MESH TG1.0
MESH
First technical group meeting
11-12 May 2004
University of Gent
Draft Agenda
Tuesday 11 May
Purpose
0900
Introduction to MESH David Connor
Interreg project
Overall scope and aims of the
0930
Partner introductions (5-10 mins)
Lead person in each Partner
Expectations of each Partner from involvement in MESH; key interests and
expertise that each Partner will bring to the project
JNCC – DWC gave a short introduction to JNCC and its links with other agencies. CCW have recently got
another Interreg project with Ireland that has a mapping component.
TNO – Jan v D: TNO is a very big organisation (>5000 people) with a very wide range of skills and
experience. Mathius (modeller), Jan-Tjalling (database manager & benthic biologist). TNO will put in
data to help develop the maps & GIS. They are keen on predictive modelling and its links with risk
assessment (link to BEWG04 report). TNO are interested in mapping the very shallow, nearshore areas of
the Dutch coast. TNO Physics were originally part of the project – they have experience in sonar
development and mapping but will hopefully have an informal involvement with the project. TNO-NITG
(Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience – National Geological Survey) were introduced by Ad van
der Spek. They undertake applied research and consultancy, primarily in the areas of seabed sampling,
shallow seismic surveys, long-term coastal dynamics and seabed dynamics. They are keen on developing
relevant classifications and the links between physical and biological parameters. They are currently
undertaking a project looking at small-scale tidal channel systems using very detailed shallow seismic
surveys to consider the development of tidal basins. TNO-NITG are also considering the eco-morpho
dynamics of the seabed using 3 sites within the Delf Cluster project. It uses multibeam surveys, direct
sampling in the sand wave fields. Their expectation from MESH is: compiling a regional classification,
learning from each other and getting an international profile.
Alterra (Corr) is based in Netherlands Institute of Sea Research but has no formal links. Alterra is funded
by a combination of government and consultancy funds. Their research for government is used for policy
development. Recent research has concentrated on mussel beds and the links with habitats. They also
106747466
1
2/16/2016
MESH TG1.0
work on saltmarshes, seals and cetaceans, birds, mussel & oyster beds. They have worked on the
Habitats Directive. They have lots of data to contribute to the project, together with appropriate data
agreements with other suppliers. They are keen to continue data collection – particularly sonar
techniques together with ground validation, in the coastal area of the Wadden Sea. They are also
interested in modelling, linked to MPAs, by using predictive modelling to determine the reference
condition since most of the Dutch area is heavily impacted.
IFREMER: Responsible for the surveillance of the coastal waters of France. Brigitte coordinates a benthic
network that involves many other groups that collects quantitative and qualitative samples. IFREMER
have been interested in coastal mapping – using remote sensing, and deeper areas but the
nearshore/shallow areas have not been considered (<30m). They have experience and interest in remote
sensing and data integration for coastal areas. The lab will have a dedicated survey vessel within 2 years
equipped for nearshore surveys. IFREMER are only interested in the shallow areas (<40m) in the MESH
project – not the EEZ. They are also interested in the data management aspect of the project – they have
an ongoing project to build a database to include both spatial and point samples. Out of MESH, they are
interested in exploring the links between physical parameters and benthic communities, harmonising
classifications, and the question of scale (collection versus use). For IFREMER, the protocols are the
important issue since MESH will not extend their map coverage, and in the practical use of maps to solve
environmental problems.
Marine Institute, Ireland (Jonathon White): Ocean Sciences Group in conjunction with the Geological
Survey are actively surveying the Irish EEZ. They have completed the area deeper than 200m. The
Marine Institute are now doing the 50-200m area. MI are keen on developing the protocols and
guidance, the practical application of maps, and the final conference. JW has experience of biological
classification.
English Nature: their interest revolves around policy in the spatial planning aspect of using maps. They
have an interest in delivering the maps to local teams for active management. They will contribute their
marine monitoring programme to this project. EN orientated towards the end-user parts of the project,
particularly the link with practical management at a site level. Simon & Leigh will be involved in the
project. EN interested in how the final maps will provide the justification to fill in the gaps with new
surveys.
BGS are a major data supplier and are interested in the use of existing maps, particularly the confidence
aspect. They also recognise the need to update their maps using new technology. BGS now produce
more than simply geological maps and so they are keen to import other expertise to help produce better
products.
CEFAS: (Roger Coggan) Their expectations revolve around having maps to help their advisory function –
how to set local problems/impacts into a national context. Their strengths are ground validation and local
106747466
2
2/16/2016
MESH TG1.0
mapping of study areas, mostly in offshore areas (beyond 3-6 miles). They have limited experience of
GIS and data management.
Envision Mapping: It has >10 years experience of mapping small areas throughout UK & Ireland. All
techniques have their limitations (resolution/precision) and so their interest in MESH is linked to the
modelling. Their experience: sonar mapping; interpretation of small scale surveys and analysis of
uncertainty; new surveys (Sabellaria reefs in dynamic environments), mostly in nearshore, shallow
environments (link with IFREMER); and modelling, particularly looking at patterns that cross scales.
Gent (Marine Geology): marine geology department that has strengths in equipment development
(seismic). It now has broader interests including multibeam and sampling, including combining biological
and geological data to create habitat maps; now involved in the biological valuation map project (link to
BEWG 04). They are looking to build a spatial structure plan for the Belgian shelf: they have combined
data on habitats, biology and anthropogenic pressures. The Department does 5-6 weeks survey per year,
in an integrated fashion because the environment is very dynamic and ground validation must be
contemporary with the survey. They are concentrating on correlating physical attributes with biological
parameters. Gent will lead on the modelling with an interest in linking the results with the ‘ecological
approach to management’.
DARD (Matthew Service). DARD has a direct link to their stakeholder (inshore fishing community). Matt
has link with NMBAQC with its role in the development of standards for benthic sampling. DARD have
recently completed the Northern Ireland inshore mapping where the coast has been mapped to 3nm
using AGDS. They have also using video techniques to monitor fisheries ( Nephrops, scallops) in the Irish
Sea. More recently, DARD has linked with BGS and SAMS to use multibeam for mapping in the Irish Sea
and Malin Sea. DARD is keen to use the results from MESH to develop closer links for local mapping
projects between Scotland and NI.
1030
MESH project - organisation and management David Connor
Brief
introduction to the structure and management of the project; budgeting, reporting, etc.
Reporting: project should set up official reporting period (1 Dec – May 30; 1 June – Nov 30)) to allow
JNCC time to collate the reports to submit on June 30 and Dec 31. This needs agreement within the
project.
The project could have Year 0 and then Year 1 – it would help some of the partners.
Should we claim an actual expense or can we claim for ‘invoiced’ work – it may take 30 days to pay an
invoice so there may be significant time lag between expenditure and claim.
Do we still have to work on paper or can we use electronic communications?
Action leaders to outline the scope of the Action, key issues requiring discussion and
decision, plans for how to run the Action. Identify key issues for discussion on Wednesday
morning by going through each Action:
106747466
3
2/16/2016
MESH TG1.0
1130
Action 1: Generate GIS habitat maps and meta-data for north-west Europe
Mike Webster
Neil Golding and
Jacques – there are inconsistencies in the data required between 1.2 and 1.3. Collecting all data is a
potentially overwhelming task and so there must be some prioritisation.
BFS – mostly likely get data at 1:250K that will need generalising to the smallest scale, and at finer than
1:50k that will similarly require generalising. It is likely that the fine-scale data will not nest within the
larger scale.
Ceri – 4 scales is too many? The project should focus on 1 or 2 scales and if it achieves a single small
(broad) scale map of the MESH area it would be
Jacque – jump in scales should not exceed 4. The smallest scale should be no greater than 1:1000K. We
need to ensure we have appropriate expertise in map generalisation.
Vera – what is the minimum requirement of a habitat map? Have we taken into account Eurosed and
Euroseismic standards?
Roger – most useful to map the physical attributes, particularly those factors that drive biological and
ecological processes, on the very large maps. There should not be any biological information – it should
be shown on the larger scale maps.
Ad – a lot of physical parameters are modelled and so there are very many different factors available. It
will be necessary to identify the most important parameters. DWC – this was discussed at ICES WGMHM.
Cor- We should think about the finer resolution since that is the area of most interest to decision
makers.
Vera – modellers do not want all the data to process through the models. Each country will do its own
modelling and send the final results to JNCC.
Paul G – planning and management decisions are taken at different scales. Do not ignore these
differences when establishing the finest scales.
Bob F-S: should take account of biogeographical issues at the broadest scale.
Paul G – can each of the action leaders be available for a short session for ‘individual’ discussions.
1330
Action 2: Protocols for marine habitat mapping
Populus
Roger Coggan and Jacques
Standards apply to data; protocols apply to methods.
IFREMER will lead Action 2.2 (inshore, shallower zones); CEFAS will lead Action 2.3 (offshore, deeper
zones).
B F-S suggests that the project does a quick ‘cut & paste’ using existing documents/protocols (everyone’s
favourite technique) to put together a document for discussion.
JvD drew attention to the ICES BEWG document on sampling and the videos developed during BEQUALM
by Heye Rumohr on sampling techniques.
106747466
4
2/16/2016
MESH TG1.0
Paul – MESH must take account of work completed in UK Marine SACs project; EA have information on
optical remote sensing.
1430
Action 3: Testing protocols
Jan van Dalfsen
DWC – a lot of the matched funds come from existing field programmes and so there is a slight mismatch between the timing of the cruises (this year) and the testing of protocols.
Dave Long – the standards and protocols should apply to the analysis and interpretation that could be
delayed until they are in place.
Ceri – need to apply appropriate standards to the equipment available on the ship rather than try to state
what equipment should be used (financially un-feasible).
Matt – staff from other institutes can join the vessel but they must have appropriate qualifications
(medical, sea survival).
Roger – limit on the size of the animal (meiofauna, infauna (> 1mm sieve), epifaunal).
DWC – should limit the project to epibenthos and avoid mobile organisms (birds/fish/mammals) and
hyperbenthos.
Jacque – there are funds available for bespoke surveys that can be tailored to collect new data and
formally test protocols.
JvD – MESH should be a tool to extract new money for surveys from governments etc.
Paul G – do the matched funds have to be spend to enhance the information from the committed survey?
No
Jonathon – different institutes could survey the same area at slightly different times to help comparisons.
1600
Action 4: Predictive modelling
Vera Van Lancker
Habitat prediction model:
Roger – should the modelling concentrate on those habitats of interest to the end-users (Modiolus, oyster
beds).
DWC – need to consider the scale issue with regard to the power of predictive tools.
Paul – need to consider how effectively the coarser units are a proxy for finer units nested therein.
Vera – modelling will focus on GIS since that seems to be a common platform between the partners. How
can the project derive information on ‘confidence’ in sediment data? Easier in coastal zones where there
are many samples, more difficult in offshore zones. The level of confidence is linked to the mapping
technique and how well it correlates with the sediment data.
BFS – GIS is good. Some data will be ‘modelled’ before it reaches the GIS – image processing data. GIS
can also help look at why predictions fail (anthropogenic acitivity) and thereby map ‘effects’.
Jan-Tjalling – GIS is not standard. Do all partners have the same system? There are some pitfalls of the
project
1700
Action 5: Demonstrate applications of habitat maps for spatial planning and environmental management
Jonathon White
106747466
5
2/16/2016
MESH TG1.0
Develop a standard workshop format to gather information in a standard format. This would need a
‘standard’ opening presentation(s) followed by a discussion session. There should be a pre-defined list of
topics to help the ‘standardisation’, with a ‘ringer’ to lead the discussion.
Roger – a very sensible approach.
Dave L – We should aim to have some case histories that are common across all partners, as well as
studies specific to each member state.
Jonathon – partners could try to attend workshops in adjacent (same) country held by another partner.
106747466
6
2/16/2016
MESH TG1.0
0900
Action 6
Jon Davies
FTP site
Mailing list (IS)
Private area
Standard paragraphs
0930
sessions
Follow-up discussions for Actions 1-4
1400
Leaders
Review of morning discussions, key outcomes, actions required
Report back session
1530
Concluding remarks
106747466
Action leaders
Sub-group
Action
David Connor
7
2/16/2016