Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area

Increasing anthropogenic pressure in the offshore marine environment highlights the need for improved management and conservation of offshore ecosystems. This study scrutinises the applicability of a discrete choice experiment to value the expected benefits arising from the conservation of an offshore sandbank in UK waters. The valuation scenario refers to the UK part of the Dogger Bank, in the southern North Sea, and is based on real-world management options for fisheries, wind farms and marine protection currently under discussion for the site. It is assessed to what extent the general public perceive and value conservation benefits arising from an offshore marine protected area. The survey reveals support for marine conservation measures despite the general public’s limited prior knowledge of current marine planning. Results further show significant values for an increase in species diversity, the protection of certain charismatic species and a restriction in the spread of invasive species across the site. Implications for policy and management with respect to commercial fishing, wind farm construction and nature conservation are discussed.

Impact of human activities on benthic biotopes and species

Executive Summary 1. The Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) has been developed since 1998. Defra funding has supported a core part of its work, the Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. This report relates to Biology and Sensitivity work for the period 2001-2004. 2. MarLIN Biology and Sensitivity research takes information on the biology of species to identify the likely effects of changing environmental conditions linked to human activities on those species. In turn, species that are key functional, key structural, dominant, or characteristic in a biotope (the habitat and its associated species) are used to identify biotope sensitivity. Results are displayed over the World Wide Web and can be accessed via a range of search tools that make the information of relevance to environmental management. 3. The first Defra contract enabled the development of criteria and methods of research, database storage methods and the research of a wide range of species. A contract from English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage enabled biotopes relevant to marine SACs to be researched. 4. Defra funding in 2001-2004 has especially enabled recent developments to be targeted for research. Those developments included the identification of threatened and declining species by the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee, the development of a new approach to defining sensitivity (part of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation), and the opportunity to use Geographical Information Systems (GIS) more effectively to link survey data to MarLIN assessments of sensitivity. 5. The MarLIN database has been developed to provide a resource to 'pick-and-mix' information depending on the questions being asked. Using GIS, survey data that provides locations for species and biotopes has been linked to information researched by MarLIN to map the likely sensitivity of an area to a specified factor. Projects undertaken for the Irish Sea pilot (marine landscapes), in collaboration with CEFAS (fishing impacts) and with the Countryside Council for Wales (oil spill response) have demonstrated the application of MarLIN information linked to survey data in answering, through maps, questions about likely impacts of human activities on seabed ecosystems. 6. GIS applications that use MarLIN sensitivity information give meaningful results when linked to localized and detailed survey information (lists of species and biotopes as point source or mapped extents). However, broad landscape units require further interpretation. 7. A new mapping tool (SEABED map) has been developed to display data on species distributions and survey data according to search terms that might be used by an environmental manager. 8. MarLIN outputs are best viewed on the Web site where the most up-to-date information from live databases is available. The MarLIN Web site receives about 1600 visits a day. 9. The MarLIN approach to assessing sensitivity and its application to environmental management were presented in papers at three international conferences during the current contract and a 'touchstone' paper is to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Hydrobiologia. The utility of MarLIN information for environmental managers, amongst other sorts of information, has been described in an article in Marine Pollution Bulletin. 10. MarLIN information is being used to inform the identification of potential indicator species for implementation of the Water Framework Directive including initiatives by ICES. 11. Non-Defra funding streams are supporting the updating of reviews and increasing the amount of peer review undertaken; both of which are important to the maintenance of the resource. However, whilst MarLIN information is sufficiently wide ranging to be used in an 'operational' way for marine environmental protection and management, new initiatives and the new biotopes classification have introduced additional species and biotopes that will need to be researched in the future. 12. By the end of the contract, the Biology and Sensitivity Key Information database contained full Key Information reviews on 152 priority species and 117 priority biotopes, together with basic information on 412 species; a total of 564 marine benthic species.

English Channel towed sledge seabed images. Phase 2: Analysis of selected tow images

During the 1970s and 1980s, the late Dr Norman Holme undertook extensive towed sledge surveys in the English Channel and some in the Irish Sea. Only a minority of the resulting images were analysed and reported before his death in 1989 but logbooks, video and film material has been archived in the National Marine Biological Library (NMBL) in Plymouth. A study was therefore commissioned by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and as a part of the Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project to identify the value of the material archived and the procedure and cost to undertake further work (Phase 1 of the study reported here: Oakley & Hiscock, 2005). Some image analysis was undertaken as a part of Phase 1. Phase 2 (this report) was to further analyse selected images. Having determined in Phase 1 that only the 35 mm photographic transparencies provided sufficient clarity to identify species and biotopes, the tows selected for analysis were ones where 35mm images had been taken. The tows selected for analysis of images were mainly in the vicinity of Plymouth and especially along the area between Rame Head and the region of the Eddystone. The 35 mm films were viewed under a binocular microscope and the taxa that could be recognised recorded in note form. Twenty-five images were selected for inclusion in the report. Almost all of the images were of level sediment seabed. Where rocks were included, it was usually unplanned and the sled was hauled before being caught or damaged. The main biotopes or biotope complexes identified were: SS.SMU.CSaMu. Circalittoral sandy mud. Extensively present between the shore and the Eddystone Reef complex and at depths of about 48 to 52 m. At one site offshore of Plymouth Sound, the turret shell Turritella communis was abundant. In some areas, this biotope had dense anemones, Mesacmaea mitchelli and (more rarely) Cerianthus lloydii. Queen scallops, Aequipecten opercularis and king scallops, Pecten maximus, were sometimes present in small numbers. Hard substratum species such as hydroids, dead mens fingers Alcyonium digitatum and the cup coral Caryophyllia smithii occurred in a few places, probably attached to shells or stones beneath the surface. South of the spoil ground off Hilsea Point at 57m depth, the sediment was muddier but is still assigned to this biotope complex. It is notable that three small sea pens, most likely Virgularia mirabilis, were seen here. SS.SMx.CMx. Circalittoral mixed sediment. Further offshore but at about the same depth as SS.SMU.CSaMu occurred, coarse gravel with some silt was present. The sediment was characterised must conspicuously by small queen scallops, Aequipecten opercularis. Peculiarly, there were ‘bundles’ of the branching bryozoan Cellaria sp. – a species normally found attached to rock. It could not be seen whether these bundles of Cellaria had been brought-together by terebellid worms but it is notable that Cellaria is recorded in historical surveys. As with many other sediments, there were occasional brittle stars, Ophiocomina nigra and Ophiura ophiura. Where sediments were muddy, the burrowing anemone Mesacmaea mitchelli was common. Where pebbles or cobbles occurred, there were attached species such as Alcyonium digitatum, Caryophyllia smithii and the fleshy bryozoan Alcyonidium diaphanum. Undescribed biotope. Although most likely a part of SS.SMx.CMx, the biotope visually dominated by a terebellid worm believed to be Thelepus cincinnatua, is worth special attention as it may be an undescribed biotope. The biotope occurred about 22 nautical miles south of the latitude of the Eddystone and in depths in excess of 70 m. SS.SCS.CCS.Blan. Branchiostoma lanceolatum in circalittoral coarse sand with shell gravel at about 48m depth and less. This habitat was the ‘classic’ ‘Eddystone Shell Gravel’ which is sampled for Branchiostoma lanceolatum. However, no Branchiostoma lanceolatum could be seen. The gravel was almost entirely bare of epibiota. There were occasional rock outcrops or cobbles which had epibiota including encrusting calcareous algae, the sea fan Eunicella verrucosa, cup corals, Caryophyllia smithii, hydroids and a sea urchin Echinus esculentus. The variety of species visible on the surface is small and therefore identification to biotope not usually possible. Historical records from sampling surveys that used grabs and dredges at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century suggest similar species present then. Illustrations of some of the infaunal communities from work in the 1920’s is included in this report to provide a context to the epifaunal photographs.

English Channel towed sledge seabed images. Phase 1: scoping study and example analysis

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the late Dr Norman Holme undertook extensive towed sledge surveys in the English Channel and some in the Irish Sea. Only a minority of the resulting images were analysed and reported before his death in 1989 but logbooks, video and film material has been archived in the National Marine Biological Library (NMBL) in Plymouth. A scoping study was therefore commissioned by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and as a part of the Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project to identify the value of the material archived and the procedure and cost to undertake further work. The results of the scoping study are: 1. NMBL archives hold 106 videotapes (reel-to-reel Sony HD format) and 59 video cassettes (including 15 from the Irish Sea) in VHS format together with 90 rolls of 35 mm colour transparency film (various lengths up to about 240 frames per film). These are stored in the Archive Room, either in a storage cabinet or in original film canisters. 2. Reel-to-reel material is extensive and had already been selectively copied to VHS cassettes. The cost of transferring it to an accepted ‘long-life’ medium (Betamax) would be approximately £15,000. It was not possible to view the tapes as a suitable machine was not located. The value of the tapes is uncertain but they are likely to become beyond salvation within one to two years. 3. Video cassette material is in good condition and is expected to remain so for several more years at least. Images viewed were generally of poor quality and the speed of tow often makes pictures blurred. No immediate action is required. 4. Colour transparency films are in good condition and the images are very clear. They provide the best source of information for mapping seabed biotopes. They should be scanned to digital format but inexpensive fast copying is problematic as there are no between-frame breaks between images and machines need to centre the image based on between-frame breaks. The minimum cost to scan all of the images commercially is approximately £6,000 and could be as much as £40,000 on some quotations. There is a further cost in coding and databasing each image and, all-in-all it would seem most economic to purchase a ‘continuous film’ scanner and undertake the work in-house. 5. Positional information in ships logs has been matched to films and to video tapes. Decca Chain co-ordinates recorded in the logbooks have been converted to latitude and longitude (degrees, minutes and seconds) and a further routine developed to convert to degrees and decimal degrees required for GIS mapping. However, it is unclear whether corrections to Decca positions were applied at the time the position was noted. Tow tracks have been mapped onto an electronic copy of a Hydrographic Office chart. 6. The positions of start and end of each tow were entered to a spread sheet so that they can be displayed on GIS or on a Hydrographic Office Chart backdrop. The cost of the Hydrographic Office chart backdrop at a scale of 1:75,000 for the whole area was £458 incl. VAT. 7. Viewing all of the video cassettes to note habitats and biological communities, even by an experienced marine biologist, would take at least in the order of 200 hours and is not recommended. English Channel towed sledge seabed images. Phase 1: scoping study and example analysis. 6 8. Once colour transparencies are scanned and indexed, viewing to identify seabed habitats and biological communities would probably take about 100 hours for an experienced marine biologist and is recommended. 9. It is expected that identifying biotopes along approximately 1 km lengths of each tow would be feasible although uncertainties about Decca co-ordinate corrections and exact positions of images most likely gives a ±250 m position error. More work to locate each image accurately and solve the Decca correction question would improve accuracy of image location. 10. Using codings (produced by Holme to identify different seabed types), and some viewing of video and transparency material, 10 biotopes have been identified, although more would be added as a result of full analysis. 11. Using the data available from the Holme archive, it is possible to populate various fields within the Marine Recorder database. The overall ‘survey’ will be ‘English Channel towed video sled survey’. The ‘events’ become the 104 tows. Each tow could be described as four samples, i.e. the start and end of the tow and two areas in the middle to give examples along the length of the tow. These samples would have their own latitude/longitude co-ordinates. The four samples would link to a GIS map. 12. Stills and video clips together with text information could be incorporated into a multimedia presentation, to demonstrate the range of level seabed types found along a part of the northern English Channel. More recent images taken during SCUBA diving of reef habitats in the same area as the towed sledge surveys could be added to the Holme images.

Assessing the sensitivity of seagrass bed biotopes to pressures associated with marine activities.

This project was commissioned to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of seagrass habitats to pressures associated with human activities in the marine environment - to provide an evidence base to facilitate and support management advice for Marine Protected Areas; development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. Seagrass bed habitats are identified as a Priority Marine Feature (PMF) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, they are also included on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species and habitats, and are a Habitat of Principle Importance (HPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, in England and Wales. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments with supporting evidence for the HPI, OSPAR and PMF seagrass/Zostera bed habitat definitions, clearly documenting the evidence behind the assessments and any differences between assessments. Nineteen pressures, falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. Assessments were based on the three British seagrasses Zostera marina, Z. noltei and Ruppia maritima. Z. marina var. angustifolia was considered to be a subspecies of Z. marina but it was specified where studies had considered it as a species in its own rights. Where possible other components of the community were investigated but the basis of the assessment focused on seagrass species. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements were assessed against the pressure benchmark using the available evidence. The benchmarks were designed to provide a ‘standard’ level of pressure against which to assess sensitivity. Overall, seagrass beds were highly sensitive to a number of human activities: • penetration or disturbance of the substratum below the surface; • habitat structure changes – removal of substratum; • physical change to another sediment type; • physical loss of habitat; • siltation rate changes including and smothering; and • changes in suspended solids. High sensitivity was recorded for pressures which directly impacted the factors that limit seagrass growth and health such as light availability. Physical pressures that caused mechanical modification of the sediment, and hence damage to roots and leaves, also resulted in high sensitivity. Seagrass beds were assessed as ‘not sensitive’ to microbial pathogens or ‘removal of target species’. These assessments were based on the benchmarks used. Z. marina is known to be sensitive to Labyrinthula zosterae but this was not included in the benchmark used. Similarly, ‘removal of target species’ addresses only the biological effects of removal and not the physical effects of the process used. For example, seagrass beds are probably not sensitive to the removal of scallops found within the bed but are highly sensitive to the effects of dredging for scallops, as assessed under the pressure penetration or disturbance of the substratum below the surface‘. This is also an example of a synergistic effect Assessing the sensitivity of seagrass bed biotopes to pressures associated with marine activities between pressures. Where possible, synergistic effects were highlighted but synergistic and cumulative effects are outside the scope off this study. The report found that no distinct differences in sensitivity exist between the HPI, PMF and OSPAR definitions. Individual biotopes do however have different sensitivities to pressures. These differences were determined by the species affected, the position of the habitat on the shore and the sediment type. For instance evidence showed that beds growing in soft and muddy sand were more vulnerable to physical damage than beds on harder, more compact substratum. Temporal effects can also influence the sensitivity of seagrass beds. On a seasonal time frame, physical damage to roots and leaves occurring in the reproductive season (summer months) will have a greater impact than damage in winter. On a daily basis, the tidal regime could accentuate or attenuate the effects of pressures depending on high and low tide. A variety of factors must therefore be taken into account in order to assess the sensitivity of a particular seagrass habitat at any location. No clear difference in resilience was established across the three seagrass definitions assessed in this report. The resilience of seagrass beds and the ability to recover from human induced pressures is a combination of the environmental conditions of the site, growth rates of the seagrass, the frequency and the intensity of the disturbance. This highlights the importance of considering the species affected as well as the ecology of the seagrass bed, the environmental conditions and the types and nature of activities giving rise to the pressure and the effects of that pressure. For example, pressures that result in sediment modification (e.g. pitting or erosion), sediment change or removal, prolong recovery. Therefore, the resilience of each biotope and habitat definitions is discussed for each pressure. Using a clearly documented, evidence based approach to create sensitivity assessments allows the assessment and any subsequent decision making or management plans to be readily communicated, transparent and justifiable. The assessments can be replicated and updated where new evidence becomes available ensuring the longevity of the sensitivity assessment tool. The evidence review has reduced the uncertainty around assessments previously undertaken in the MB0102 project (Tillin et al 2010) by assigning a single sensitivity score to the pressures as opposed to a range. Finally, as seagrass habitats may also contribute to ecosystem function and the delivery of ecosystem services, understanding the sensitivity of these biotopes may also support assessment and management in regard to these. Whatever objective measures are applied to data to assess sensitivity, the final sensitivity assessment is indicative. The evidence, the benchmarks, the confidence in the assessments and the limitations of the process, require a sense-check by experienced marine ecologists before the outcome is used in management decisions.

Assessing the sensitivity of Sabellaria spinulosa to pressures associated with marine activities.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) commissioned this project to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs based on the OSPAR habitat definition. This work aimed to provide an evidence base to facilitate and support management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. The OSPAR list of threatened and declining species and habitats refers to subtidal S. spinulosa reefs on hard or mixed substratum. S. spinulosa may also occur as thin crusts or individual worms but these are not the focus of conservation. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments with supporting evidence for S. spinulosa reefs, clearly documenting the evidence behind the assessments and the confidence in these assessments. Sixteen pressures, falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements of the habitat were assessed against the pressure benchmark using the available evidence. The benchmarks were designed to provide a ‘standard’ level of pressure against which to assess sensitivity. The highest sensitivity (‘medium’) was recorded for physical pressures which directly impact the reefs including: • habitat structure changes – removal of substratum; • abrasion and penetration and sub-surface disturbance; • physical loss of habitat and change to habitat; and • siltation rate changes including and smothering. The report found that no evidence for differences in the sensitivity of the three EUNIS S. spinulosa biotopes that comprise the OSPAR definition. However, this evidence review has identified significant information gaps regarding sensitivity, ecological interactions with other species and resilience. No clear difference in resilience was established across the OSPAR S. spinulosa biotopes that were assessed in this report. Using a clearly documented, evidence based approach to create sensitivity assessments allows the assessment and any subsequent decision making or management plans to be readily communicated, transparent and justifiable. The assessments can be replicated and updated where new evidence becomes available ensuring the longevity of the sensitivity assessment tool. Finally, as S. spinulosa habitats may also contribute to ecosystem function and the delivery of ecosystem services, understanding the sensitivity of these biotopes may also support assessment and management in regard to these. Whatever objective measures are applied to data to assess sensitivity, the final sensitivity assessment is indicative. The evidence, the benchmarks, the confidence in the assessments and the limitations of the process, require a sense-check by experienced marine ecologists before the outcome is used in management decisions.

Assessing the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to pressures associated with human activities.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) commissioned this project to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) beds, found in UK waters, to pressures associated with human activities in the marine environment. The work will provide an evidence base that will facilitate and support management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. Blue mussel beds are identified as a Habitat of Principle Importance (HPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, as a Priority Marine Feature (PMF) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and included on the OSPAR (Annex V) list of threatened and declining species and habitats. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments for the blue mussel biotopes included within the HPI, PMF and OSPAR habitat definitions, and clearly document the supporting evidence behind the assessments and any differences between them. A total of 20 pressures falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. The review examined seven blue mussel bed biotopes found on littoral sediment and sublittoral rock and sediment. The assessments were based on the sensitivity of M. edulis rather than associated species, as M. edulis was considered the most important characteristic species in blue mussel beds. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements are assessed against the pressure benchmark using the available evidence gathered in this review. The benchmarks were designed to provide a ‘standard’ level of pressure against which to assess sensitivity. Blue mussel beds were highly sensitive to a few human activities: • introduction or spread of non-indigenous species (NIS); • habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction); and • physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat). Physical loss of habitat and removal of substratum are particularly damaging pressures, while the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to non-indigenous species depended on the species assessed. Crepidula fornicata and Crassostrea gigas both had the potential to outcompete and replace mussel beds, so resulted in a high sensitivity assessment. Mytilus spp. populations are considered to have a strong ability to recover from environmental disturbance. A good annual recruitment may allow a bed to recovery rapidly, though this cannot always be expected due to the sporadic nature of M. edulis recruitment. Therefore, blue mussel beds were considered to have a 'Medium' resilience (recovery within 2-10 years). As a result, even where the removal or loss of proportion of a mussel bed was expected due to a pressure, a sensitivity of 'Medium' was reported. Hence, most of the sensitivities reported were 'Medium'. It was noted, however, that the recovery rates of blue mussel beds were reported to be anywhere between two years to several decades. In addition, M. edulis is considered very tolerant of a range of physical and chemical conditions. As a result, blue mussel beds were considered to be 'Not sensitive' to changes in temperature, salinity, de-oxygenation, nutrient and organic enrichment, and substratum type, at the benchmark level of pressure. The report found that no distinct differences in overall sensitivity exist between the HPI, PMF and OSPAR definitions. Individual biotopes do however have different sensitivities to pressures, and the OSPAR definition only includes blue mussel beds on sediment. These differences were determined by the position of the habitat on the shore and the sediment type. For example, the infralittoral rock biotope (A3.361) was unlikely to be exposed to pressures that affect sediments. However in the case of increased water flow, mixed sediment biotopes were considered more stable and ‘Not sensitive’ (at the benchmark level) while the remaining biotopes were likely to be affected.

Using a clearly documented, evidence-based approach to create sensitivity assessments allows the assessment basis and any subsequent decision making or management plans to be readily communicated, transparent and justifiable. The assessments can be replicated and updated where new evidence becomes available ensuring the longevity of the sensitivity assessment tool. For every pressure where sensitivity was previously assessed as a range of scores in MB0102, the assessments made by the evidence review have supported one of the MB0102 assessments. The evidence review has reduced the uncertainty around assessments previously undertaken in the MB0102 project (Tillin et al., 2010) by assigning a single sensitivity score to the pressures as opposed to a range. Finally, as blue mussel bed habitats also contribute to ecosystem function and the delivery of ecosystem services, understanding the sensitivity of these biotopes may also support assessment and management in regard to these. Whatever objective measures are applied to data to assess sensitivity, the final sensitivity assessment is indicative. The evidence, the benchmarks, the confidence in the assessments and the limitations of the process, require a sense-check by experienced marine ecologists before the outcome is used in management decisions.

Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 1 Report: Rationale and proposed ecological groupings for Level 5 biotopes against which sensitivity assessments would be best undertaken.

The purpose of this study is to produce a series of Conceptual Ecological Models (CEMs) that represent sublittoral rock habitats in the UK. CEMs are diagrammatic representations of the influences and processes that occur within an ecosystem. They can be used to identify critical aspects of an ecosystem that may be studied further, or serve as the basis for the selection of indicators for environmental monitoring purposes. The models produced by this project are control diagrams, representing the unimpacted state of the environment free from anthropogenic pressures. It is intended that the models produced by this project will be used to guide indicator selection for the monitoring of this habitat in UK waters. CEMs may eventually be produced for a range of habitat types defined under the UK Marine Biodiversity Monitoring R&D Programme (UKMBMP), which, along with stressor models, are designed to show the interactions within impacted habitats, would form the basis of a robust method for indicator selection. This project builds on the work to develop CEMs for shallow sublittoral coarse sediment habitats (Alexander et al 2014). The project scope included those habitats defined as ‘sublittoral rock’. This definition includes those habitats that fall into the EUNIS Level 3 classifications A3.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoral rock, A3.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy infralittoral rock, A3.3 Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy infralittoral rock, A4.1 Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy circalittoral rock, A4.2 Atlantic and Mediterranean moderate energy circalittoral rock, and A4.3 Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock as well as the constituent Level 4 and 5 biotopes that are relevant to UK waters. A species list of characterising fauna to be included within the scope of the models was identified using an iterative process to refine the full list of species found within the relevant Level 5 biotopes. A literature review was conducted using a pragmatic and iterative approach to gather evidence regarding species traits and information that would be used to inform the models and characterise the interactions that occur within the sublittoral rock habitat. All information gathered during the literature review was entered into a data logging pro-forma spreadsheet that accompanies this report. Wherever possible, attempts were made to collect information from UK-specific peer-reviewed studies, although other sources were used where necessary. All data gathered was subject to a detailed confidence assessment. Expert judgement by the project team was utilised to provide information for aspects of the models for which references could not be sourced within the project timeframe. A multivariate analysis approach was adopted to assess ecologically similar groups (based on ecological and life history traits) of fauna from the identified species to form the basis of the models. A model hierarchy was developed based on these ecological groups. One general control model was produced that indicated the high-level drivers, inputs, biological assemblages, ecosystem processes and outputs that occur in sublittoral rock habitats. In addition to this, seven detailed sub-models were produced, which each focussed on a particular ecological group of fauna within the habitat: ‘macroalgae’, ‘temporarily or permanently attached active filter feeders’, ‘temporarily or permanently attached passive filter feeders’, ‘bivalves, brachiopods and other encrusting filter feeders’, ‘tube building fauna’, ‘scavengers and predatory fauna’, and ‘non-predatory mobile fauna’. Each sub-model is accompanied by an associated confidence model that presents confidence in the links between each model component. The models are split into seven levels and take spatial and temporal scale into account through their design, as well as magnitude and direction of influence. The seven levels include regional to global drivers, water column processes, local inputs/processes at the seabed, habitat and biological assemblage, output processes, local ecosystem functions, and regional to global ecosystem functions. The models indicate that whilst the high level drivers that affect each ecological group are largely similar, the output processes performed by the biota and the resulting ecosystem functions vary both in number and importance between groups. Confidence within the models as a whole is generally high, reflecting the level of information gathered during the literature review. Physical drivers which influence the ecosystem were found to be of high importance for the sublittoral rock habitat, with factors such as wave exposure, water depth and water currents noted to be crucial in defining the biological assemblages. Other important factors such as recruitment/propagule supply, and those which affect primary production, such as suspended sediments, light attenuation and water chemistry and temperature, were also noted to be key and act to influence the food sources consumed by the biological assemblages of the habitat, and the biological assemblages themselves. Output processes performed by the biological assemblages are variable between ecological groups depending on the specific flora and fauna present and the role they perform within the ecosystem. Of particular importance are the outputs performed by the macroalgae group, which are diverse in nature and exert influence over other ecological groups in the habitat. Important output processes from the habitat as a whole include primary and secondary production, bioengineering, biodeposition (in mixed sediment habitats) and the supply of propagules; these in turn influence ecosystem functions at the local scale such as nutrient and biogeochemical cycling, supply of food resources, sediment stability (in mixed sediment habitats), habitat provision and population and algae control. The export of biodiversity and organic matter, biodiversity enhancement and biotope stability are the resulting ecosystem functions that occur at the regional to global scale. Features within the models that are most useful for monitoring habitat status and change due to natural variation have been identified, as have those that may be useful for monitoring to identify anthropogenic causes of change within the ecosystem. Biological, physical and chemical features of the ecosystem have been identified as potential indicators to monitor natural variation, whereas biological factors and those physical /chemical factors most likely to affect primary production have predominantly been identified as most likely to indicate change due to anthropogenic pressures.

Tillin, H. & Tyler-Walters, H., 2014. Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 2 Report – Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. JNCC Report No. 512B, 260 pp.

Human activities within the marine environment give rise to a number of pressures on seabed habitats. Improved understanding of the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats is required to underpin the management advice provided for Marine Protected Areas, as well as supporting other UK marine monitoring and assessment work. The sensitivity of marine sedimentary habitats to a range of pressures induced by human activities has previously been systematically assessed using approaches based on expert judgement for Defra Project MB0102 (Tillin et al. 2010). This previous work assessed sensitivity at the level of the broadscale habitat and therefore the scores were typically expressed as a range due to underlying variation in the sensitivity of the constituent biotopes. The objective of this project was to reduce the uncertainty around identifying the sensitivity of selected subtidal sedimentary habitats by assessing sensitivity, at a finer scale and incorporating information on the biological assemblage, for 33 Level 5 circalittoral and offshore biotopes taken from the Marine Habitat Classification of Britain and Ireland (Connor et al. 2004). Two Level 6 sub-biotopes were also included in this project as these contain distinctive characterising species that differentiate them from the Level 5 parent biotope. Littoral, infralittoral, reduced and variable salinity sedimentary habitats were excluded from this project as the scope was set for assessment of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. This project consisted of three Phases. • Phase 1 - define ecological groups based on similarities in the sensitivity of characterising species from the Level 5 and two Level 6 biotopes described above. • Phase 2 - produce a literature review of information on the resilience and resistance of characterising species of the ecological groups to pressures associated with activities in the marine environment. • Phase 3 - to produce sensitivity assessment ‘proformas’ based on the findings of Phase 2 for each ecological group. This report outlines results of Phase 2. The Tillin et al., (2010) sensitivity assessment methodology was modified to use the best available scientific evidence that could be collated within the project timescale. An extensive literature review was compiled, for peer reviewed and grey literature, to examine current understanding about the effects of pressures from human activities on circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities in UK continental shelf waters, together with information on factors that contribute to resilience (recovery) of marine species. This review formed the basis of an assessment of the sensitivity of the 16 ecological groups identified in Phase 1 of the project (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014). As a result: • the state of knowledge on the effects of each pressure on circalittoral and offshore benthos was reviewed; • the resistance, resilience and, hence, sensitivity of sixteen ecological groups, representing 96 characteristic species, were assessed for eight separate pressures; • each assessment was accompanied by a detailed review of the relevant evidence; Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • knowledge gaps and sources of uncertainty were identified for each group; • each assessment was accompanied by an assessment of the quality of the evidence, its applicability to the assessment and the degree of concordance (agreement) between the evidence, to highlight sources of uncertainty as an assessment of the overall confidence in the sensitivity assessment, and finally • limitations in the methodology and the application of sensitivity assessments were outlined. This process demonstrated that the ecological groups identified in Phase 1 (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014) were viable groups for sensitivity assessment, and could be used to represent the 33 circalittoral and offshore sediments biotopes identified at the beginning of the project. The results of the sensitivity assessments show: • the majority of species and hence ecological groups in sedimentary habitats are sensitive to physical change, especially loss of habitat and sediment extraction, and change in sediment type; • most sedimentary species are sensitive to physical damage, e.g. abrasion and penetration, although deep burrowing species (e.g. the Dublin Bay prawn - Nephrops norvegicus and the sea cucumber - Neopentadactyla mixta) are able to avoid damaging effects to varying degrees, depending on the depth of penetration and time of year; • changes in hydrography (wave climate, tidal streams and currents) can significantly affect sedimentary communities, depending on whether they are dominated by deposit, infaunal feeders or suspension feeders, and dependant on the nature of the sediment, which is itself modified by hydrography and depth; • sedentary species and ecological groups that dominate the top-layer of the sediment (either shallow burrowing or epifaunal) remain the most sensitive to physical damage; • mobile species (e.g. interstitial and burrowing amphipods, and perhaps cumaceans) are the least sensitive to physical change or damage, and hydrological change as they are already adapted to unstable, mobile substrata; • sensitivity to changes in organic enrichment and hence oxygen levels, is variable between species and ecological groups, depending on the exact habitat preferences of the species in question, although most species have at least a medium sensitivity to acute deoxygenation; • there is considerable evidence on the effects of bottom-contact fishing practices and aggregate dredging on sedimentary communities, although not all evidence is directly applicable to every ecological group; • there is lack of detailed information on the physiological tolerances (e.g. to oxygenation, salinity, and temperature), habitat preferences, life history and population dynamics of many species, so that inferences has been made from related species, families, or even the same phylum; • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of non-indigenous species on most ecological groups, and Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of electromagnetic fields and litter on any ecological group. The resultant report provides an up-to-date review of current knowledge about the effects of pressures resulting from human activities of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. It provides an evidence base to facilitate and support the provision of management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. However, such a review will require at least annual updates to take advantage of new evidence and new research as it becomes available. Also further work is required to test how ecological group assessments are best combined in practice to advise on the sensitivity of a range of sedimentary biotopes, including the 33 that were originally examined.

High Level Environmental Screening Study for Offshore Wind Farm Developments – Marine Habitats and Species Project

High level environmental screening study for offshore wind farm developments – marine habitats and species This report provides an awareness of the environmental issues related to marine habitats and species for developers and regulators of offshore wind farms. The information is also relevant to other offshore renewable energy developments. The marine habitats and species considered are those associated with the seabed, seabirds, and sea mammals. The report concludes that the following key ecological issues should be considered in the environmental assessment of offshore wind farms developments: • likely changes in benthic communities within the affected area and resultant indirect impacts on fish, populations and their predators such as seabirds and sea mammals; • potential changes to the hydrography and wave climate over a wide area, and potential changes to coastal processes and the ecology of the region; • likely effects on spawning or nursery areas of commercially important fish and shellfish species; • likely effects on mating and social behaviour in sea mammals, including migration routes; • likely effects on feeding water birds, seal pupping sites and damage of sensitive or important intertidal sites where cables come onshore; • potential displacement of fish, seabird and sea mammals from preferred habitats; • potential effects on species and habitats of marine natural heritage importance; • potential cumulative effects on seabirds, due to displacement of flight paths, and any mortality from bird strike, especially in sensitive rare or scarce species; • possible effects of electromagnetic fields on feeding behaviour and migration, especially in sharks and rays, and • potential marine conservation and biodiversity benefits of offshore wind farm developments as artificial reefs and 'no-take' zones. The report provides an especially detailed assessment of likely sensitivity of seabed species and habitats in the proposed development areas. Although sensitive to some of the factors created by wind farm developments, they mainly have a high recovery potential. The way in which survey data can be linked to Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) sensitivity assessments to produce maps of sensitivity to factors is demonstrated. Assessing change to marine habitats and species as a result of wind farm developments has to take account of the natural variability of marine habitats, which might be high especially in shallow sediment biotopes. There are several reasons for such changes but physical disturbance of habitats and short-term climatic variability are likely to be especially important. Wind farm structures themselves will attract marine species including those that are attached to the towers and scour protection, fish that associate with offshore structures, and sea birds (especially sea duck) that may find food and shelter there. Nature conservation designations especially relevant to areas where wind farm might be developed are described and the larger areas are mapped. There are few designated sites that extend offshore to where wind farms are likely to be developed. However, cable routes and landfalls may especially impinge on designated sites. The criteria that have been developed to assess the likely marine natural heritage importance of a location or of the habitats and species that occur there can be applied to survey information to assess whether or not there is anything of particular marine natural heritage importance in a development area. A decision tree is presented that can be used to apply ‘duty of care’ principles to any proposed development. The potential ‘gains’ for the local environment are explored. Wind farms will enhance the biodiversity of areas, could act as refugia for fish, and could be developed in a way that encourages enhancement of fish stocks including shellfish.

Descriptions of Scottish Priority Marine Features (PMFs).

Background The seas around Scotland are rich and diverse – Scotland’s position at the edge of the continental shelf, the long coastline, large area of sea and the mixing of warm and coldwater currents combine to make its waters a special place for marine wildlife and habitats. Scotland has over 18,000 km of coastline and its inshore and offshore areas are among the largest of any EU country, representing 13% of all European seas. Scotland’s seas are of outstanding scenic, historical and cultural value and are part of the national identity at home and abroad. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 include new powers and duties to ensure that our seas are managed sustainably for future generations, integrating the economic growth of marine industries with the need to protect these assets. Measures to conserve Scotland’s marine natural heritage are based on a three pillar approach, with action at the wider seas level (e.g. marine planning or sectoral controls); specific species conservation measures (e.g. improved protection for seals); and through site protection measures - the identification of new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). To help target action under each of the three pillars, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) have generated a focused list of habitats and species of priority conservation importance - the Priority Marine Features (PMFs). The aim of the current study was to produce a descriptive catalogue of the Scottish PMFs (including component habitats and species where appropriate) to serve as a reference for future nature conservation action. Whilst derived from available existing accounts, the succinct 1-page descriptions are written from a Scottish perspective, refining, but clearly linking to more generic UK, EC or OSPAR (Oslo and Paris Commission) commentary. Available information on the geographic distribution of the features was collated as part of the project and a summary map is provided in each description. Main findings  This project has generated a descriptive catalogue of the 81 PMFs that have been identified in the seas around Scotland (out to the limit of the UK continental shelf). The list comprises 26 broad habitats (e.g. burrowed mud), seven low or limited mobility species (e.g. ocean quahog) and 48 mobile species, including fish (e.g. blue ling) and marine mammals (e.g. minke whale).  Information on the distribution of the PMFs was collated within a Geographic Information System (GIS). This is the first time that data about such a diverse range of Scottish marine nature conservation interests have been compiled within a single repository. These data have and will be used in conjunction with other contextual base-mapping to inform the development of nature conservation advice and commentary (e.g. in the production of the Scotland’s Marine Atlas - Baxter et al., 2011).  The feature distribution mapping used in the production of this report is being made available to view online via the National Marine Plan Interactive web portal (NMPi - http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/nmpihome). As new or refined data on Scottish PMFs become available, these will be fed into updates to the project geodatabase and NMPi.

Descriptions of Scottish Priority Marine Features (PMFs).

Background The seas around Scotland are rich and diverse – Scotland’s position at the edge of the continental shelf, the long coastline, large area of sea and the mixing of warm and coldwater currents combine to make its waters a special place for marine wildlife and habitats. Scotland has over 18,000 km of coastline and its inshore and offshore areas are among the largest of any EU country, representing 13% of all European seas. Scotland’s seas are of outstanding scenic, historical and cultural value and are part of the national identity at home and abroad. The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 include new powers and duties to ensure that our seas are managed sustainably for future generations, integrating the economic growth of marine industries with the need to protect these assets. Measures to conserve Scotland’s marine natural heritage are based on a three pillar approach, with action at the wider seas level (e.g. marine planning or sectoral controls); specific species conservation measures (e.g. improved protection for seals); and through site protection measures - the identification of new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). To help target action under each of the three pillars, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) have generated a focused list of habitats and species of priority conservation importance - the Priority Marine Features (PMFs). The aim of the current study was to produce a descriptive catalogue of the Scottish PMFs (including component habitats and species where appropriate) to serve as a reference for future nature conservation action. Whilst derived from available existing accounts, the succinct 1-page descriptions are written from a Scottish perspective, refining, but clearly linking to more generic UK, EC or OSPAR (Oslo and Paris Commission) commentary. Available information on the geographic distribution of the features was collated as part of the project and a summary map is provided in each description. Main findings  This project has generated a descriptive catalogue of the 81 PMFs that have been identified in the seas around Scotland (out to the limit of the UK continental shelf). The list comprises 26 broad habitats (e.g. burrowed mud), seven low or limited mobility species (e.g. ocean quahog) and 48 mobile species, including fish (e.g. blue ling) and marine mammals (e.g. minke whale).  Information on the distribution of the PMFs was collated within a Geographic Information System (GIS). This is the first time that data about such a diverse range of Scottish marine nature conservation interests have been compiled within a single repository. These data have and will be used in conjunction with other contextual base-mapping to inform the development of nature conservation advice and commentary (e.g. in the production of the Scotland’s Marine Atlas - Baxter et al., 2011).  The feature distribution mapping used in the production of this report is being made available to view online via the National Marine Plan Interactive web portal (NMPi - http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/nmpihome). As new or refined data on Scottish PMFs become available, these will be fed into updates to the project geodatabase and NMPi.

Analyses of sublittoral macrobenthic community change in a marine nature reserve using similarity profiles (SIMPROF).

Sublittoral macrobenthic communities in the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve (SMNR), Pembrokeshire, Wales, were sampled at 10 stations in 1993, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2007 and 2009 using a Day grab and a 0.5 mm mesh. The time series is analysed using Similarities Profiles (SIMPROF) tests and associated methods. Q-mode analysis using clustering with Type 1 SIMPROF addresses multivariate structure among samples, showing that there is clear structure associated with differences among years. Inverse (r-mode) analysis using Type 2 SIMPROF decisively rejects a hypothesis that species are not associated with each other. Clustering of the variables (species) with Type 3 SIMPROF identifies groups of species which covary coherently through the time-series. The time-series is characterised by a dramatic decline in abundances and diversity between the 1993 and 1996 surveys. By 1998 there had been a shift in community composition from the 1993 situation, with different species dominating. Communities had recovered in terms of abundance and species richness, but different species dominated the community. No single factor could be identified which unequivocally explained the dramatic changes observed in the SMNR. Possible causes were the effects of dispersed oil and dispersants from the Sea Empress oil spill in February 1996 and the cessation of dredge-spoil disposal off St Anne’s Head in 1995, but the most likely cause was severe weather. With many species, and a demonstrable recovery from an impact, communities within the SMNR appear to be diverse and resilient. If attributable to natural storms, the changes observed here indicate that natural variability may be much more important than is generally taken into account in the design of monitoring programmes.