ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 SCICOM STEERING GROUP ON ECOSYSTEM PRESSURES AND IMPACTS

ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:12

REF. SCICOM

Interim Report of the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping

(WGMHM)

18-22 May 2015

Reykjavik, Iceland

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer

H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk info@ices.dk

Recommended format for purposes of citation:

ICES. 2015. Interim Report of the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM), 18–22 May 2015, Reykjavik, Iceland. ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:12. 31 pp.

For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen-eral Secretary.

The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.

© 2015 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | i

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 2

1 Administrative details .................................................................................................. 3

2 Terms of Reference a) – e) ............................................................................................ 3

3 Summary of Work plan ................................................................................................ 4

4 List of Outcomes and Achievements of the WG in this delivery period ............ 5

5 Progress report on ToRs and workplan ..................................................................... 5

5.1 ToR a) International mapping programmes ..................................................... 5 5.1.1 EMODnet Seabed Habitats (AKA EUSeaMap 2) ................................. 5 5.1.2 OSPAR habitat mapping programme ................................................... 5

5.2 ToR b) National programmes (National Status Reports) ................................ 6 5.2.1 Germany .................................................................................................... 6 5.2.2 Denmark .................................................................................................... 7 5.2.3 Spain .......................................................................................................... 8 5.2.4 Ireland ....................................................................................................... 9 5.2.5 UK .............................................................................................................. 9

5.3 ToR c ) Habitat mapping techniques and modelling ..................................... 11 5.3.1 GeoHab backscatter guidelines and recommendations: a

very brief summary ............................................................................... 11 5.3.2 Habitat area as an indicator within the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive: the identification of suitable habitat mapping methods with recommendations of best-practice for the reduction of uncertainty in habitat mapping methods ................................................................................................... 12

5.4 ToR d) Habitat mapping relating to management ......................................... 13 5.4.1 Mapping ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats

in the European North Atlantic Ocean ............................................... 13 5.4.2 The use of habitat maps for MSFD ...................................................... 14

5.5 ToR e) Evaluate the applicability of a reduced list of habitats in support of the development of Typical Species indicator (BH1) ................. 14

6 Revisions to the work plan and justification ......................................................... 16

7 Next meeting ................................................................................................................. 16

Annex 1: List of participants............................................................................................... 17

Annex 2: Recommendations ............................................................................................... 19

Annex 3: Technical minutes from the RGBENTH ......................................................... 20

2 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

Executive summary

The annual meeting of the Working Group of Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM), chaired by Pål Buhl-Mortensen, Norway, was held at the Marine Research Institute in Reykjavik, Iceland, 18-22 May 2015.

Two essential topics relating to environmental management that were dealt with during the meeting: The application of habitat maps (ToR d) and Support for the development of common and candidate OSPAR biodiversity indicators (ToR e). Two issues relating to Habitat mapping techniques and modelling (ToR c) were discussed. Experts also pre-sented statuses on both on national and international mapping projects (ToR a) and b)). The overview of ongoing and recently finished mapping projects is useful for identifying sources of metadata to feed into the ICES webGIS for habitat maps, but also to identify standardization issues.

With regards to ToR c about habitat mapping techniques and modelling, issues about standardization for acquiring and using backscatter data were discussed and reviewed based on a new report from a GEOHAB workshop held in 2013. A set of recommenda-tions for operators and data users from this report are presented here. Concerning using habitat area as an indicator we present strategies for identifying suitable mapping meth-ods with recommendations of best practice for reducing the uncertainty.

In response to ToR e, requested by OSPAR we focused on the evaluation of the applica-bility of a reduced list of habitats in support the development of Typical Species indicator (BH1). We underline the need for relating such lists to individual habitats. The sugges-tion put forward by OSPAR to use only special habitats or threatened and/or declining habitats has several concerns.

Such habitats are commonly characterized by great heterogeneity, complex 3D structure and a high diversity of associated species. In this report we highlight some important criteria for selecting relevant habitats for developing Typical Species lists. We also pre-sent two recommendations with regards to this issue:

1 ) Select habitats that have clear definitions (e.g. avoid special habitats character-ised by a selection of species that may occur in various combinations within a region).

2 ) Consider the relevance of predominant habitats with less heterogeneity and well established, standardized sampling/observation methods.

A new chair for WGMHM was elected during the meeting. The new Chair, James Asa Strong, UK, will chair the group from January 2016. The WG will meet next time in Win-chester, UK, 9–11 May 2016 in connection with the GEOHAB conference. We believe that having the next meeting back to back with GEOHAB would stimulate both the WGMHM and GEOHAB.

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 3

1 Administrative details

Working Group name: Working Group of Marine Habitat Mapping

Year of Appointment: 2015

Reporting year within current cycle: 1

Chair:

Pål Buhl-Mortensen, Norway

Meeting venue:

Marine Research Institute, Reykjavik, Iceland

Meeting dates:

18–22 May 2015

2 Terms of Reference a) – e)

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

A International programmes Report on progress in international mapping programmes (including OSPAR and HELCOM Conventions, Emodnet, EC and EEA initiatives, CHARM, Mesh-Atlantic and other projects);

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

Three years Chapters in report

B National programmes (National Status Reports) Present and review important results from national habitat mapping during the preceding year, as well as new on-going and planned projects focusing on particular issues of relevance to the rest of the meeting. Provide National Status Report updates in geographic display in the ICES webGIS

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements

Three years Chapters in report

C Habitat mapping techniques and modelling Evaluate recent advances in marine habitat mapping and modelling techniques, including field work

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements

Three years Chapters in report

4 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

methodology, and data analysis and interpretation

D Review practise about the use of habitat maps, for example Mapping for the MSFD, marine spatial planning, and management of MPAs; and assess the ability to use habitat maps for monitoring of the environment

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements

Three years Chapters in report

E 2015/4 Support for the development of common and candidate OSPAR biodiversity indicators for benthic habitats: Benthic habitats ICES is requested to support on-going OSPAR indicators work on benthic habitats, in support of the requirements under the MSFD1. b) Evaluate the applicability of a reduced list of habitats in support the development of Typical Species indicator (BH1)2. This work should consider those habitats that have previously been identified by the COBAM Benthic experts group. Evaluation should consider data availability, and suggest possible prioritisation of habitats already included in the OSPAR list of threatened and declining habitats.

One year

3 Summary of Work plan

Year 1 Working on all ToRs, but with special focus on ToR D, and identifying points of collaboration with othe WGs. Election of new chair.

Year 2 Working on all ToRs, but with special focus on ToR C.

Year 3 Working on all ToRs, but with renewed focus on ToR A

1 Any analysis relating to main threats and development of abrasion maps should not be applied to the Portuguese continental shelf 2 In the implementation of this request ICES should ensure that there is a dialogue established between the relevant Working Group chairs and coordinators of the relevant OSPAR subsidiary bodies, including the ICG-COBAM Expert group for Benthic Habitats and ICG-Cumulative Effects. This is to ensure consistent interpretation of the request to meet the needs of OSPAR and avoid duplication in supporting the development and testing of OSPAR common indicators. Where data has been analysed as part of the work to deliver this request, the advice should be delivered in a form that will enable its use in subsequent analyses (including spatial analysis).

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 5

4 List of Outcomes and Achievements of the WG in this delivery period

• Planning of a theme session at the ICES ASC 2015 • Contributing to the development of OSPAR Common indicators • Submission of new metadata to the ICES WebGIS

5 Progress report on ToRs and workplan

5.1 ToR a) International mapping programmes

5.1.1 EMODnet Seabed Habitats (AKA EUSeaMap 2)

Helen Ellwood (JNCC)

This is one of seven thematic projects under the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet; www.emodnet.eu). It is running from September 2013 to September 2016 and being undertaken by nine international partners (www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/partners). It has two main aims (see www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/about):

• Produce a broad-scale physical habitat map for all EU waters • Provide access to European habitat maps through an online interactive map

(www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/webgis).

In the last 12 months the project has produced:

• a new website (www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu) • preliminary broad-scale physical habitat maps for Macaronesia and the Adri-

atic • a preliminary habitat classification for the Black Sea

By September 2015 the project will have produced an updated broad-scale habitat map for all EU waters, plus some of Norway, and published these through the online interac-tive map.

5.1.2 OSPAR habitat mapping programme

Helen Ellwood (JNCC)

This programme collates existing data on the presence of OSPAR listed threatened and/or declining habitats in the north-east Atlantic (also known as ‘special habitats’ under the MSFD). It is part of a wider programme to enable Contracting Parties to identify appro-priate measures for the protection of these habitats. The programme is led by the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and requires Contracting Parties to collate, standardise and submit habitat records to a single, common dataset, which is freely

6 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

available online through the EMODnet Seabed Habitats online interactive map3 (www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/webgis). In the last 12 months an increased amount data has been submitted in the lead-up to the 2017 intermediate assessment.

Annually since 2012 the data have fed into the ICES database of potential Vulnerable Ma-rine Ecosystems which provides the evidence behind conservation advice made by the ICES Working Group on Deep-water Ecology. Efforts are ongoing to ensure compatibility between these two datasets to reduce duplication of effort or gaps caused by different (a) data formats; (b) people participating in each programme; and (c) timeframes for up-dates.

5.2 ToR b) National programmes (National Status Reports)

5.2.1 Germany

Roland Pesch (BioConsult Schuchardt & Scholle GbR)

Predictive Mapping of Benthic Soft Bottom Communities for the German North and Baltic Sea

In order to meet the requirements arising from European directives such as the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and national law (Federal Ger-man Nature Conservation Act) benthic biotope maps are needed for the Exclusive Eco-nomic Zone (EEZ) of the German North and Baltic Sea. In a currently running project funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation corresponding maps are pro-duced by making use of existing biotope classification systems, biological and abiotic ge-odata and the application of data driven methodologies to predict the occurrence of benthic infauna species and communities. In a first phase of the project full coverage bio-tope maps for soft bottom sediments were generated for both the Baltic and the North Sea. The mapping in the Baltic Sea thereby relied on the application of the HELCOM Un-derwater Biotope and habitat classification (HUB). Here, all six classification HUB levels could be mapped for the entire German part of the Baltic Sea (Schiele et al. 2015). In the North Sea, the work mainly focussed on modelling soft bottom biotopes in terms of the spatial distribution of six benthic communities. These communities were identified by cluster analysis from benthic abundance data and mapped by applying predictive model-ling techniques. Future work will concentrate on the integration of hydroaccustical map-ping results in terms of high resolution substrate maps in the biotope mapping. Furthermore, data on benthic organisms will be sampled in areas with low densities of benthos stations and additional full coverage maps on abiotic parameters will be ac-quired. The latter are needed to improve the predictive models for benthic species and communities.

3 Full link to see the OSPAR layer on the interactive map: http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/default.aspx?page=1974&LAYERS=OSPARhabPolygon,OSPARHabPoints,Region&zoom=3&Y=51.759999999887654&X=2.269999999995032

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 7

References

Schiele, K.S., Darr, A., Zettler, M.L., Friedland, R., Tauber, F., von Weber, M., Voss, J. 2015 Biotope map of the German Baltic Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, (in press)

5.2.2 Denmark

Thomas Kirk Sorensen (DTU Aqua)

Multidisciplinary mapping of fish habitats in the Danish part of the Sound (Øresund)

The Sound between Denmark and Sweden is a sea area with many recreational and commercial uses including gillnet fishing, angling and sports diving as well as shipping, the wind energy sector and marine aggregate extraction. A major conflict has recently arisen due to sand extraction in areas of high value to among others, fishermen, divers and conservation proponents. A project was therefore carried out in 2014/2015 in the Danish part of the Sound that collected information from all existing sources as well as from semi-structured interviews with commercial gillnetters and anglers to map the hab-itats of ecological importance for 7 selected fish species of commercial value. Resulting maps of fish habitats show that in a narrow strait such as the Sound, the combined habi-tats used throughout the different phases of a spieces’ life cycle and the habitats utilised by the species during different seasons result in an overall large footprint. Although there are few areas where fish habitats are not found in the Sound, a cumulative map of the 7 species shows that it is possible to identify sites where impacts of anthropogenic activi-ties would be substantially lesser than others.

Mapping of substrate and habitats in inner Danish waters, with focus on Natura 2000 SAC’s

Ongoing mapping of substrates and habitats in inner Danish waters continued in 2014. In 2014 mapping was carried out within Natura 2000 SAC’s covering 2134 km transects us-ing sonar, sediment echosounder and side scan sonar. In addition 4519 km archival data and 345 video transects were employed. In shallow water (<3m) side scan sonar was sub-stituted by a combination of high resolution orthophotos and satellite data. In addition to SACs, mapping was carried out in the Sound between Denmark and Sweden.

Use of marine habitat maps in development of fisheries management in Danish Natura 2000 sites

Marine habitat maps have played a major role in development of fisheries management measures for Danish Natura 2000 sites (with focus on Reefs 1170 and Submarine struc-tures caused by leaking gases 1180). Precise mapping has allowed the development of a management approach based on the use of buffer zones to prevent physical contact be-tween mobile, bottom contacting gears and reef structures. Buffer zones are based on the typical length of the trawl warp employed at the average depth of the general area. Standard warp length used by trawlers in the concerned sites is three times the water depth (3:1), when water depth is less than 200 m. However, a precautionary 4:1 ratio was adopted. Depth:warp length ratio decreases with increasing depth. In the case of e.g. the Kattegat, an average depth of 40 meters was adopted and buffer zones = 4 times water depth (warp) + length of the fishing gear (40 m) + water depth safety margin= 240 m. Buffer zones were applied to mapped polygons of reef habitats and adjusted to accom-modate inappropriate gaps. As a result, Denmark has in 2015, as the first of all EU Mem-ber States, submitted proposals for fisheries management for a substantial number of

8 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

SACs in the Kattegat and Baltic Sea to the EC for approval and implementation via the CFP. More sites will follow in future based on similar principles.

5.2.3 Spain

Ibon Galparsoro (AZTI-Tecnalia)

Study of the Spanish Continental Shelf and Slope

This Project started in 1999 by the General Fisheries Secretariat (Spanish Ministry of Ag-riculture, Food and Environment) and is being conducted by TRAGSATEC. Surveyed area includes Atlantic and Mediterranean continental shelf and the Spanish Exclusive Economic zone. The main objective of the programme is to produce base cartographic information for nature conservation, fisheries and other activities management such as pipelines and marine renewables energy facilities installation. The techniques used in-clude swath bathymetry, backscatter, seismic, ground-truthing with grab samples and sidescan sonar surveys for habitat mapping in areas that could be declared protected. Final results are being produced in GIS format and paper maps are being edited at 1/50000 and 1/100.000 scales. (http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/pesca/temas/cartografiado-marino/default.aspx).

LIFE+ INDEMARES LIFE+ "Inventory and designation of marine Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea”

The main objective of the LIFE+ INDEMARES project is to contribute to the protection and sustainable use of the biodiversity in the Spanish seas through the identification of valuable areas for the Nature 2000 Network. Specific objectives of this project are:

• To suggest a listing of places to the European Commission to be included in the marine Natura 2000 network.

• To promote the participation of all parties involved in the research, conserva-tion and management of sea and its resources.

• To provide management guidelines for proposed sites. • To contribute to the strengthening of Regional Sea Conventions signed by

Spain (OSPAR and Barcelona). • To raise public awareness about the importance of conservation and sustaina-

ble use of marine biodiversity.

Some of the of this project include studies for the identification and mapping of habitats in ten areas selected as being representative of the main ecosystems and candidates to be declared under Natura2000 MPA network.

For the effective design of MPAs, one of the main objectives of this project is identifying and charting the habitats and the biological communities that inhabit them. However, the EUNIS hierarchical habitat classification system is still not well developed for the charac-teristics of several ecosystems and, in general terms, it presents important discrepancies in their design.

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 9

5.2.4 Ireland

Fergal McGrath (INFOMAR/MI)

INFOMAR

INFOMAR (Integrated Mapping for the Sustainable Development of Ireland’s Marine Resource) is a joint venture between the Marine Institute and the Geological Survey of Ireland (www.infomar.ie). The mapping programme aims to carry out integrated map-ping over the entire shelf and coastal waters of Ireland. It includes acquisition of multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data together with an opportunistic geological sampling programme. Equipment used includes MBES (EM2040, R2S0nics2022, Reson 7101), EA400, OLEX, Hull Mounted Pinger, Magnetometer, GeoSpark 200, underwater video, ROV, box corer, grab, and vibrocorer. Mapping outputs from the project include bathymetric data and geological maps. All results and raw data from INSS and INFO-MAR are available for download and can be accessed at www.infomar.ie.

By the end of 2014 INFOMAR had acquired data off West Clare Coast, and the South West Coast onboard the R.V. Celtic Voyager. Data from Lough Foyle, Lough Swilly, Mulroy Bay, Donegal, Mayo, Inisboffin, West Galway coast, Tralee Bay and the Boyne estuary, were acquired by the R.V. Keary, the R.V. Geo and the M.V. Cosantoir Bradain operating in tandem.

The annual INFOMAR seminar was hosted in Waterford in October 2014 which demon-strated the cross government and industry support for the programme outputs, support and infrastructure. Over 100 attendees were present, with representatives from academ-ia, government agencies and departments, and Irish and international industries, ranging from oil and gas, environmental, and survey technology manufacturers.

Habitat Mapping

The extent of seabed classification data within priority bays in Ireland was presented. Distribution of seabed classifications using INFOMAR data, NPWS data and collated disparate source data was indicated.

MSFD/WFD Status

MSFD: Article 11 of the MSFD requires member states to establish and implement coor-dinated monitoring programmes for the on-going assessment of the environmental status of marine waters. Irelands Monitoring Programmes Report was submitted in April 2015.

WFD: Sampling monitoring was carried out (348 sample sites) at 27 locations around the coast.

5.2.5 UK

Helen Ellwood (JNCC) and Annika Clements (AFBI)

MSFD

In the last 12 months, there have been further surveys and production of habitat maps to support to identification of marine protected areas to support the MSFD. Some of these

10 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

maps cover relatively large areas using multi-beam data originally acquired for hydro-graphic mapping and are typically classified according to EUNIS level 3 (to describe the broad patterns in habitat type) and special habitats (those listed by threatened and/or declining by OSPAR or by national legislation).

Within Northern Ireland, Strangford Lough (a Natura 2000 site and the first of NI’s Ma-rine Conservation Zones) provides an example of such mapping, where multibeam data were collected and coupled with archived observation data (remote video, diver video, diver records) and grab sampling to produce a EUNIS Level 4 and 5 (with some records of level 6 sub-biotopes).

Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland

Important developments in the Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland (now v15.03; JNCC, 2015) have resulted in the creation of a deep-sea section (Parry et al., 2015); meaning the system now describes habitats all the way from the inter-tidal zone to the abyss. This followed a report produced to summarise weaknesses and users’ issues with the previous system, which is a useful report for anyone developing a new classifi-cation system (Parry, 2014).

Habitat Mapping

Habitat mapping techniques have also been applied to address both fisheries manage-ment and marine spatial planning. In Northern Ireland includes essential fish habitat mapping, resource assessment (e.g. seed mussel), and benthic assessments for offshore developments. Multibeam backscatter data from Belfast Lough were also used to moni-tor aquaculture dredging activity and provide spatial validation of “black box” fishing intensity data (presented at ICES ASC 2014 (A Coruna, Spain)).

To find out more about the habitat map compiled for national assessments, see: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/seabedhabitatmapdata

References

JNCC (2015) The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 15.03 [Online]. [2015-05-21]. Available online at: jncc.defra.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification

Parry, M.E.V., (2014), JNCC Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland: Overview of User Issues, JNCC Report 529, ISSN 0963 8901. Available online at jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6757

Parry, M.E.V., Howell, K.L., Narayanaswamy, B.E., Bett, B.J., Jones, D.O.B., Hughes, D.J., Piechaud, N., Nickell, T.D., Ellwood, H., N. Askew, N., Jenkins, C. & Manca, E., (2015), A Deep-sea Sec-tion for the Marine Habitat Classification of Britain and Ireland, JNCC Report 530, ISSN 0963-8901. Available online at jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6997

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 11

5.3 ToR c ) Habitat mapping techniques and modelling

5.3.1 GeoHab backscatter guidelines and recommendations: a very brief sum-mary

Annika Clements (AFBI)

Following a specific backscatter workshop held at the 2013 GeoHab conference (Rome) a BackScatter Working Group (BSWG) was formed, consisting of a chairing committee and open membership (for further information see: http://geohab.org/BSWG/). The main ob-jectives of the BSWG were to: (a) produce guidelines or best practice approaches for the acquisition and processing of backscatter data from seafloor-mapping sonars; (b) produce recommendations for the improvement and further development of systems and pro-cessing tools for sonar manufacturers and software developers. This has resulted in pro-duction of a collective report published in May 2015 (Lurton and Lamarche, 2015). The report focuses on current uses of backscatter and user issues, backscatter measurement theory and promoting an understanding of how these data are derived. Recommenda-tions are made to improve data quality, both through data acquisition, processing and post-processing. The report does not address issues of backscatter data mosaic segmen-tation, classification or interpretation.

Within the report, the key summarised recommendations for sonar operators (surveyors) are to implement the following:

• Calibration for backscatter (with ground-truthing) in addition to calibration for bathymetry;

• Acquisition configuration must be kept as stable as possible, with avoidance of automated modes;

• System configuration should be as simple as possible; • Increase overlap as complete area should be covered only with beam angles

between 20° and 60°.

The key recommendations for backscatter data users (e.g. the habitat mapping communi-ty) are as follows:

• Factor in additional time/costs for surveys due to need for backscatter calibra-tion and closer line spacing;

• Invest resources in mastering post-processing and allowing adequate time for this stage to maximise quality of resulting mosaics. Learn one software suite well and try not to change work flows, software versions etc. between surveys if data are to be compared e.g. for long term monitoring;

• Contribute to data libraries of backscatter measurement results, including: o Angle and frequency o Ground-truthing

• Be aware of backscatter data limitations and uncertainties: avoid over-interpretation.

12 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

References

Lurton, X.; Lamarche, G. (Eds) (2015) Backscatter measurements by seafloor-mapping sonars. Guidelines and Recommendations. 200p.

http://geohab.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BSWGREPORT-MAY2015.pdf

5.3.2 Habitat area as an indicator within the Marine Strategy Framework Di-rective: the identification of suitable habitat mapping methods with recommen-dations of best-practice for the reduction of uncertainty in habitat mapping methods

James Strong (University of Hull)

Use of habitat extent (i.e. area) for monitoring requires accurate, precise and repeatable habitat mapping methods. Currently, the use of multiple mapping methods for the same habitat and high, or unknown, levels of uncertainty within methods hampers our ability to reliably use habitat mapping for many forms of marine monitoring. Project results, commissioned by the UK MSFD Biodiversity R&D group, addresses many of these is-sues. Outputs included 1) a tool for the selection of high performing mapping methods, 2) an error analysis of 24 common mapping methods identified and ranked 39 methodo-logical sources of uncertainty and/or discrepancy, 3) recommendations for reducing un-certainty were made for each uncertainty source, 4) generic estimates of the Minimum Detectable Change (MDC) for each mapping method and 5) recommendations for the stratified extrapolation of site-specific maps for regional assessments of environmental status.

The error analysis is particularly noteworthy. The most important methodological varia-bles influencing uncertainty across multiple mapping methods included (i) the segmenta-tion/classification and interpolation analysis used, (ii) the sampling resolution of the remote sensing method, (iii) spatial certainty (alignment of ground-truthing and remote-ly-sensed samples), (iv) the replication and distribution of samples (especially ground truthing) and (v) reading error during footage classification/enumeration. Each methodo-logical variables contributing to uncertainty was paired with an existing, updateable or new package of measures to reduce uncertainty. Overall, it was clear that recommended guidance for (i) classification analysis (also referred to as segmentation), (ii) interpolation methods, (iii) matching sampling resolution to the habitat resolution (via a habitat resolu-tion catalogue), (iv) reducing reader error during the processing of benthic footage (i.e. the re-establishment of the NMBAQC epibiota component) and (v) replication and repli-cate distribution (especially for ground-truthing of remote datasets) were particularly important for reducing uncertainty across multiple mapping methods. This process ob-jectively highlighted the largest methodological sources of uncertainty within common habitat mapping methods and prioritizes future work to improve habitat mapping.

With regard to the detection of change using habitat maps, generic MDC values were between 25–58 % for the common mapping methods (associated with important caveats), suggesting that temporal changes smaller than this cannot be detected. The aerial inter-tidal mapping methods typically had the best MDC values. MDC values typically deteri-orated for the subtidal habitats and were especially poor for the sparse and cryptic species that could only be sampled with direct mapping methods, meaning only very large changes in extent could be detected with certainty.

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 13

Finally, it is recognized that full-coverage habitat mapping for iterative measures of ex-tent at the regional scale is unlikely to be cost-effective. As such, a process is required that can scale the information from localized assessments of change in extent to a regional context so that overall assessments can be made. A four-phase ‘stratified extrapolation’ method was presented for the use of site-scale reference area values (localized maps) in regional assessments of extent change. This approach requires that the regional assess-ment area is initially stratified (phase 1) by changes in ‘extent response’ (mostly likely to be driven by differing configurations of activity/pressure and key environmental varia-bles). Phase 2 requires that values of extent change are either (i) observed or (ii) trans-ferred and adjusted, for each stratum. Following this, the relative value of extent change for each stratum is then weighted by the presence of the habitat within each stratum (phase 3). Finally, phase 4 combines the observed or adjusted values of extent change from phase 2, with weightings from phase 3, to produce a single, relative value for change in extent within the regional assessment area. The various assumptions, meth-odological variations, costs and likely confidence have been discussed for each phase.

References

Strong, J. A. (2015). Marine Strategy Framework Directive indicators of habitat extent: the identifi-cation of suitable and sensitive habitat mapping methods for specific habitats with recommen-dations on best-practice for the reduction of uncertainty. Defra contract ME5318. Available online at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=19533&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=5318&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10

5.4 ToR d) Habitat mapping relating to management

5.4.1 Mapping ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats in the European North Atlantic Ocean

Ibon Galparsoro, Ángel Borja and María C. Uyarra (AZTI-Tecnalia)

The mapping and assessment of the ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats is a highly valuable source of information for understanding their current and potential bene-fits to society. The main objective of this research is to assess and map the ecosystem ser-vices provided by benthic habitats in the European North Atlantic Ocean, in the context of the “Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services” (MAES) programme, the European Biodiversity Strategy and the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In total, 62 habitats have been analysed in relation to 12 ecosystem services over 1.7 million km2.

This research has provided a first assessment of the benthic ecosystem services on the Atlantic-European scale, with the provision of ecosystem services maps and their general spatial distribution patterns.

14 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

5.4.2 The use of habitat maps for MSFD

Helen Ellwood (JNCC)

The 2014 report describes the descriptors and indicators of good environmental status that are most relevant for habitat mapping. Of these, two indicators have been selected to develop at a regional level by the OSPAR inter-sessional group on the coordination of biodiversity assessment and monitoring (ICG-COBAM):

6.1.2 – Extent of the seabed affected by human activities for the different substrate types (criterion: physical damage, having regard to substrate characteristics); known by OSPAR as “common indicator” BH3 – Extent of physical damage to predominant and special habitats. “Common indicator” means that it is or will be implemented by all OSPAR contracting parties, where scientifically relevant (either OSPAR-wide or in cer-tain regions e.g. Greater North-Sea), for the 2017 OSPAR Intermediate Assessment.

1.5.1 – Habitat area (criterion: habitat extent); known by OSPAR as BH4 – Area of habitat loss. This is a currently a “candidate indicator”, meaning that further development is re-quired before a decision can be taken to adopt it as a “common indicator”.

The development of BH3 is being led by UK and Germany. In the absence of the re-sources to carry out repeat surveys the method is likely to use a proxy for physical dam-age based on existing information on the extent of habitats, the extent and intensity of human activities and the relationships between them. This requires the following data and information:

• Human activity maps for the northeast Atlantic – preferably full coverage. • An understanding of the relationship between human activities and the result-

ant pressures on benthic habitats to be able to translate activity maps to pres-sure maps.

• Maps of habitats for the northeast Atlantic – preferably full coverage. • An understanding of the sensitivity of the mapped habitats to the various hu-

man pressures to be able to translate habitat maps to sensitivity maps.

Once all of this information is in place, pressure maps and sensitivity maps may be com-bined to determine the potential extent of physical damage to habitats.

Because BH4 is only a candidate indicator at the OSPAR level, it is not expected that will be used for the 2017 OSPAR Intermediate Assessment. The UK’s progress towards de-veloping this indicator at the national level is described in ToR c) of this report.

5.5 ToR e) Evaluate the applicability of a reduced list of habitats in support of the development of Typical Species indicator (BH1)

ToR e) - Support for the development of common and candidate OSPAR biodiversity indicators for benthic habitats: Benthic habitats

This is a set of ToRs implying tasks relevant for several ICES working groups. Therefore, three obvious relevant groups (WGSFD, BEWG and WGMHM) were identified by the ICES secretariat and presented the same ToR. These groups were asked to distribute their work between themselves. After discussions between the chairs of the three groups and

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 15

among the participants at the WGMHM meeting in Reykjavik, WGMHM decided to con-centrate on part b under ToR E:

b) Evaluate the applicability of a reduced list of habitats in support the development of Typical Spe-cies indicator (BH1). This work should consider those habitats that have previously been identified by the COBAM Benthic experts group. Evaluation should consider data availability, and suggest possible prioritisation of habitats already included in the OSPAR list of threatened and declining habitats.

In 2013 WGMHM reported on a similar ToR (from OSPAR) to Support to the technical spec-ification and application of OSPAR common indicators. In response to the part of the ToR re-lating to the Typical Species indicator we underlined the need for relating such lists to individual habitats. During 2014 a suggestion for ToRs relating to the same common in-dicators where circulated to relevant working groups for comments. The revised ToR suggests that the lists should focus on a limited number of habitats. Habitats identified by ICG-COBAM and those listed by OSPAR as Threathened and/or Declining were sug-gested for consideration.

These are “special habitats” commonly characterized by great heterogeneity, complex 3D structure and a high diversity of associated species. The reason for focusing on these hab-itats is not clear.

Below we highlight some important criteria for selecting relevant habitats for developing Typical Species lists.

We have taken into account criteria from the BEWG and present here complimentary cri-teria without assessing the applicability of those presented by BEWG.

Criteria for prioritising habitats for application of BH1:

1 ) The habitats should have an operational definition that enable a reliable identi-fication

2 ) The habitats should be present across quantifiable anthropogenic and/or natu-ral pressure gradients

3 ) Typifying/habitat-defining species cannot be included on the list of typical species

4 ) There should be data available to indicate the habitat’s species composition in its natural state upon which to base the selection of typical species

5 ) The habitat should be sensitive to relevant pressure(s) 6 ) It should be easy to sample/observe the composition of the species within the

habitat 7 ) It should be possible to sample/observe the habitat with non-destructive

methods (acceptable minimal impact) 8 ) There should exist adequate background knowledge about associated species 9 ) Selected habitats should represent a wide selection of biological zones (bathy-

metric zones and water masses) within OSPAR regions 10 ) The habitats should be distributed across multiple EEZs in the region 11 ) The habitat should be characterised by an assemblage rather than a single spe-

cies

16 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

Some of the habitats on the OSPAR list are represented with a several habitats in EUNIS (level 5 and 6). The generic OSPAR habitats have a wider geographic distribution than the more specified EUNIS habitats, but display less commonalities with respect to typical species. Especially problematic with this respect are Coral gardens, Seapen and burrow-ing megafauna, Deep sea sponge aggregations. An example of how the applicability of candidate habitats could be evaluated with reference to Typical Species indicator (BH1), based on selected criteria is shown in Table 1.

Points to consider:

• The classification systems referred to during the process of developing BH1 are under development.

• Methods should be tailored to meet the spatial and temporal scale of varia-tions of selected species (e.g. Habitats with a complex 3D structure has a great variation at a fine scale and smaller macrofaunal species would require inten-sive bottom sampling to retrieve representative results. Megafauna on the oth-er hand could be documented by visual techniques of larger spatial scales and provide representative results)

• Methods should be tailored to consider the occurrence of local states in com-munity compositions (e.g. Special species compositions typical for Lophelia-reefs in individual fjords)

6 Revisions to the work plan and justification

Changes to summary work plan:

Year 2 Working on all ToRs, but with special focus on ToR C.

Year 3 Working on all ToRs, but with renewed focus on ToR A

7 Next meeting

9–11 May 2016, Winchester, UK

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 17

Annex 1: List of participants

Name Address Phone/Fax Email

Pål Buhl Mortensen (Chair)

Institute of Marine Research Nordnes P.O. Box 1870 5817 Bergen Norway

+47 55 23 68 15 +47 55 23 68 30

paal.buhl.mortensen@imr.no

Steinunn Hilma Olafsdottir

Marine Reasearch Institute Skúlagata 4 121 Reykjavík Iceland

+3545752000 steinho@hafro.is

Julian Burgos Marine Reasearch Institute Skúlagata 4 121 Reykjavík Iceland

+3545752000 julian@hafro.is

Ibon Galparsoro AZTI-Tecnalia Herrera kaia portu-aldea, z/g. 20110, Pasaia; Spain

+34 667 174 450 igalparsoro@azti.es

Roland Pesch Bioconsult Schu-chardt & Scholle GbR, Reeder-Bischof-Str. 54 28757 Bremen Germany

+49(0)421 694981-20 pesch@bioconsult.de

Fergal McGrath Marine Institute Oranmore Galway Ireland

+353 (0) 91 387 500 fergal.mcgrath@marine.ie

Thomas Kirk Sørensen DTU Aqua - National Institute of Aquatic Resources Section for Fisheries Advice Charlottenlund Slot Jægersborg Alle 1 2920 Charlottenlund Denmark

+45 33963300 tks@aqua.dtu.dk

Annika Clements Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute | Fisheries and Aquatic Ecosystems Branch | Newforge Lane | Belfast | BT9 5PX

+44 (0)28 90255472 annika.clements@afbini.gov.uk

18 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

Helen Ellwood Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough PE1 1JY United Kingdom

+44 (0)1733 866931 Helen.Ellwood@jncc.gov.uk

James Strong Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull Cottingham Road Hull HU6 7RX

+44 (0)1482 466722 J.Strong@hull.ac.uk

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 19

Annex 2: Recommendations

The working group agreed that the common OSPAR biodiversity indicator Typical Spe-cies should relate to habitats selected on the basis of criteria that ensure comparability and minimal habitat destruction during sampling. The following two principles are espe-cially important:

• Select habitats that have clear definitions (e.g. avoid special habitats character-ised by a selection of species that may occur in various combinations within aregion).

• Consider the relevance of predominant habitats with less heterogeneity andwell established, standardized sampling/observation methods.

Improving guidelines for certain survey techniques and data processing, including:

• video analysis – this has developed recently through a workshop in South-ampton and

• acoustic backscatter data acquisition and processing – this may progressthrough the Working Group on Sonar Backscatter Data Acquisition and Pro-cessing and Processing (http://geohab.org/bswg/) which aims to propose:

o To users: guidelines or best practice approaches for the acquisition andprocessing of backscatter data from seafloor-mapping sonars;

To sonar manufacturers and software developers: recommendationsfor the improve-ment and further development of systems andprocessing tools.

20 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

Annex 3: Technical minutes from the RGBENTH

Review Group Technical Minutes

Review Group: Method development, operationalization and testing – indicators for benthic habitats (RGBENTH)

Reviewers: Koen Vanstaen (Chair) Carolyn Lundquist Gerjan Piet

Secretariat: Sebastian Valanko, Michala Ovens

Review period: 9 July – 3 August 2015

This review group worked by correspondence during the period indicated. Two telecon-ference meetings were held during the review – one on the 9th July 2015 to agree the ap-proach to the review, request any additional documentation or clarification from the ICES Secretariat and assign tasks to the reviewers. A second meeting was held on 20 July to discuss progress and preliminary conclusions, and ensure consistency in approach to the reviews and agree deadlines for completion.

Review introduction

The review group reviewed the reports provided by the working groups. WGSFD pro-vided an extensive report (WGSFD 2015 draft report.docx) which addressed both OSPAR request a) and the HELCOM request. BEWG provided their entire meeting report (BEWG 2015 draft report.odt), with sections relevant to the OSPAR request found on pages 18–20 (request c), pages 31–33 and Annex 3 (request b). WGMHM produced a separate output relevant to OSPAR request b) (WGMHM ToR E.doc). Background documentation provided by ICES included: the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats (OSPAR list species and habitats.doc) and OSPAR BDC Collation of technical speci-fications for biodiversity indicators (OSPAR_COBAM_indicators_03in01_technicalspecs.pdf).

OSPAR REQUEST A: USING MOBILE BOTTOM CONTACTING GEAR DATA, PRODUCE FISHING ABRASION PRESSURE MAPS2 (2009–2013) USING THE BH3 APPROACH AS A FOLLOW-UP OF THE OSPAR REQUEST TO ICES (REQUEST 5/2014).

Introduction

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) across the EU’s marine waters by 2020. A set of criteria and indicators were produced by the Commission to help Members States implement the Directive. De-scriptor 6 of the MSFD is concerned with seafloor integrity, such that the functioning of marine ecosystems is maintained. One of the criteria for this descriptor is physical dam-age (6.1). OSPAR facilitates the coordinated implementation of the MSFD and as part of this work ensures compatibility and consistency in approaches between Member States.

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 21

As part of the coordination activity, OSPAR is overseeing the development of Benthic Habitat Indicator 3 (BH3): Physical damage of predominant and special habitats.

Request

OSPAR requested support from ICES in the development of common and candidate bio-diversity indicators for benthic habitats. Specifically, the request was to: Using mobile bottom contacting gear data, produce fishing abrasion pressure maps (2009–2013) using the BH3 approach as a follow-up of the OSPAR request to ICES (Request 5/2014). Fishing abrasion pres-sure maps should be analysed by gear distribution, and type, in the OSPAR maritime area and be based on the methodology propose on the physical damage indicator (BH3). Specifically ICES is requested to:

i) collate relevant national VMS and logbook data;

ii) estimate the proportions of total fisheries represented by the data;

iii) using methods developed in Request 5/2014, where possible, collect other non-VMS data to cover other types of fisheries (e.g. fishing boats < 12m length);

iv) prepare maps for the OSPAR maritime area (including ABNJ) on the spatial and tem-poral intensity of fishing using mobile bottom contacting gears (BH3 approach).

The ICES Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data (WGSFD) included this request in their Terms of Reference for their 2015 meeting. The meeting was held in June 2015 at the ICES Headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark.

RGBENTH assessment of WG response

i) Collate relevant national VMS and logbook data

The ICES data call appears suitable to collate the relevant VMS and logbook data even though not all member states answered the call. Because of this only OSPAR areas II and III are adequately covered for the calculation of indicators/metrics. Further efforts should be made to resolve issues with or lacking data submissions by certain Member States. Where data were submitted in an incorrect format or were incomplete, assistance should be provided to resolve future issues. Where data were not provided, ICES and OSPAR or HELCOM should seek to ensure Member States provide the necessary data, as incom-plete data only allow for incomplete assessments. Tables 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 swept area are useful for trends over time but the absolute values are dependent on the member states that delivered data.

The data checks appear adequate and caveats identified in 4.1.6 appear comprehensive. The revised data exchange format should allow an improved calculation of future metrics and maps. We recommend that an extra bullet point is added to section 4.1.6 that high-lights the limitation of logbook data in this section, as the vessel under 10m overall length are not adequately captured by such data.

22 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

ii) Estimate the proportions of total fisheries represented by the data

As indicated in the report: Ideally this would be an estimate based on effort, but in the available data, the effort in the aggregated VMS data is reported as fishing hours and the effort in the aggregated logbook data is reported as fishing days, these two variables can’t be compared directly. Landed weight is assumed to be a reasonable alternative of the datasets available to estimate the proportions. This assumption is however not vali-dated or substantiated in the report, and should therefore be clearly listed as a limitation.

Building on the comment in section i) regarding the use of logbook data, it is recom-mended that the limitations on the percentages presented should be made clearer. The percentages mainly apply to vessels >15m and vessels between 10 and 15m. It may be beneficial for the report to mention somewhere the absolute values and relative propor-tions of registered fishing vessels by vessel length to put this into context.

Based on these limitations, the high percentages (>90%) of all bottom contact gears sug-gest that the data of those gears are sufficiently representative. Dredge gear was noted as an exception to this rule, with significantly lower percentages (~40–60%). The report would have benefitted from some discussion to validate this result.

iii) Cover other types of fisheries

The approach in 4.5.2 to superimpose logbook-based distributions of the fishing boats <12 m on top of the VMS-based distributions is probably the only possibility to address this issue using the data available to the WG. However, because you lose the small spa-tial scale (logbook data presented at ICES rectangle scale) this will result in a marked overestimation of impact when combining pressure and habitat sensitivity data in the BH3 methodology. In addition and as indicated, the method is very sensitive to the as-sumption of 24 hours fishing, which was shown for at least the Dutch fleet to be consid-erably less, i.e. closer to 17 hours (Piet et al., 2007). We recommend that further work is therefore undertaken to inform a more appropriate duration before the results are used.

AIS also does not cover all the smaller vessels, so unless these smaller vessels are re-quired to use VMS (preferably) or AIS, we just need to acknowledge that these small ves-sels cannot be included in the analysis. For each reporting area some estimate should be provided of the importance of these other fisheries based on e.g. effort or landed weight.

In the UK work has been undertaken in recent years to address the inshore fishing vessel gap. Breen et al. (2015) reported on an approach to address this issue. We recognize that this work was only recently published and that the WG may not have come across this work. The review group is also not aware whether the data used in this approach are available across the OSPAR area.

Using the data available we feel the WG has done the best possible. There is however an issue in relation to the data availability for smaller vessels which hampers these assess-ments.

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 23

iv) Prepare maps

The method shown in Figure 4.3.1.2.1 “Workflow for production of fishing effort and swept area maps from aggregated (c-square) VMS data” is appropriate and probably the best approach within the limitations discussed.

OSPAR REQUEST B: EVALUATE THE APPLICABILITY OF A REDUCED LIST OF HABITATS IN SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF TYPICAL SPECIES INDICA-TOR (BH1).

Introduction

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) across the EU’s marine waters by 2020. A set of criteria and indicators were produced by the Commission to help Members States implement the Directive. De-scriptor 1 of the MSFD is concerned with maintaining biological diversity, such that the quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions. One of the indi-cators for this descriptor (1.6.1) assesses the typical species composition based on pres-ence of species in samples in all habitats across the region. The target would be to maintain the proportion of typical species within each habitat type, compared to refer-ence conditions. OSPAR facilitates the coordinated implementation of the MSFD and as part of this work ensures compatibility and consistency in approaches between Member States. As part of the coordination activity, indicator 1.6.1 is also referred to as Benthic Habitat Indicator 1 (BH1).

Request

OSPAR requested support from ICES in the development of common and candidate bio-diversity indicators for benthic habitats. Specifically, the request was to: Evaluate the ap-plicability of a reduced list of habitats in support the development of Typical Species indicator (BH1). This work should consider those habitats that have previously been identified by the CO-BAM Benthic experts group. Evaluation should consider data availability, and suggest possible prioritisation of habitats already included in the OSPAR list of threatened and declining habitats.

Two ICES working group included this request in their Terms of Reference for their 2015 meeting: Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG) and the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM). Both working groups held their meetings in May 2015 in Calvi, France, and Reykjavik, Iceland, respectively.

Summary of WG reports

WGMHM reviewed the OSPAR list and provided brief comments in their report. WGMHM was unclear on reasons why “special habitats” had been proposed. WGMHM also commented on the inclusion of generic habitats which are made up of several EUNIS habitats. The WGMHM suggests that a generic habitat will be “problematic” for indica-tor use, as their typical species composition will show large variation. Generic habitats include: coral gardens, seapen and burrowing megafauna and deep sea sponge aggrega-tions. There was no prioritization beyond this recommendation, but prioritization crite-ria were suggested.

24 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

BEWG benefitted from representation by members who have been heavily involved in the OSPAR indicator development work for benthic habitats (incl. BH1). The group re-viewed available lists (OSPAR & COBAM). The group prioritized the habitats based on 5 criteria, but the prioritization was incomplete due to a lack of experts for certain habitats. The report suggested that this would be completed intersessionally, but no clarity on timelines was provided.

RGBENTH assessment of WG response

Both working groups provided incomplete responses to the advice request. This is likely due to a lack of clarity in the advice request and/or background documentation, as well as lack of expertise within the working group (BEWG).

• Lack of clarity

The WGMHM commented on the lack of clarity why “special” habitats had been proposed for consideration under BH1 instead of “predominant” habitats.

The Review Group agrees that background information was very limited in rela-tion to BH1 and mainly included decision statements, without reasoning.

• Lack of expertise

The BEWG reported that their prioritization was incomplete due to a lack of ex-pertise in relation to rocky habitats. This meant that the prioritized list presented was incomplete and can therefore not be considered in drafting advice as it stands.

BEWG developed a list of 5 criteria to prioritise habitats. Criteria 2 (Specific expertise rep-resented in BEWG) was not deemed appropriate by the Review Group, as expertise should be brought to the WG, instead of habitats being excluded from prioritization. The criteria used should be unambiguous and it was felt that some of the criteria in the report failed this test and should be improved.

WGMHM developed a list of 11 criteria to allow prioritization of habitats. The list was considered complementary to the BEWG criteria. The list is comprehensive and the Re-view Group generally agrees with the criteria proposed. It is probable that some of the criteria were already taken into account during the development of the BH1 Indicator and the resulting recommendation to focus on special habitats. Therefore, some criteria may be excluded to reduce the task associated with prioritization. Other criteria could be combined as they are closely related (e.g. 3 and 11).

WGMHM did not undertake any prioritization of habitats based on the criteria proposed. Three habitats were considered “problematic”, namely: coral gardens, seapen and bur-rowing megafauna, and deep sea sponge aggregations. Full prioritization would have been useful based on the expertise within the WG.

Using their five criteria, BEWG shortlisted 6 habitats. Two of these habitats (seapen and burrowing megafauna; deep sea sponge aggregations) were included in the BEWG list, but were considered low priority by the WGMHM due to their geographic variations in typical species composition.

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 25

RGBENTH recommendations

• To make best use of the working groups’ time, it is recommended that any re-quests are accompanied by fully documented background information. Different terminology was used in the different documentation (“OSPAR T&D habitats; special habitats; reduced list of habitats) which caused confusion.

• ICES and its WGs should ensure the necessary expertise is available to respond to the advice requests. Consideration should be given to working group working together on advice requests as opposed to splitting requests by area of expertise or duplicating effort.

• Of the two prioritization approaches proposed, the criteria proposed by the WGMHM are recommended with minor modifications. The prioritization will need to be undertaken at the ADG meeting, as no appropriate prioritization was presented in the WG reports.

• Prioritisation may benefit from being undertaken at EUNIS Level 5 instead of the higher OSPAR definition levels. Although this will result in a higher number of habitats requiring review, it is likely a large number will receive low prioritiza-tion due to not meeting the wide geographic distribution criteria.

• Prioritisation of EUNIS habitats with already defined characteristic species lists could be considered initially, as this would negate the initial task of developing species lists for each habitat.

• Further consideration should be given to the predominant habitats to ensure none of these habitats would be more suitable than the special habitats consid-ered.

• Based on the recommendations above, a prioritized list may look like the list be-low and should be finalized by ADGBENTH.

26 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

DESCRIPTION OSPAR Re-gions where the habitat

occurs

Prioritised (Y/N)

HABITATS Carbonate mounds I, V Y Coral Gardens I, II, III, IV, V N1 Cymodocea meadows IV N2 Deep-sea sponge aggrega-tions

I, III, IV, V N1

Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sedi-ments

II, III Y

Intertidal mudflats I, II, III, IV Y Littoral chalk communities II N2 Lophelia pertusa reefs All Y Maerl beds All Y Modiolus modiolus beds All Y Oceanic ridges with hydro-thermal vents/fields

I, V N3

Ostrea edulis beds II, III, IV Y Sabellaria spinulosa reefs All Y Seamounts I, IV, V Y Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities

I, II, III, IV N1

Zostera beds I, II, III, IV Y

1: Definition too broad, significant geographic variation expected. 2: Limited geographic distribution across OSPAR area. 3: Unlikely to be subject to human induced pressure.

OSPAR REQUEST C: EVALUATE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REQUIRE-MENTS FOR MULTIMETRIC INDICATOR (BH2) AND/OR TYPICAL SPECIES (BH1).

Introduction

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) across the EU’s marine waters by 2020. A set of criteria and indicators were produced by the Commission to help Members States implement the Directive. De-scriptor 1 of the MSFD is concerned with maintaining biological diversity, such that the quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions. Descriptor 6 of

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 27

the MSFD is concerned with seafloor integrity, such that the functioning of marine eco-systems is maintained. OSPAR facilitates the coordinated implementation of the MSFD and as part of this work ensures compatibility and consistency in approaches between Member States. As part of the coordination activity, OSPAR is overseeing the develop-ment of Benthic Habitat Indicator 2 (BH2): Multi-metric indices.

A multi-metric index (MMI) (BH2) indicator of quality of benthic habitat communities was endorsed by COBAM, BDC (February 2013) and OSPAR (June 2013) as one of the common indicators for OSPAR subregions II, III and IV [ICG-COBAM(1) 14/4/3 Add. 2]. This MMI indicator is explicit in the indicator 6.2.2 of the Commission Decision on GES (2010/477/UE) and partly implicit in the indicators 1.6.1, 1.6.2 and 6.2.1. Further develop-ment and validation across regional benthic communities and habitat types is required for the MMI indicator to be generally suitable for MSFD/OSPAR. This indicator should be sensitive to both a variety of pressure types, and to a pressure gradient, and should be applicable to intertidal, shallow and shelf benthic habitats, including both special and dominant habitat types at EUNIS level 4 or 5 biological community classification levels.

The BH1 indicator (ICG-COBAM(3) 13/4/1 Add. 14-E) refers to typical species composi-tion, which requires complete species inventories of all habitats including current and historical (pre-disturbance) species composition. Typical species are a selected subset that have one of the following qualities: structure or functional species; indicator of habitat quality; sensitive to habitat condition; or are long-lived or have low fecundity. Typical species are analysed using frequency or density, or IndVAL or SIMPER statistics, with typical analyses being of changes in pressure, density or biomass with changing pressure.

Multiple indicators have been used previously in the OSPAR region, and two MMI for-mulations were proposed. The first consisted of three ecological parameters of species richness, species diversity (Shannon) and a third, the proportion of sensitive, tolerant and opportunistic species using the Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) or the AMBI index, as a proxy for disturbance. A second proposed approach would incorporate both ecological and pressure data with sampling occurring along a pressure gradient concurrent with sampling of paired nearby reference un-impacted locations. Data from monitoring pro-grammes would initially be used to determine and refine indicators and to standardize data requirement to calculate these indicators across different benthic habitats and pres-sure types.

Request

OSPAR requested support from ICES in the development of common and candidate bio-diversity indicators for benthic habitats. Specifically, the request was to: Evaluate monitor-ing and assessment requirements for multimetric indicator (BH2)2 and/or typical species (BH1)2, by providing:

i) overview of existing monitoring programmes with associated benthic sampling stations (e.g. WFD, MPA, Natura2000, impact assessment studies, etc.), taking into account the work done under the JMP project/art 11 reporting by countries.

ii) overview of existing network of sampling stations and monitoring frequency across all OSPAR regions.

iii) evaluation of on-going monitoring with regard to, geographical coverage, parameters consistently measured across the whole network, monitoring design and sampling strategy for

28 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

assessment requirements (BH2/BH1). Evaluation should identify any gaps and indicate how they could be completed (monitoring sampling strategy and/or methods).

The ICES Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG) included this request in their Terms of Reference for their 2015 meeting. BEWG held their meeting in May 2015 in Calvi, France.

RGBENTH assessment of WG response

Monitoring a network of EUNIS habitats using BH2 indicators was previously proposed within the main OSPAR regions, complementing BHI monitoring with focus on habitat x pressure paired sampling locations across different pressure types. Monitoring was pro-posed (p96, BDC 15/3/Info.1-E) as networks of monitoring stations at three nested scales: sub-regional; national; and finer scale adopted to local pressure and habitat types. Sam-pling methodologies should be determined based on standardized methods (e.g., ISO 2011 for soft sediment benthic macrofauna). For deeper waters, monitoring by bioregion using EUNIS 3 habitat classifications was suggested, whereas higher resolution EUNIS 4 was suggested for the coastal zone, with standardized box cores sieved on a 1 mm mesh (BDC 15/3/Info.1-E).

The BEWG provides limited information in reference to OSPAR Request C (primarily p 17–20). We note that within the ToR listed in the 2015 BEWG report, only part of Request C is listed (overview of existing monitoring programmes; their ToR F) and reference is made to discussions at the meeting with the Benthic Habitat WG chair to focus in this year on insights for MMI monitoring (p19). The JMP is summarized in the BEWG report for the North Sea and Celtic Sea. The JMP project has produced a metadata catalogue and also provided a weblink to other technical reports. Links with conference presentations from a joint conference with BALSAM and IRIS_SEAS are also provided, though no summary of information within these links is provided. Many of the weblinks provided were not accessible and would therefore have benefited from being summarized in the report. A second abstract in the BEWG report summarized recommendations from a North Sea benthos long-term dataset and suggested stratified sampling across habitats and a North Sea wide minimum benthic sampling design. One map (North Sea) was provided, detailing apparent ‘optimal sampling allocation’. Details of spatial allocations (e.g. depth, substrate, habitat type) were not provided and the weblink to access addi-tional information on the spatial allocation process did not lead to the final report. It is suggested that spatial allocation (Figure 1, p20) is based on the size of strata and benthic community variability, though without more detailed information, visual interpretation of this map suggests monitoring gaps in some regions (Ger2, NL2, NL3) with some large strata having few monitoring points, and unclear justification as to whether this low sampling effort is due to low variability in benthic community composition.

The JMP catalogue appears to include all EU member states, and at least North Sea and Celtic Sea benthic monitoring. Information from the JMP catalogue is not summarized in the BEWG report, which would have been a useful response to OSPAR request c), includ-ing information on the number of stations in each region and strata, the geographic ex-tent of monitoring stations, the EUNIS habitats covered by monitoring, and the frequency of monitoring. It appears that at least part of this information exists in the JMP catalogue, and ICES should suggest further detail in the database to provide additional missing in-

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 29

formation to allow evaluation of the OSPAR benthic monitoring network. The brief in-formation recommended sampling to evaluate MMI indicators could be achieved using constituent variables, though these were not defined.

No information was provided with respect to monitoring frequency (c/ii) or beyond the North Sea. No information was provided with respect to geographical coverage, parame-ters consistently measured across the whole network, monitoring design and sampling strategy, or identified gaps (c/iii).

RGBENTH Recommendations

In summary, the request for information from BEWG on benthic monitoring was incom-plete and primarily refers to reports, metadata catalogues and technical documents. In-adequate summary information from these documents was presented in the BEWG report or advice derived for it in response to the request. Only limited descriptions of information related to the ToR were provided, making it challenging to assess whether the OSPAR specific request 2015/4 has been responded to.

To adequately assess this request, summary statistics of JMP benthic monitoring should be provided, including: recommended number and location (by spatial allocation method suggested) and actual monitoring stations to determine gaps in monitoring, and for mon-itoring effort to be allocated and evaluated by strata, size of strata, and EUNIS habitat type. Frequency of monitoring should be summarised, as well as which constituent vari-ables are collected in order to determine the subset of proposed MMI indicators that can be evaluated across the OSPAR region.

On p19 of the BEWG report a recommendation to ICES to compile information and pre-pare a heat map of MMI related monitoring activities for the North and Celtic Seas (and ideally beyond) is proposed. The review group felt that this recommendation overlaps with the current request and that it would have been useful if BEWG could have under-taken this work in response to the current request.

Reasons for the incomplete response to the existing request are unclear. The structure from the BEWG report suggests that the ToR was dealt with by inviting related presenta-tions, which may have taken the focus away from the request. Dealing with the request only may provide a more focused response. Without compilation of existing information on monitoring, gaps cannot be identified, and if sampling parameters are inconsistent, MMI indicators are unlikely to be compared across the region. It is possible that this re-quest will be actioned further in subsequent years, as item ii) and iii) of OSPAR request c) were not included in this year’s BEWG Terms of Reference.

30 | ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015

HELCOM REQUEST: PRESSURES FROM FISHING ACTIVITY (BASED ON VMS/LOGBOOK DATA) IN THE HELCOM AREA RELATING TO BOTH SEA-FLOOR INTEGRITY AND MANAGEMENT OF HELCOM

Request

HELCOM requested support from ICES to assess pressure from fishing activity in the HELCOM area relating to seafloor integrity and management of HELCOM MPAs. Spe-cifically, the request was to:

a) Produce maps and shape-files of fishing intensity for the HELCOM area based on a 0.05 x 0.05 c-square degree grid. The maps should consist of a set of the polygonal feature classes and be sub-mitted in the ESRI shape file format. Polygons should indicate the areas with equal fishing inten-sity measured in hours per year or per season being classified in the way harmonised with similar maps produced for the OSPAR region when applicable.

b) The maps and shape files of fishing intensity should be calculated for bottom contact gear and mid-water trawl and longline for every year in the period from 2009 to 2013 and for each quarter of 2013. In particular the following maps should be produced:

i) intensity of fishing by each fishing activity for each year in the period from 2009 to 2013;

ii) total intensity for each year in the period from 2009 to 2013;

iii) total intensity and by each fishing activity by quarter in 2013.

c) Where available and possible, provide information on fishing intensity for bottom contact gear and mid-water trawl and longline in the 174 official HELCOM MPAs in whole 2013 and first quarter 2013. The information should be provided in the forms listed in paragraph a) of the cur-rent request. Information on overall fishing effort should also be provided.

d) Estimate the proportion of total fisheries represented by the data.

The ICES Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data (WGSFD) included this request in their Terms of Reference for their 2015 meeting. The meeting was held in June 2015 at the ICES Headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark.

RGBENTH assessment of WG response

a) Produce maps and shape-files of fishing intensity

The review group felt that the WG addressed this adequately.

b) Produce maps and shape-files for different gears

As discussed as part of the OSPAR request, the method used is deemed appropriate. We are however unclear why mid-water trawl and longline could not be covered.

c) Information on fishing activity within HELCOM MPA’s

The information expressed in fishing hours suggests that some fishing occurs in these MPA’s. Some discussion and/or additional analysis on the chance that these are spurious

ICES WGMHM REPORT 2015 | 31

registrations (e.g. speed falling within the “fishing” interval even if not fishing) should come with these results.

d) Estimating the proportion of total fisheries represented by the data

See above as per OSPAR request.

Generic RGBENTH recommendations

1. The Review Group experienced difficulties getting a complete background pic-ture to the request. We recommend that future requests by OSPAR/HELCOM are supplied with a briefing note providing such information in a single place. The Review Group expects that ICES Working Groups will have experienced similar difficulties and that this will have affected the completeness of the re-sponses. This was confirmed during informal discussions with WG members who confirmed they were not very clear what was expected of them (especially in relation to OSPAR request b) and c)).

2. The responses to the OSPAR request by the three working groups were present-ed in three different formats. The BEWG response to the request was buried in the main meeting report. We recommend that ICES provides guidelines and a template to working groups when responding to requests. Providing justifica-tion, and where possible references to do so, would be essential, as it was felt that this was missing from some of the responses provided.

Additional references to those for review

Breen, P., Vanstaen, K., and Clark, R.W. E. (2015) Mapping inshore fishing activity using aerial, land, and vessel-based sighting information. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 467–479.

Piet, G. J., Quirijns, F. J., Robinson, L., and Greenstreet, S. P. R. 2007. Potential pressure indicators for fishing, and their data requirements. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 64: 110-121.