Lewis chaffe by Colin Smith

Mapping the Location and Biodiversity of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Fal Estuary

Lewis Chaffe, FdSc Marine Science University of Plymouth, Falmouth Marine School, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK TR11 3QS

Submitted May 03rd 2012 lewis_chaffe@hotmail.com 079846 472448

Abstract Mapping the location and biodiversity of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Fal estuary is an important issue, due to the nature of eelgrass to fragment and relocate at signs of stress. Keeping up to date with the fluctuation in the size of the eelgrass beds provides needed information for local authorities regarding the potential harm of building and recreational activities. The survey relied on the use of certain pieces of equipment, the Scubar, the Photo-quadrat and the Aqua-scope as well as the use of GIS mapping software. Together they provide an accurate view of the current state of the eelgrass beds in the Fal estuary. The data was hard to come by since the conditions were rarely favourable for boat drift surveys and underwater surveys, and the biodiversity was hard to measure due to the seasonal temperature changes. It is evident that maerl is present outside of the reference zone and eelgrass doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t extend as far into the reference zone as previously thought, but has is largely found on the outside.

Keywords Eelgrass, Fal estuary, Biodiversity, Mapping, Zostera marina. 2

Introduction The Fal estuary is the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest estuary as well as being the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third largest deep-water port. It brings in trade and tourism to the surrounding areas as well as hosting an array of different species. The Fal is also home to eelgrass, Zostera marina, a grass like plant that is found on the sea-floor. It provides a habitat for fish, shellfish and seahorses to thrive, protected from predators and with a ready supply of food. In the course of this project, the aim is to find and map the locations and distribution of eelgrass in the Fal estuary. A topical issue as currently the Falmouth Harbour Commissioners (FHC) are seeking to expand the dock which will provide jobs and revenue to the surrounding area. The problem arises if or when eelgrass is found near the location of the dock, should the economic value of the dock be compromised to protect a small amount of eelgrass and its inhabitants? The expansion of the dock also requires significant deepening of the channel through dredging, a process which could prove detrimental to nearby eelgrass habitats. Development in Falmouth is torn between meeting with urban development plans prioritizing coastal development, including the harbour, as well as regional development plans set by Cornwall County Council to prioritise environmental sustainability (Cornwall County Council, 2005; Dinwoodie et al., 2011). The Fal estuary is a valuable habitat encompassing SACs (Special Areas of Conservation), AONBs (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest); because of this the local council has a responsibility to ensure the protection and conservation of the Fal. The FHC has commissioned this project to locate the extent of eelgrass in the proposed reference zone as well as the species diversity of the eelgrass beds that may be affected by potential construction; this information should be able to provide adequate insight into resolving the issue to benefit both sides. The Fal estuary is a sheltered ria system and owes its rich biodiversity to the many different habitats and substrata that exist within it (Hagger et al., 2009). The local human impacts have caused past troubles including large mining outbursts of heavy metal contaminated water at Wheal Jane, 1992 (Younger et al. 2005). Outbursts such as this have encouraged certain adaptations in the local wildlife to deal with large changes in stress, such as surviving in an area with changing salinity levels where the inland freshwater mixes with the English Channel (Langston et al., 2006). Dredging in the Fal may affect eelgrass beds directly and indirectly. Apart from the obvious damage to eelgrass beds via physical removal from dredging, it is also shown to cause indirect reductions in surrounding eelgrass habitats (Sabol et al., 2005). It has been shown that the increased turbidity and sedimentation caused by dredging leads to loss of eelgrass vegetation due to the amount of stress the sea grasses can survive for the period of time until the water returns to a normal state (Erftemeijer et al., 2006).

Eelgrass beds are highly productive areas providing breeding and nursery grounds, they also provide a key role in stabilizing the sediment and surrounding substrata (Duarte, C. M., 2002). The indirect loss of eelgrass is also attributed to the loss of water clarity, which would affect the amount of light available to the photosynthetic grass, and nutrient loading which increases phytoplankton growth affecting light penetration (Walker et al., 1992). The dredging in the Fal estuary may exclude or not directly remove some eelgrass beds but the indirect effects may lead to the eelgrass beds that are left shrinking or fragmenting. Fragmentation results in habitat loss, as the eelgrass is removed from the area there is less protection for fauna in the area. The loss of eelgrass would also affect the surrounding sediment, without the structural support provided by eelgrass beds the sediment would become loose and could lead to erosion (Bell et al., 2001). A study concerning the dredging effects on eelgrass (Sabol et al, 2005) used hydro acoustic techniques to map eelgrass beds before and after dredging alongside a bed that wasn’t dredged. Their results came back showing significant reason to believe that year-to-year variation of eelgrass coverage, fluctuations in growth, changed almost as much as dredged sites. The results also show natural eelgrass relocations from deeper waters, usually, to more shallow waters which could identify a need for more light due to declining water quality. Due to the dredging, and relocation of what vegetation remained, the dredged area remained largely uninhabited during subsequent surveys. Another survey (Neckles et al, 2005) showed similar data stating that, with favorable conditions, the eelgrass beds would recover in 6 to 20 years. Duarte (2002) suggests that with current sea grass losses and human pressure on the shoreline the positive effects of legislation and conservation won’t outweigh the negative impacts, which could lead to irreversible loss of sea grass, a habitat which accounts for 0.2% of the global ocean coverage. The dredging in the Fal estuary could lead to similar levels of fragmentation, indirect loss of some of the habitat or potentially natural relocation. Potentially eelgrass could spawn and relocate to less convenient places. The fragmentation and relocation of eelgrass beds could help explain why recent surveys of the Fal estuary (Pollitt, C., 2011) haven’t shown results where previous maps showed eelgrass, and why results have shown beds where there previously were none. There are other causes to loss of eelgrass besides dredging and natural variations. Major losses of habitat can be attributed to damage from boats such as propellers, mooring and anchor damage (Reed, B. J., 2006). Mapping eelgrass proves difficult, as with any marine flora, it raises a need for a measurement system that penetrates the sea’s surface. There are two main considerations when looking for a method or system to map eelgrass: the size of the survey area and the required level of detail. A large scale survey can’t use the same level of detail as a small survey site; it is, as well as the costs, impractical (Precision Identification, 2002). There are two main groups of systems or methods to map eelgrass, remote and in situ. Remote mapping is simply “acquiring data about an object without touching it” (Hughes, S., no date), it uses a range of systems such as radar, satellite and infra-red. It is usually used to 4

provide data on a large survey area. In situ mapping is a more â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;hands-onâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approach; the survey is usually carried out by someone in the field. It is a useful and a cost-effective way to survey small areas this way, if you have the man-hours. It may be necessary to combine the two methods, using remote mapping to quickly survey a large area and then surveying a smaller amount in situ. Satellite sensors can be used to record chlorophyll levels close to the surface, results would indicate percentage coverage and density of chlorophytes. Airborne sensors, such as aerial photographs/video imagery, can be used to produce more specific results at a smaller scale. Hydro acoustic sensors, such as those used in studies by Sabol (2005), can produce very accurate sonar images of seabed bathymetry, texture and coverage. Techniques for smaller areas of eelgrass beds would involve the use of SCUBAR; an extendable underwater camera, an ROV; a Remote Operated Vehicle, or removal by divers, grab and core samples. It is best when mapping to complement one method of mapping with the other, utilizing satellite imaging or aerial photos and then providing additional data with samples (Precision Identification, 2002). Previous studies mapping eelgrass (Precision Identification, 2004; Godet et al., 2008; Costello et al., 2009) all profess that the best technique for mapping eelgrass is based upon aerial photography, digital imagery and ground truth variation. The combination of these three things covers most factors such as size, depth, percentage coverage and for additional detail samples could be taken for analysis. Due to the surge in satellite mapping recently, satellite images of the Fal estuary are easily accessible. Aerial photographs are also readily available, although they are less commonly used due to the advancements in satellite imaging. Because of the wide-scale use of these methods and the accurate results accredited to them, they should be adopted for use in current research projects. The current plan is to survey as much of the Fal estuary as can be done with special attention paid to the reference zone. The reference zone is a 500 mÂ˛ plot of marine land set apart to protect the diverse benthos that is located in the estuary (Bennett, O., 2011). This reference zone mostly covers beds of maerl as well as a small portion of the Fal's eelgrass habitat. A variety of surveying techniques will be utilised to map the eelgrass beds. The live feed from the Scubar, an underwater camera, will be positioned alongside a Global Positioning System (GPS) on a monitor providing live and accurate updates about where the eelgrass borders lie. This will be placed in a Geographic Information System (GIS) map alongside current and previous knowledge of the eelgrass beds, hopefully showing if there is growth, loss or even a lack of knowledge of eelgrass beds. Another piece of equipment, the photo-quadrat, will be used to study and view the different species that reside in the eelgrass beds.

Photo-quadrat The Photo-quadrat is a large metal frame with a mount for an underwater camera on one end and a quadrat (50mm x 50mm) on the other. It allows you to sample the seabed using quadrats from the safety of your boat. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a very straight-forward piece of equipment. Attach your underwater camera or a camera in an underwater case to the mount, and a rope to the top so you can lower it down. You then alter the zoom on the camera so that it fits in the quadrat. Set your camera to video and start filming as you lower it slowly to the seabed. The foam tubes on the ropes should ensure that the ropes stay out of the cameraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view. Leave the photo-quadrat on the seabed for a few minutes until the dust settles, and then pull it up. Carefully pull it back onto the boat and stop the recording. Place a damp towel over the camera to stop it from fogging up due to condensation. The layout allows a quadrat survey to be conducted underwater, with film or still photos. Wind, currents and drift will affect the placement of the photo-quadrat so it is largely weather dependent.

SCUBAR The SCUBAR is an underwater camera on an extendable pole; the camera produces a livefeed of what it sees on a monitor on the boat, which can be recorded. It can be used to view the seabed from the boat. The SCUBAR kit consists of the telescopic pole, the camera, connecting cables and the monitor. Connect the camera to the top end of the pole by releasing the latch, pushing in the camera and replacing the latch. The cables attach to the other end of the pole and the back of the monitor. Turn on the monitor using the red switch on the side and turn the monitor on from standby, this will provide a picture on the monitor.

Aqua-Scope The Aqua-scope is a large box with a glass bottom and a padded hole at the top. It mounts onto the side of the boat and the bottom sits below the water line allowing you to see, undisturbed, to the seabed. Set-up is straightforward. There are two metal poles which hook under the boat and screw on to the Aqua-scope. Once these are attached, secure the Aqua-scope to the boat using rope as a precaution. Ensure that the bottom sits below the water line. Place your head into the padded hole, and leave for your eyes to adjust. You should be able to see the seabed, unless visibility is poor or the bed is too deep. The buoyancy of the box keeps it secured under the boat, but it means that detachment is harder. Be sure not to lose the Aqua-scope when you detach. 6

Method

Equipment List - A boat or survey vessel - The Scubar and related equipment - The Photo-quadrat; with rope - A suitable camera (underwater or with underwater case) - The Aqua-scope; with rope to secure it - GPS; either handheld or as laptop software - Laptop; with software (such as Chart Plotter), power source/adapter - Standard safety equipment; including sensible clothing - Recording equipment; lab-book, pen etc

Pre-plan an area to survey using maps, local knowledge and data. A chart plotter program installed on a laptop would allow easy access to data and would save the course automatically. Installing a screen capture program would allow the user to merge the data into one video. Afterwards prepare the equipment needed and make sure to familiarise yourself with it: equipment such as the Scubar, the Aqua scope and the Photo-quadrat. Once on the boat, with the equipment secured, head towards the survey area, making sure to take GPS coordinates. Prepare the Scubar for use, attaching the cable to the laptop. This allows better quality videos and a larger storage capacity. Make sure to take into account wind direction when preparing the transect survey; if possible use the wind to drift across the proposed zone. Lower the Scubar into the water until the bed is visible on the screen and then begin the survey. The boat will probably move in the waves so the Scubar will need to be adjusted as such and the wind and currents will probably push the boat off course, so small adjustments will be required. This system of surveying works best with two or more people due to the number of things that needs to be done simultaneously. Once the survey is completed raise the Scubar, turn it off to conserve battery, and either move on to the next survey site, head back into shore or prepare the photo-quadrat for use on eelgrass beds found. Using the boat, head to an area of eelgrass and then prepare the photo-quadrat by attaching the camera and the rope. Lift the photo-quadrat over the edge of the boat and slowly lower it down the seabed. Lower it slowly to avoid damaging the seabed, and make sure to tie an end of the rope to the boat to avoid losing the photo-quadrat entirely.

Leave the photo-quadrat on the seabed for a few minutes, for the dust to settle and a clear picture to emerge. If you are taking still photos, you would now drop the weight to trigger the camera. Raise the photo-quadrat and check the photo or film, looking to see if the picture is clear and that the photo-quadrat didn't fall over on the bed. The aqua-scope can also be used to take pictures and find locations of eelgrass beds, so long as light penetrates down through the water column enough. It needs to be hooked to the underside of the boat which can be tricky out on the boat due to the buoyancy of the aqua scope. It should not, however, be deployed whilst in fast transit. To deploy the aqua-scope, hook the two metal poles onto the rim of the boat, below the water surface. Then secure it to the boat. Look through the hole to see the seabed and proceed to, slowly or through drifting, transect the bed. Use the camera to take pictures or videos of the seabed. Measuring the extent of the eelgrass bed will consist of transects, with the Scubar, into shore from the estuary until the Scubar shows the presence of eelgrass. The GPS coordinates of this point are recorded and this process is repeated until the eelgrass bed ends. The coordinates from these transects and photo-quadrat drops will then be inserted into GIS mapping software on a map of past recorded eelgrass locations.

Results Photo-quadrat Sites

50N 10.27.12 005W 01.41.66

50N 10.26.71 005W 01.38.35

50N 10.27.05 005W 01.36.64

50N 10.28.88 005W 01.39.34

50N 10.29.30 005W 01.41.79

50N 10.28.88 005W 01.44.37

50N 10.30.47 005W 01.44.63

50N 10.30.47 005W 01.46.77

50N 10.29.74 005W 01.49.54

50N 10.24.63 005W 01.41.50

50N 10.24.83 005W 01.38.89

50N 10.25.22 005W 01.36.61

Fig. 1 Photo-quadrat survey locations in the Fal estuary. (DigitalGlobe, 2012)

Red – Drift Transect Orange – Indicate location of eelgrass

Fig. 2 First Drift Survey Transects. (Morley, R., 2012)

Table. 1 Coordinates of Eelgrass bed border. (Chaffe, L., 2012) Eelgrass Border 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

x 184578 184577 184570 184575 184582 184577 184586 184580 184585 184581 184584 184582 184583 184580 184582 184579 184582 184579 184580

y 33992 34105 34103 34085 34078 34074 34067 34062 34060 34056 34056 34052 34051 34047 34042 34030 34055 34060 34062

11 Fig. 3. GIS map of reference zone (red) and eelgrass bed border. (Chaffe, L., 2012)

Analysis and Discussion The extent of the eelgrass beds seen in the results shows what the current size is and location of the bed in the reference zone. It also shows that a large extent of the eelgrass bed is outside the reference zone and so unprotected by the relevant legislation. Due to its location and distance from the proposed dredging site it is unlikely for there to be very many direct detrimental effects, although increased sedimentation is still likely but unlikely to reach a level where stress will occur. The second survey where the extent of the eelgrass bed was measured shows a slight variance to that of the first survey. The surveys were undertaken at different times of the year which could account for some loss as well as growth through natural seasonal responses. These fragmentations and growth would provide evidence that any adverse effect from dredging wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t cause more loss than that of seasonal variation. The photo-quadrats, although surveyed in an area where eelgrass was supposed to exist, proved unfruitful for the most part with only 4 videos showing any eelgrass at all. For the most part the quadrats return very little of anything, mostly dead algaeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and shells. There is also some presence of maerl in the photo-quadrats despite the survey taking place outside of the reference zone, which shows that some of the maerl bed is unprotected. Some of the still images taken from the videos prove difficult to analyse due to the presence of air bubbles, sediment kicked up by the photo-quadrat and dead algae obstructing the view. The biodiversity of the eelgrass bed could be seemingly low due to the time, date and season of the survey as well as the presence of a boat and equipment. The timeframe of the survey would have fallen when most of the expected species may have died or left due to the changing climate, resulting in a false assumption of the biodiversity levels.

Evaluation The project could have been improved with an extended timeframe and more time available to survey. As it was the surveying was heavily dependent on both parties being free, the tides being right and the weather being such that the drift patterns weren’t too fast so the Scubar and photo-quadrat weren’t being dragged by the boat. As was discovered, moments where everything falls into place are few and far between. Previous data on the eelgrass beds in the Fal were hard to understand, let alone plot into a GIS map which means that the previous data wasn’t as reliable or up to date as was expected. Because of this, the data and results weren’t as full or comparable as was first hoped rendering any statistical comparison moot. GIS software also proved very difficult to use despite having the help and lessons provided for the software. What coordinate data that was used and translated into a GIS compatible format usually presented itself some distance away from the expected point, mostly inland. If the survey were to be repeated, which is a must due to the constant changing and moving state of the eelgrass beds, it would be suggested that the surveys take place during the summer months at a period where the eelgrass beds are flourishing and biodiversity is high. Another survey should take place during winter to compare the loss of habitat due to changing temperatures. It is recommended that you not be dependent on other people due to the potential lack of availability during appropriate weather conditions. That being said having a partner or an extra pair of hands proves useful during the surveys due to the amount of things that need to be happening simultaneously, such as controlling the boat, controlling the Scubar, watching the monitor and recording the data.

Acknowledgments This journal owes its completion to the work of Richard Morley, the supervision of Claire Eatock, Trudy Russell and Luke Marsh and the financial support of the Falmouth Harbour Commissioners. 13

References Journal Article Bell, S. S., Brooks, R. A., Robbins, B. D., Fonseca, M. S., Hall, M. O., (2001). Faunal response to fragmentation in sea grass habitats: implications for sea grass conservation. Biological Conservation. 100. (1). pg 115-123. Journal Article Bell, S.S., Fonseca, M.S., Stafford, N. B., (2006). Sea grass ecology: new contributions from a landscape perspective. Sea grasses, biology, ecology and conservation. pg 625â&#x20AC;&#x201C;645. Policy Bennett, O., (2011). Marine Conservation Zones. House of Commons. Science and Environment. SN06129. [November 23 2011]. Journal Article Boese, B. L., (2002). Effects of recreational clam harvesting on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and associated infaunal invertebrates: in situ manipulative experiments. Aquatic Botany. 73. pg 63-74. Image Chaffe, L., (2012). GIS map of reference zone (red) and eelgrass bed border. Image DigitalGlobe, (2012). Photo-quadrat survey locations in the Fal estuary. Journal Article Clarke, K. R., Warwick, R. M., (2001). A further biodiversity index applicable to species lists: variation in taxonomic distinctness. Marine Ecological Progress Series. 216. pg 265-278. Policy Cornwall County Council, (2005). Sustainable Development Plan. Resource and Performance Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee. Agenda no. 6. [September 20 2007] Journal Article Costello, C. T., Kenworthy, W. J., (2009). Twelve-year mapping and change analysis of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) areal abundance in Massachusetts (USA) identifies statewide declines. Estuaries and Coasts. 34. pg 232-242.

Journal Article Deeble, M., Stone, V., (1985). A port that could threaten marine life in England’s Fal estuary. Oryx. 19. pg 74-78. Journal Article Dinwoodie, J., Tuck, S., Knowles, H., Benhin, J., Sansom, M., (2011). Sustainable development of maritime operation in ports. Business Strategy and the Environment. Book Duarte, C. M., (2002). The future of sea grass meadows. Environmental Conservation. 29. (2). pg 192-206. Book Duarte, C.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Krause-Jensen, D., Olesen, B., (2006). Dynamics of sea grass stability and change. Sea grasses, biology, ecology and conservation. pg 271–294. Book Erftemeijer, P. L. A., Robin Lewis III, R. R., (2006). Environmental impacts of dredging on sea grasses: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 52. (12). pg 1553-1572. Policy Falmouth Port, (2009). Falmouth Harbour Commissioners Environmental Policy. Book Chapter Galloway, T. S., Brown, R. J., Browne, M. A., Dissanayake, A., Lowe, D., Depledge, M. H., Jones, M. B., (2006). The ECOMAN project: a novel approach to defining sustainable ecosystem function. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 53. pg 186–194. Journal Article Godet, L., Fournier, J., van Katwijk, M. M., Olivier F., Le Mao, P., Retière, C., (2008). Before and after wasting disease in common Eelgrass Zostera marina along the French Atlantic coasts: a general overview and first accurate mapping. Dis Aquat Org. 79. pg 249-255. Journal Article Hagger, J. A., Depledge, M. H., Galloway, T. S., (2005). Toxicity of tributyltin in the marine mollusc Mytilus edulis. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 51. pg 811–816.

Journal Article Hagger, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Langston, W. J., Jones, M. B., (2009). Application of biomarkers to assess the condition of European marine sites. Environmental Pollution. 157. (7). pg 20032010. Journal Article Hughes, S.H., (1999). The geochemical and mineralogical record of the impact of historical mining within estuarine sediments from the upper reaches of the Fal Estuary, Cornwall, UK. pg 161–168. Publication Hughes, S. H., Hodges, M., Boyack, D., (no date). Gathering Information. Planetary Geology for Teachers. Idaho State University. Dep’t of Geosciences. Publication Hunt, S., Guthrie, G., Cooper, N., Roberts, H., (2011). Estuaries and shoreline management plans – lessons learned from round 2. EDP Sciences. 2011. pg 1-8. Journal Article Jackson, E. L., Rowden, A. A., Attrill, M. J., Bossey, S. J., Jones, M. B., (2001). The importance of sea grass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology – An Annual Review. 39. pg 269-303. Journal Article Langston, W.J., Chesman. B. S., Burt, G. R., Taylor, M., Covey, R., Cunningham, N., Jonas, P., Hawkins, S. J., (2006). Characterisation of the European marine sites in South West England: the Fal and Helford candidate for the Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Hydrobiologia. 555. pg 321-333. Journal Article Maier, G., Nimmo-Smith, R. J., Glegg, G. A., Tappin, A, D., Worsfold, P. J., (2009). Estuarine eutrophication in the UK: current incidence and future trend. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 19. pg 43-56. Journal Article Moore, M. N., Depledge, M. H., Readman, J. W., Leonard, P., (2004). An integration biomarker-based strategy for ecotoxicological evaluation of risk in environmental management. Mutation Research. 552. pg 247-268.

Image Morley, R., (2012). First Drift Survey Transects. Journal Article Neckles, H. A., Short, F. T., Barker, S., Kopp, B. S., (2005). Disturbance of Eelgrass Zostera marina by commercial mussel Mytilus edulis harvesting in Maine: dragging impacts and habitat recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 285. pg 57-73. Journal Article Orford, J. D., Pethick, J., (2006). Challenging assumptions of future coastal habitat development around the UK. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 31. pg 1625-1642. Journal Article Peňa, C., (2005). The Underwater Gardeners. Dredging and Port Construction (DPC). pg 32– 34. Document Precision Identification, (2002). Methods & case study. Eelgrass Mapping Review. Journal Article Precision Identification, (2004). Methods for mapping and monitoring Japanese Eelgrass (Zostera japonica) habitat in British Columbia. 1. 1-15. Journal Article Sabol, B., Shafer, D., Lord, E., (2005). Dredging effects on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) distribution in a New England small boat harbour. Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program. pg 1-40. Journal Article Turk, S. M., Tompsett, P. E., (no date). Marine Algae of the Helford VMCA – checklist with records from the 19th Century. Compilation of Information from 1900 to present. Helford River Survey. Publication Walker, D. I., McComb, A. J., (1992). Sea grass degradation in Australian coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 25. (5-8). pg 191-195.

Publication Warwick, R. M., (2001). Evidence for the effects of metal contamination on the intertidal macrobenthic assemblages of the Fal estuary. (2001). Marine Pollution Bulletin. 42. (2). pg 145-148. Publication White, N., (2004). Marine ecological survey of the Fal estuary: Effects of maerl extraction. Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Falmouth Harbour Commissioners. Posford Haskoning LTD. Journal Article Younger, P.L., Coulton, R. H., Froggatt E.C., (2005). The contribution of science to risk-based decision-making: lessons from the development of full-scale treatment measures for acidic mine waters at Wheal Jane, UK. Science of the Total Environment. 338. pg 137-154.

Appendices