moderately wave- (Station code: GT067) exposed bedrock and boulders, subject to moderately strong to weak tidal streams. On the bedrock and stable boulders there is typically a narrow band of kelp in the sublittoral fringe which lies above a forest and park.

A4.2 Moderate energy Mainly occurs on circalittoral rock exposed to moderately (Station code: GT011) wave-exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders, subject to moderately strong and weak tidal streams. This habitat type contains a broad range of biological subtypes.

A5.1 Subtidal coarse Coarse sediments sediment including coarse sand, (Station code: GT049) gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles which are often unstable due to tidal currents and/or wave action. These habitats are generally found on the open coast or in tide-swept channels of marine inlets. They typically have a low silt content and a lack of a significant seaweed component. A5.2 Subtidal sand Clean medium to fine (Station code: GT046) sands or non-cohesive slightly muddy sands on open coasts, offshore or in estuaries and marine inlets. Such habitats are often subject to a degree of wave action or tidal currents which restrict the silt and clay content to less than 15%. This habitat is characterised by a range of taxa including polychaetes, bivalve molluscs and amphipod crustacea.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 54 A5.3 Subtidal mud Sublittoral mud and (Station code: GT050) cohesive sandy mud extending from the extreme lower shore to offshore, circalittoral habitats. This biotope is predominantly found in sheltered harbours, sea lochs, bays, marine inlets and estuaries and stable deeper/offshore areas where the reduced influence of wave action and/or tidal streams allow fine sediments to settle. A5.4 Subtidal mixed Sublittoral mixed sediments (heterogeneous) (Station code: GT047) sediments found from the extreme low water mark to deep offshore circalittoral habitats. These habitats incorporate a range of sediments including heterogeneous muddy gravelly sands and also mosaics of cobbles and pebbles embedded in or lying upon sand, gravel or mud.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 55 Appendix 8. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI Habitat FOCI Description Example Image taken during survey Subtidal Sands and Sand and gravel seabeds Gravels occur in a range of (Station Code: GT019) environmental conditions, from wave-sheltered, enclosed bays and estuaries to highly exposed open coasts. The mix of sand or gravel depends on factors such as the strength of the waves and tides.

Mud Habitats in Deep Mud habitats in deep water Water are fairly stable (Station Code: GT031) environments typically found below 20 meters depth, where currents are slow and they are not affected by waves. This can be found offshore and in sheltered inshore environments, such as sea lochs. Most of the animals that live here burrow below the surface. The animal communities vary according to the levels of silt, clay, sand and nutrients found in the mud.

Coquet to St Mary’s rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 56

© Crown Copyright 2015