Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Reportrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=12821...Prior to the dedicated survey, the site assessment had been made on the basis of best

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 2 Version 12

September 2014

Project Title: Coordination of the Defra MCZ data collection programme 2011/12 Report No. 2. Title: Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Defra Project Code: MB0120 Defra Contract Manager: Carole Kelly Funded by: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Marine Science and Evidence Unit Marine Directorate Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Authorship Mrs Anna Downie Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Mr Matthew Curtis Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Dr Markus Diesing Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Mr David Stephens Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Dr Roger Coggan (Cefas) for reviewing earlier drafts of this report and suggesting further text. Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the reports content.

mailto:[email protected]


Cefas Document Control Title: Beachy Head East rMCZ Submitted to: rMCZ Project Steering Group

Date submitted: August 2014

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Anna Downie, Matthew Curtis, Markus Diesing and David Stephens

Quality control by: Roger Coggan

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (02/09/2014)

Version: V12

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Anna Downie et al. 26/07/2012 First Draft V1

Anna Downie et al. 07/08/2012 Edited draft following additional data V2

Anna Downie et al. 10/08/2012 Edited draft following co-author review V3

Anna Downie et al. 11/08/2012 Edited draft following internal QA V4

Anna Downie et al. 28/09/2012 Edited draft to include partner logos and version control document

V5

Anna Downie .. 14/11/2012 Edited following Project Steering Group review V6

Anna Downie et al. 10/01/2013 Final edits ready for sign-off V7

Anna Downie et al. 12/02/2013 Edits following review in relation to Beachy Head East survey report

V8

Anna Downie et al. 28/02/2013 Edited following additional PSG comments and external peer review

V9

Anna Downie et al. 22/03/2013 Final QA at Cefas V10

Anna Downie et al. 09/09/2013 Edited following amendment to PSA results V11

Anna Downie et al. 02/09/2014 Report edited for format consistency V12

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ i

List of Tables .............................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iv

1 Executive Summary: Report Card ..................................................................... 1

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation ...... 2

1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation .................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed ...................................... 3

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Location of the rMCZ ..................................................................................... 5

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation .................................................... 5

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection ............ 7

2.4 Survey aims and objectives ........................................................................... 7

3 Methods ............................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition ............................................................................... 8

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition .................................................................... 8

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map .......................................................... 9

3.4 Quality of the updated map.......................................................................... 11

4 Results ............................................................................................................. 13

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map .......................................... 13

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ......................................... 14

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map .............................................................. 16

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ...................................................................... 16

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 17

4.6 Species FOCI identified ............................................................................... 17

4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ....................................... 17

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 18

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed ........................................... 19

5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ................................................ 20

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI .......................................................... 21

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI.................................................. 21

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 21

References ............................................................................................................... 22

Data sources ............................................................................................................ 24

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 25

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. ...................................... 25

Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................. 26

Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ........................ 27

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ...................................... 28

Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol ...................................................... 29

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 1. Survey metadata ............................................................................... 31

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys .......................................................... 34

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ .................................. 36

Appendix 4. Species list ........................................................................................ 37

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ........ 43

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ......... 44

Appendix 7. Example images for broadscale habitats from survey ....................... 46

Appendix 8. Example images for habitat FOCI from survey ................................. 47

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. ..... 6

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. ................ 6

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. ............... 6

Table 4. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. ............................................... 16

Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. .......................................................... 17

Table 6. Details of human activities found in the bathymetry data. .......................... 19

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Beachy Head East rMCZ, in the context of other rMCZs in the area. Bathymetry is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). .. 5

Figure 2. Extent of the area surveyed at the Beachy Head East rMCZ with ground truth sample locations. Bathymetry is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). ................................................................................................. 8

Figure 3. Flow chart outlining the process of producing the broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. EUNIS Level 3 map from the Site Assessment Document. The extent of the current survey is indicated by the yellow line. .................................................. 13

Figure 5. EUNIS Level 4 habitat map (REC data) from the Site Assessment Document. Only the habitat types of interest have been shown. Other habitat types have all been labelled as ‘Other’. The extent of the current survey is indicated by the yellow line. ............................................................................. 14

Figure 6. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. ......................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. 16

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Beachy Head East recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ). The site is being considered for inclusion in a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in UK waters, designed to meet conservation objectives under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Prior to the dedicated survey, the site assessment had been made on the basis of best available evidence, drawn largely from historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the area. The purpose of the survey was to provide direct evidence of the presence and extent of the broadscale habitats (BSH) and habitat FOCI (Features of Conservation Importance) that had been detailed in the original Site Assessment Document (SAD) (Balanced Seas, 2011).

This Executive Summary is presented in the form of a Report Card comparing the characteristics predicted in the original SAD with the updated habitat map and new sample data that result from the surveys of the site conducted by the Environment Agency (EA) and EGS (International) Ltd in February and March 2012, and the subsequent integrated analysis of these data by Cefas. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat and species FOCI.

New, dedicated surveys of Beachy Head East covered most (87.3%) of the rMCZ area, omitting the intertidal (littoral) habitats and subtidal habitats shallower than 2 m below chart datum. For completeness, tables in this report card list the extent of features in the entire rMCZ. Accord between the SAD habitat map and the new habitat map considers only the common area covered by the new surveys.

Much of the offshore area consists of a rock platform overlain by a thin (<1 m) layer of sediment, and it is this rock feature which became the principal reason behind the proposal for protection under MCZ designation. The feature cannot be represented on broadscale maps using the standard EUNIS habitat classification, because that system categorises habitats as either rock or sediment. Consequently, the UK SeaMap project classified this area as sediment habitat (namely sand and mixed sediment). A modified classification which captures rock with a sediment veneer was developed by James et al. (2011; referred here as the ‘MALSF Synthesis REC’ project) was used to inform the SAD to allow a focus on the rock feature.

The high resolution acoustic data provided by the 2012 dedicated survey has permitted the accurate mapping of areas of outcropping rock (i.e. where rock is exposed at the seabed), so the updated habitat map features well-delineated rock and sediment habitats. On the basis of ground truth sampling, it also reclassifies the majority of the area as coarse sediment, rather than the sand or mixed sediments predominant in earlier maps.


1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation

Feature

Extent according to SAD for the entire rMCZ

Extent in subarea

subject to 2012 survey

Extent according to

updated habitat map

Accord between SAD and updated habitat

map

Broadscale Habitat (BSH)

Presence Extent

A1.1 High energy intertidal rock 0.02 km

2 0 km

2 N/A N/A N/A

A1.2 Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.31 km

2 0 km

2 N/A N/A N/A

A2.1 Intertidal coarse sediment 0.18 km

2 0 km

2 N/A N/A N/A

A2.4 Intertidal mixed sediments 0.28 km

2 0 km

2 N/A N/A N/A

A5.2 Subtidal sand* 134.28 km2 118.58 km

2 31.90 km

2 -86.68 km

2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments** 18.23 km

2 12.63 km

2 0 km

2 -12.63 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Blue Mussel Beds 0.02 km2 Assume all 0 km

2 -0.02 km

2

Littoral Chalk Communities 0.04 km2 Assume none N/A N/A N/A

Peat and Clay Exposures 0.31 km2 Assume all 0 km

2 -0.31 km

2

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 0.36 km

2 Assume all 0 km

2 -3.13 km

2

Subtidal chalk 7.81 km2 Assume all 0 km

2 -7.81 km

2

Species FOCI

Low/Limited Mobility Species

Short Snouted Seahorse (H. hippocampus) 1 record Not recorded Not recorded N/A

Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) 1 record Not recorded Not recorded N/A

Highly Mobile Species

European Eel (Anguilla anguilla) N/A Not recorded Not recorded N/A N/A

* Only the extent of this habitat that corresponds to the following MALSF Synthesis REC habitats has been selected for protection:

A3.92 Moderately exposed infralittoral rock and thin sands

A3.A2 Low exposed infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment

A4.92 Moderately exposed infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment

** Only the extent of this habitat that corresponds to the following MALSF Synthesis REC habitats has been selected for protection:

A3.94 Moderately exposed infralittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

A3.A4 Low exposed infralittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

A4.94 Moderately exposed circalittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

A4.A4 Low exposed circalittoral rock and thin mixed sediments


1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation

Feature


Extent in subarea

subject to 2012 survey

Extent according to

updated habitat map

Accord between SAD and updated habitat

map

Broadscale Habitats (BSH)

Presence Extent

A1.2 Moderate energy intertidal rock* Not provided 0 km

2 0 km

2 N/A N/A

A4 Circalittoral rock 0 km2 0 km

2 11.43 km

2 +11.43 km

2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediments Not provided 0 km

2 125.47 km

2 +125.47 km

2

A5.2 Subtidal sand** Not provided 37.59 km2 31.90 km

2 ? -5.69 km

2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments*** Not provided 0.10 km

2 0 km

2 ? -0.10 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Littoral Chalk Communities Not provided Not recorded Not recorded N/A N/A

Subtidal Sands and Gravels Not provided 37.69 km2 157.37 km

2 +157.37 km

2

Species FOCI

Highly mobile species

Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) Not provided Not recorded Not recorded N/A N/A

Undulate Ray (Raja undulata) Not provided Not recorded Not recorded N/A N/A

* Proposed for designation in MCZ but is fully protected within Seaford to Beachy Head SSSI. ** Specifically relates to ‘A5.43 Infralittoral mixed sediments’ according to the MALSF Synthesis REC data. *** Specifically relates to ‘A5.23 Infralittoral fine sand’ according to the MALSF Synthesis REC data.

1.3 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed

Five wrecks were noted in the multibeam survey, all of which are shown on Admiralty Chart 536 (Beachy Head to Dungeness). Four locations were identified as the end of discharge pipelines, again indicated on the Admiralty Chart, with associated shallower features of approximately 1 m in height, thought to be the discharge outlets.


2 Introduction

In accord with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the UK is committed to the development and implementation of a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The network will incorporate existing designated sites (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) along with a number of newly designated sites which, within English territorial waters and offshore waters of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be termed Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). In support of this initiative, four Regional MCZ Projects were set up to select sites that could contribute to this network because they contain one or more features specified in the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG; Natural England and the JNCC, 2010). The Regional MCZ Projects proposed a total of 127 recommended MCZs (rMCZs) and compiled a Site Assessment Document (SAD) for each, summarising the evidence available for the presence and extent of the various habitat, species and geological features specified in the ENG, and for which the site was being recommended.

Because of the scarcity of survey-derived seabed habitat maps in UK waters, these assessments were necessarily made using best available evidence, which included historical data, modelled habitat maps and stakeholder knowledge of the areas concerned.

It became apparent that the best available evidence was of variable quality, so Defra initiated a number of measures aimed at improving the evidence base, one of which took the form of a dedicated survey programme, implemented and coordinated by Cefas, to collect and interpret new survey data at selected rMCZ sites. This report provides an interpretation of the survey data collected jointly by the Environment Agency (EA) and EGS (International) Ltd at the Beachy Head East rMCZ site during February and March 2012.


2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Beachy Head East rMCZ lies between the Beachy Head lighthouse in the west and Hastings Pier in the east, extending out to just beyond 6 nautical miles offshore (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Location of the Beachy Head East rMCZ, in the context of other rMCZs in the area. Bathymetry is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation

The Beachy Head East rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to the Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) criteria to broadscale habitats, and its added ecological importance. The site contains the Royal Sovereign Shoals and the Horse of Willingdon Reef; two marine Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (mSNCIs). For a detailed site description see ‘Balanced Seas Marine Conservation Zone Project: Final Recommendations 2011’ (Balanced Seas, 2011) and ‘The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance’ (Natural England and the JNCC, 2010).

2.2.1 Broadscale habitats proposed for designation

Annex 1 presents the broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. Six broadscale habitats (four intertidal and two subtidal) were included in the recommendations for designation at the site (Table 1). The two subtidal broadscale habitats, namely ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’, have been included in the proposed designation only where they are considered to be representing a thin overlay of sediments on a rocky reef formation, which is the primary feature for MCZ


designation. The values given for the spatial extent of these broadscale habitats are therefore based only on what is considered to be rock with a thin veneer of sediment. Deeper deposits of sand and mixed sediments have not been advanced as features for protection so are not included in the spatial extent estimates. The extent of subtidal rock itself was not identifiable from the data available to the Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) at the time of making their recommendations.

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

EUNIS coded & Broadscale Habitat Spatial extent according to the SAD

A1.1 High energy intertidal rock 0.02 km2

A1.2 Moderate energy intertidal rock 0.31 km2

A2.1 Intertidal coarse sediment 0.18 km2

A2.4 Intertidal mixed sediments 0.28 km2

A5.2 Subtidal sand* 134.28 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments** 18.23 km2

* Only the extent of this habitat that corresponds to the following MALSF Synthesis REC habitats has been selected for protection:

A3.92 Moderately exposed infralittoral rock and thin sands

A3.A2 Low exposed infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment

A4.92 Moderately exposed infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment

** Only the extent of this habitat that corresponds to the following MALSF Synthesis REC habitats has been selected for protection:

A3.94 Moderately exposed infralittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

A3.A4 Low exposed infralittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

A4.94 Moderately exposed circalittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

A4.A4 Low exposed circalittoral rock and thin mixed sediments

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. Five habitat FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation at this site (Table 2).

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Blue Mussel Beds 0.02 km2

Littoral Chalk Communities 0.04 km2

Peat and Clay Exposures 0.31 km2

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 0.36 km2

Subtidal Chalk 7.81 km2

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

Two Low or Limited Mobility, and one Highly Mobile Species FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this rMCZ (Table 3). The full list of these species FOCI is presented in Annexes 3 and 4.

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation.

Species FOCI

Low or Limited Mobility Species FOCI Short Snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus)

Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis)

Highly Mobile Species FOCI European Eel (Anguilla anguilla)


2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection

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

The confidence score for the presence and extent of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI reported for the Beachy Head East rMCZ was Low (JNCC and Natural England, 2012). This site was therefore prioritised for additional evidence collection.

2.4 Survey aims and objectives

Primary Objectives

To collect acoustic and ground truth data to allow the production of an updated map that could be used to inform the presence of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI, and to allow estimates to be made of their spatial extent within the rMCZ.

Secondary Objectives

To provide evidence, where possible, of the presence of species FOCI listed within the ENG (Annexes 3 and 4) within the rMCZ.

To report evidence of human activity within the rMCZ during the course of the survey.

It should be emphasised that surveys were not designed primarily to address the secondary objectives under the current programme of work.

Although the newly collected data will be utilised for the purposes of reporting against the primary objectives of the current programme of work (given above), it is recognised that these data will be valuable for informing the assessment and monitoring the condition of given habitat features in future.


3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition

Full coverage multibeam bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired from the offshore boundary of the rMCZ to the -2 m chart datum contour by EGS (International) Ltd in February and March 2012, using two vessels; EGS Pioneer and Wessex Explorer. The Wessex Explorer was mobilised with a pole-mounted Kongsberg EM3002D multibeam system and the EGS Pioneer with a similar hull-mounted system. Images derived from the data collected are presented in Appendix 2, and the area surveyed is outlined in Figure 2. The bathymetric survey was conducted in accord with International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) standard Order 1a. Multibeam backscatter data were acquired following guidelines developed and provided by Cefas. For further detail on the acoustic data acquisition see ‘Defra MCZ R&D Data Collection Program – Lot14 Beachy Head East Survey Report’ (EGS Ltd, 2012).

Figure 2. Extent of the area surveyed at the Beachy Head East rMCZ with ground truth sample locations. Bathymetry is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

The acoustic data were not available for use in developing the groundtruthing survey design. Therefore, most ground truth stations were plotted using an approximate grid spacing of 1.6 km, except for those falling on previously identified blue mussel beds, Sabellaria spinulosa reef and subtidal chalk outcrops (Figure 2). The groundtruthing survey was carried out by the Environment Agency (EA) in February/March 2012,


during which time sediment and infaunal samples were collected successfully from 14 stations using a 0.1 m2 Hamon grab. An underwater camera system was deployed at 39 stations to collect video and still images of the seabed (see Appendix 1).

On recovery of the grab, its contents were emptied into a suitable container and photographed. A representative subsample of sediment (~0.5 litres) was taken for particle size analysis (PSA). The remaining sample volume was measured (samples <5 litres were rejected) and sieved over a 1 mm mesh to collect the benthic fauna. The >1 mm fraction was transferred into a sample container and preserved in buffered 8% formaldehyde solution for later processing ashore.

Within the broadscale habitat areas identified in the SAD, camera deployments were made at stations identified as being either rock substratum or biogenic reef (blue mussel or Sabellaria spinulosa). Camera deployments were made at an additional 18 stations where the Hamon grab had been unsuccessful in obtaining a suitable sample (i.e. where it collected <5 litres of sediment).

The camera system was deployed on a drop-down frame and collected both video and still images. Set-up and operation followed the MESH ‘Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques’ (Coggan et al., 2007), although the camera was used to hop along the seabed rather than being towed along the seabed recording a continuous transect. Video imagery was recorded simultaneously to a Sony GV-HD700 DV tape and secondary backup media device. A video overlay was used to provide station metadata, time and GPS position (of the vessel) on most of the recorded video images.

Camera tows lasted between 3 and 18 minutes and still images were captured approximately every 10–15 m of ground covered. Extra still images were taken in heterogeneous areas of the BSH and where particular habitat/species FOCI were observed. Video and still images were analysed following an established protocol used by Cefas and the JNCC.

For further detail on ground truth sample collection see ‘The Beachy Head East rMCZ Survey Report’ (Godsell and Meakins, 2012).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map

All new maps and their derivatives are based on a WGS84 datum. The habitat map was updated by analysing and interpreting the new acoustic and ground truth data collected by the dedicated survey of this site. Particle size data for the sediment samples were used to assign each sample to one of the four sediment classes defined by Long (2006), namely coarse sediment, sand, mud and mixed sediment. Results and summary statistics for the PSA are presented in Appendix 5. Seabed still images were assigned to broadscale habitat classes. The assignments were used to inform the semi-automated process of map production using object-based image analysis (OBIA; Blaschke, 2010) implemented in the software package eCognition v8.7.2.

OBIA is a two-step approach consisting of segmentation and classification (Figure 3).


Figure 3. Flow chart outlining the process of producing the broadscale habitat map.

The segmentation divides the image into meaningful objects, based on their spectral and spatial characteristics. The resulting objects can be characterised by their various features, such as layer values (mean, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.), texture and many others. The subsequent classification of objects is based on combinations of these features.

The input layers used for the OBIA were the multibeam backscatter strength, local bathymetric roughness (the range of bathymetry values within a 3 cell × 3 cell neighbourhood), multibeam bathymetry and the Bathymetric Position Index (BPI; Lundblad et al., 2006; Appendix 2). The BPI allows the detection of topographic peaks, troughs and flat areas within a local neighbourhood area. For this analysis, several neighbourhood sizes were trialled and one was selected having a circle radius of 75 m, because this gave the best representation of terrain complexity and roughness. Additionally, a thematic layer (shape file) was created in ArcGIS, showing where seabed roughness elements were linked to either bedrock outcrops or sedimentary bedforms (e.g. sand waves). In this way, it was possible to minimise the misclassification of sediment bedforms as rock.

Segmentation was carried out using the multiresolution segmentation algorithm in eCognition. This is an optimisation procedure that starts with an individual pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels to form an object. The process continues until a threshold value for a scale parameter is reached, the threshold being determined by the operator following a series of test runs.


The goal of the segmentation is to create meaningful objects in the map image. The size of the objects is influenced by the scale parameter and the heterogeneity of the image. For a fixed value of scale parameter, a homogenous area of seabed will have larger objects than a heterogeneous area. Likewise for fixed seabed heterogeneity, larger values of the scale parameter produce larger objects than smaller values. Following test runs using a range of values for the scale parameter, a value of 11 was selected for use with this dataset.

The segmentation was carried out at pixel level on backscatter strength, bathymetry, bathymetric roughness and the BPI. The classification of the resulting objects was carried out in several steps and used the ‘assign class’ and ‘classification’ algorithms in eCognition, with the choices made by the analyst being informed by substratum class determined for the ground truth samples (as detailed above). Threshold conditions for defining and discriminating broadscale habitat classes were chosen experimentally. For this dataset, these threshold values are given below.

Circalittoral Rock (EUNIS code A4) was mapped where the BPI was positive, backscatter strength >–30 dB and the thematic layer showed bedrock as the dominating roughness element. All other areas were mapped as sediment. Of these, areas with high backscatter strength (>–26.75 dB) were classified as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’. The remaining area had low backscatter (<-26.75 dB) and was mapped as ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’.

The resulting objects labelled with their respective class membership (broadscale habitat type) were exported from eCognition as an ArcGIS shape file for use in the map figures presented in the Results section below.

3.4 Quality of the updated map

The technical quality of the updated habitat map was assessed using the MESH ‘Confidence Assessment’ Tool1, originally developed by an international consortium of marine scientists working on the MESH (Mapping European Seabed Habitats) project. This tool considers the provenance of the data used to make a biotope/habitat map, including the techniques and technology used to characterise the physical and biological environment and the expertise of the people who had made the map. In its original implementation it was used to make an auditable judgement of the confidence that could be placed in a range of existing, local biotope maps that had been developed using different techniques and data inputs, but were to be used in compiling a full coverage map for northwest Europe. Where two of the original maps overlapped, that with the highest MESH confidence score would take precedence in the compiled map.

Subsequent to the MESH project, the confidence assessment tool has been applied to provide a benchmark score that reflects the technical quality of newly developed habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100, but because the current rMCZ exercise requires the mapping of broadscale physical habitats rather than biotopes, it excludes the need for biological data. In the absence of biological data, the maximum score attainable for a perfect physical map is 88.

1 http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 28/08/2014]

http://www.searchmesh.net/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html


In applying the tool to the current work, none of the weighting options were altered; that is, the tool was applied in its standard form, as downloaded from the internet.


4 Results

4.1 Site Assessment Document (SAD) habitat map

Two separate habitat maps were included in the SAD to describe broadscale habitats (BSH). The EUNIS Level 3 map in the SAD (Figure 4) was produced using a number of data sources including the UKSeaMap, outputs from the Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project and Environment Agency (EA) data sources. This map was used to define the boundaries of intertidal habitats only.

Figure 4. EUNIS Level 3 map from the Site Assessment Document. The extent of the current survey is indicated by the yellow line.

The two subtidal habitats included in the recommendation were defined using a EUNIS level 4 map (Figure 5) produced as a result of two recent MALSF-funded REC seabed surveys (James et al., 2010, 2011). The RSG considered the REC habitat map to be a more appropriate source of information, because the various forms of the habitat ‘rock with a thin veneer of sediments’ were seen to represent the subtidal rocky reef that was the feature the RSG identified as requiring protection. For further detail see Balanced Seas Marine Conservation Zone Project: Final Recommendations (Balanced Seas, 2011).


Figure 5. EUNIS Level 4 habitat map (REC data) from the Site Assessment Document. Only the habitat types of interest have been shown. Other habitat types have all been labelled as ‘Other’. The extent of the current survey is indicated by the yellow line.

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data

The updated habitat map resulting from an integrated analysis of the 2012 dedicated survey data is presented in Figure 6. A formal, external test of model accuracy was not carried out, but an internal test of model accuracy made using training data gave an overall agreement of 76%.

The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples is presented in Appendix 4. A summary of the PSA of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5 and an analysis of seabed video and stills is summarised in Appendix 6. Example images of the BSHs and habitat FOCI recorded in the video analysis are given in Appendix 7 and 8, respectively.

Of the 53 ground truth stations, coarse sediment was recorded at 38 stations, sand at six and mixed sediment at eight stations. Exposed rock was recorded in still images at 12 stations, but just five of these had sufficient coverage of rock to warrant designating the entire station as ‘A4 Circalittoral Rock’ in the integrated analysis of the 2012 dedicated survey data (Figure 6).


Figure 6. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data.


4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

This map attained a score of 81 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 7), which is good, given the maximum possible score for a purely physical map being 88.

Figure 7. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map.

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified

The broadscale habitat ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ is the most widespread within the survey area (Table 4), covering roughly three-quarters of the rMCZ site (Figure 6). Sand deposits orientated in a southwest to northeast direction are prevalent on the eastern edge of the survey area. ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ amounts to approximately one-fifth of the area in the new habitat map (Table 4). Throughout the area, bedrock outcrops emerge from the coarse sediment and sand, forming ridges with a northwest to southeast orientation.

Table 4. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ.

Broadscale Habitat Type (& EUNIS code)


Extent lying in subarea subject to 2012 survey

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat map

A4 Circalittoral rock 0 km2 0 km

2 11.43 km

2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 0 km2 0 km

2 125.47 km

2

A5.2 Subtidal sand* 134.28 km2 118.58 km

2 31.90 km

2

* The spatial extent values of ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ in the SAD and the subarea subject to survey in 2012 are those for the habitats described as ‘rock with a thin veneer of sand’.


4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The only habitat FOCI identified and mapped was ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’, which covered most of the survey area (Table 5). Ground truth sampling did not reveal any of the other habitat FOCI listed in the SAD, namely ‘Blue Mussel Beds’, ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’, ‘Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs’ and ‘Subtidal Chalk’, but preliminary observations provided in the survey report suggested that Sabellaria spinulosa reef and subtidal chalk may have been present at certain sampling stations. However, detailed analyses of the video and still images carried out to inform the updated habitat map did not confirm the presence of either of these habitat FOCI within the rMCZ. This result should not, though, be interpreted as an indication that these habitat FOCI do not occur within the rMCZ. More extensive sampling of the areas of rock outcrop is required to identify and, where present, map the extent of areas of potential mussel beds that have been recorded at the site previously. Similarly, additional targeted sampling is required to identify and, where present, map the extent of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs. Finally, although subtidal chalk was listed in the SAD as a habitat FOCI it is noted that it is of low extent (0.04 km2). Further, chalk bedrock is not indicated to be present within the survey area according to the relevant geological maps (British Geological Survey and Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, 1988).

Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI

Extent according to SAD for the

entire rMCZ

Extent lying in subarea subject to 2012 survey

Spatial extent according to the

updated habitat map

Subtidal Sands and Gravels Not given 37.69 km2* 157.37 km

2

* The sum of the extents for ‘A5.23 Infralittoral fine sand’ and ‘A5.43 Infralittoral mixed sediments’ as mapped by the REC and indicated within the 2012 survey area in Figure 5.

4.6 Species FOCI identified

Analysis of ground truth samples from the 2012 dedicated survey did not record any of the species FOCI listed in the Ecological Network Guidance (Natural England and JNCC, 2010). Taxa recorded in the grab samples and video and still images are listed in Appendix 4.

4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)

4.7.1 Acoustic data

The acoustic data were quality assured through specification of the technical requirements of the equipment and procedures used during acquisition. All survey data and reports were reviewed by specialist Cefas staff to ensure that data and deliverables met the required specification. All survey data will be made available to the UK Hydrographic Office, where the information will undergo further checks to assess its suitability for inclusion in the pool of data used to produce navigational charts.


4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis (PSA) of sediments

PSA was carried out by Cefas following standard laboratory practice and the results checked following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011). Results of the PSA are shown in Appendix 5.

4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs

Infaunal samples were processed by APEM Ltd following standard laboratory practices, and the results were checked following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Worsfold, Hall and O’Reilly, 2010).

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis

Video and photographic stills were processed by Seastar Survey Ltd in accord with the guidance documents developed by Cefas and the JNCC for the acquisition and processing of video and stills data (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; summarised in Annex 5).

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map

The quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be high (MESH assessment tool).

The survey has provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence of the habitats mapped. However, because it is impractical (and undesirable) to sample the entire area of the site with grabs and video, there is a chance that a BSH or FOCI may exist within the site that has not been observed, especially if limited in extent. Sabellaria spinulosa reefs and blue mussel beds have been recorded in the area previously, and the survey ground truth locations may not have been adequately placed to capture these features. Consequently, although no evidence of their presence at the site was found in the survey, their absence cannot be confirmed based on the current data.

The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale habitats depicted on the map should be regarded as indicative rather than definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt. Instead it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a transitional boundary. In contrast, the mapped boundaries are abrupt and have been placed using best professional judgement. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI.

It appears that coarse and mixed subtidal sediments have similar acoustic signatures, so it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to distinguish the two broadscale habitats. Therefore, some of the area classified and mapped as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ might in fact be ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. However, examination of the associated ground truth data suggests this may only apply to a limited number of cases.

The available data did not allow differentiation between ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, because only three


still images were classed as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Consequently, the map of broadscale habitats (Figure 6) only displays ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ (although it is likely that most of this consists of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’). The presence of ‘A4.3 Low energy circalittoral rock’ is unlikely.

4.8.1 Presence of Species FOCI

Three species FOCI were included in the SAD for this site. No species FOCI were observed in the samples collected during the dedicated survey.

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed

There are five wrecks visible on the multibeam image; all are shown on Admiralty Chart 536 (Beachy Head to Dungeness). There are also four locations identified as the end of discharge pipelines, again indicated on the Admiralty Chart, with associated shallower features of approximately 1 m height, thought to be the discharge outlets (Table 6; see also Appendix 3).

Table 6. Details of human activities found in the bathymetry data.

Feature Type Latitude Longitude Length (m)

Wreck 50.80298 0.410609 37.6

Wreck 50.72366 0.440573 20.1

Wreck 50.73317 0.493701 80.8

Wreck 50.75362 0.335158 110.9

Wreck 50.75090 0.309805 66.6

End of Pipe 50.82120 0.530687 219.7

End of Pipe 50.82030 0.529836 123.3

End of Pipe 50.77897 0.331763 93.6

End of pipe 50.75952 0.348292 219.8


5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ broadscale habitat included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ. However, this classification does not fully correspond with the habitat ‘rock with thin veneer of sand’ identified by the REC and for which the MCZ was recommended for designation in the SAD. Instead it corresponds to the ‘A5.23 Infralittoral fine sand’ identified in the REC data, which was not proposed for designation.

The 2012 dedicated survey has NOT confirmed the presence of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ broadscale habitat that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ. Mixed sediment was present, but was recorded at just four of the 53 ground truth stations, whereas coarse sediment was recorded at 41 stations. It was not possible to discriminate mixed from coarse sediment using MBES backscatter data.

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ broadscale habitats at this site. These BSHs were not included in the recommendations made in the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ. However, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ were included in the designation where they corresponded approximately with the rocky reef feature that the RSG sought to protect. The improved evidence base would now permit the ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ broadscale habitat to be included in site recommendations, replacing habitats A5.2 and A5.4 if required.

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 31.90 km2, 86.68 km2 less than the spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 0 km2.

The spatial extent of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 125.47 km2. This was not identified in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the ‘A4 Circalittoral rock’ BSH on the updated habitat map is 11.43 km2. This was not identified in the SAD habitat map.


5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI that was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

Although none of the other designated FOCI habitats were found by this survey this should not be interpreted as confirmation of their absence.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The spatial extent of the ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ habitat FOCI on the updated habitat map is 157.37 km2. This habitat FOCI was not proposed for designation in the SAD.

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI

5.3.1 Low or limited mobility species

No ‘Low or limited mobility species’ FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2012 dedicated survey. These observations are consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI

No ‘Highly mobile species’ FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2012 dedicated survey. These observations are consistent with the evidence presented in the SAD.

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed

Evidence of discharge pipelines and wrecks are visible in the multibeam bathymetry, and include five wrecks and 4 pipeline ends.


References

Astrium (2011). Creation of a high resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the British Isles continental shelf: Final Report. Prepared for Defra, Contract Reference: 13820. 26 pp.

Balanced Seas (2011). Balanced Seas Marine Conservation Zone Project. Final Recommendations. 78 pp. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120502155440/http:/www.balancedseas.org/page/RSG%20Resources.html [Accessed 28/08/2014].

British Geological Survey and Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (1988). Dungeness – Boulogne, 1: 250000 Series, Solid Geology.

Blaschke, T. (2010). Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 65, 2-16.

Coggan, R. and Howell, K. (2005). Draft SOP for the collection and analysis of video and still images for ground-truthing an acoustic basemap. Video survey SOP version 5, 10 pp.

Coggan, R., Mitchell, A., White, J. and Golding, N. (2007). Recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques (www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf) [Accessed 28/08/2014]

EGS Ltd (2012). DEFRA MCZ R&D Data Collection Program – Lot14 Beachy Head East Survey Report. 89 pp.

Godsell, N. and Meakins, B (2012). Beachy Head East rMCZ survey report. 85 pp.

James, J. W. C., Pearce, B. Coggan, R. A., Arnot, S. H. L., Clark, R. W. E., Plim, J. F., Pinnion, J., Barrio Froján, C., Gardiner, J. P., Morando, A., Baggaley, P. A., Scott, G. and Bigourdan, N. (2010). The South Coast Regional Environmental Characterisation. British Geological Survey Open Report OR/09/51. 249 pp. MALSF, Suffolk.

James, J. W. C., Pearce, B., Coggan, R. A., Leivers, M., Clark, R. W., E. Plim, J. F.,

Hill, J. M., Arnott, S. H. L., Bateson, L., De‐Burgh Thomas, A. and Baggaley, P. A. (2011). The MALSF Synthesis Study in the Central and Eastern English Channel. British Geological Survey Open Report OR/11/01. MALSF, Suffolk.

JNCC (in prep.). Video/Stills Camera Standard Operating Procedure for Survey and Analysis: for ground-truthing and classifying an acoustic basemap, and development of new biotopes within the UK Marine Habitat Classification. JNCC Video and Stills Processing SOP v2. 6 pp.

Long, D. (2006). BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified Folk classification. MESH project document, 7 pp. http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf [Accessed 28/08/2014]

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120502155440/http:/www.balancedseas.org/page/RSG%20Resources.html

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120502155440/http:/www.balancedseas.org/page/RSG%20Resources.html

http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf

http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf

http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf


Lundblad, E. R., Wright, D. J., Miller, J., Larkin, E. M., Rinehart, R., Naar, D. F., Donahue, B. T., Anderson, S. M. and Battista, T. (2006). A Benthic Terrain Classification Scheme for American Samoa. Marine Geodesy 29, 89-111.

Mason, C. (2011). NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis.

Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Sheffield and Peterborough, UK.

Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2012). SNCB MCZ Advice Project-Assessing the scientific confidence in the presence and extent of features in recommended Marine Conservation Zones (Technical Protocol E)

Worsfold, T.M., Hall., D.J. and O’Reilly, M. (2010). Guidelines for processing marine macrobenthic invertebrate samples: a processing requirements protocol version 1 (June 2010). Unicomarine Report NMBAQCMbPRP to the NMBAQC Committee. 33 pp.


Data sources

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



Annexes

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.

Broadscale Habitat Type EUNIS Level 3 Code

High energy intertidal rock A1.1

Moderate energy intertidal rock A1.2

Low energy intertidal rock A1.3

Intertidal coarse sediment A2.1

Intertidal sand and muddy sand A2.2

Intertidal mud A2.3

Intertidal mixed sediments A2.4

Coastal saltmarshes and saline reed beds A2.5

Intertidal sediments dominated by aquatic angiosperms A2.6

Intertidal biogenic reefs A2.7

High energy infralittoral rock* A3.1

Moderate energy infralittoral rock* A3.2

Low energy infralittoral rock* A3.3

High energy circalittoral rock** A4.1

Moderate energy circalittoral rock** A4.2

Low energy circalittoral rock** A4.3

Subtidal coarse sediment A5.1

Subtidal sand A5.2

Subtidal mud A5.3

Subtidal mixed sediments A5.4

Subtidal macrophyte-dominated sediment A5.5

Subtidal biogenic reef A5.6

Deep-sea bed*** A6

* Infralittoral rock includes habitats of bedrock, boulders and cobble which occur in the shallow subtidal zone and typically support seaweed communities ** Circalittoral rock is characterised by animal dominated communities, rather than seaweed dominated communities *** The deep-sea bed broadscale habitat encompasses several different habitat sub-types, all of which should be protected within the MPA network. The broadscale habitat deep-sea bed habitat is found only in the south-west of the MCZ project area and MCZs identified for this broadscale habitat should seek to protect the variety of sub-types known to occur in the region.


Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG.

Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI)

Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)**

Cold-Water Coral Reefs ***

Coral Gardens***

Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations***

Estuarine Rocky Habitats

File Shell Beds***

Fragile Sponge and Anthozoan Communities on Subtidal Rocky Habitats

Intertidal Underboulder Communities

Littoral Chalk Communities

Maerl Beds

Horse Mussel (Modiolus modiolus) Beds

Mud Habitats in Deep Water

Sea-Pen and Burrowing Megafauna Communities

Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Beds

Peat and Clay Exposures

Honeycomb Worm (Sabellaria alveolata) Reefs

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs

Seagrass Beds

Sheltered Muddy Gravels

Subtidal Chalk

Subtidal Sands and Gravels

Tide-Swept Channels

* Habitat FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’ and the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’. ** Only includes ‘natural’ beds on a variety of sediment types. Excludes artificially created mussel beds and those which occur on rocks and boulders. *** Cold-Water Coral Reefs, Coral Gardens, Deep-Sea Sponge Aggregations and File Shell Beds currently do not have distributional data which demonstrate their presence within the MCZ project area.


Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG.

Group Scientific name Common Name

Brown Algae Padina pavonica Peacock’s Tail

Red Algae Cruoria cruoriaeformis

Grateloupia montagnei

Lithothamnion corallioides

Phymatolithon calcareum

Burgundy Maerl Paint Weed

Grateloup’s Little-Lobed Weed

Coral Maerl

Common Maerl

Annelida Alkmaria romijni**

Armandia cirrhosa**

Tentacled Lagoon-Worm**

Lagoon Sandworm**

Teleostei Gobius cobitis

Gobius couchi

Hippocampus guttulatus

Hippocampus hippocampus

Giant Goby

Couch’s Goby

Long Snouted Seahorse

Short Snouted Seahorse

Bryozoa Victorella pavida Trembling Sea Mat

Cnidaria Amphianthus dohrnii

Eunicella verrucosa

Haliclystus auricula

Leptosammia pruvoti

Lucernariopsis campanulata

Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis

Nematostella vectensis

Sea-Fan Anemone

Pink Sea-Fan

Stalked Jellyfish

Sunset Cup Coral

Stalked Jellyfish

Stalked Jellyfish

Starlet Sea Anemone

Crustacea Gammarus insensibilis**

Gitanopsis bispinosa

Pollicipes pollicipes

Palinurus elephas

Lagoon Sand Shrimp**

Amphipod Shrimp

Gooseneck Barnacle

Spiny Lobster

Mollusca Arctica islandica

Atrina pectinata

Caecum armoricum**

Ostrea edulis

Paludinella littorina

Tenellia adspersa**

Ocean Quahog

Fan Mussel

Defolin’s Lagoon Snail**

Native Oyster

Sea Snail

Lagoon Sea Slug**

* Species FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’, the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’ and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. ** Those lagoonal species FOCI may be afforded sufficient protection through coastal lagoons designated as SACs under the EC Habitats Directive. However, this needs to be assessed by individual regional projects.


Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG.

Group Scientific name Common Name

Teleostei Osmerus eperlanus

Anguilla anguilla

Smelt

European Eel

Elasmobranchii Raja undulata Undulate Ray

* Species FOCI have been identified from the ‘OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats’, the ‘UK List of Priority Species and Habitats (UK BAP)’ and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.


Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol

The purpose of analysing the video/stills is to identify the habitats in a video record, to provide semi-quantitative data on their physical and biological characteristics and to note where one habitat changes to another. A minimum of 10% of the videos needs to be reanalysed for QA purposes

Video Analysis

The video record is initially viewed rapidly (at approximately 4x normal speed) in order to segment it into sections representing different habitats. The start and end points of each segment are logged, and each segment subsequently subject to more detailed analysis. Brief changes in habitat type lasting less than one minute of the video record are considered as incidental patches and are not logged.

For each segment, note the start and end time and position from the information on the video overlay. View the segment at normal or slower than normal speed, noting the physical and biological characteristics, such as substratum type, seabed character, species and life forms present. For each taxon, actual (where feasible) or semi-quantitative abundance (e.g. SACFOR scale) is sought.

Record the analyses on the video pro forma provided (paper and/or electronic), which is a modified version of the Sublittoral Habitat Recording Form used in the MNCR surveys.

When each segment has been analysed, review the information recorded and assign the segment to one of the broadscale habitat (BSH) types or Habitat FOCI listed in the Ecological Network Guidance (as reproduced in Annexes 1 and 2 above). Note also any species FOCI observed (as per Annex 3 above).

Stills analysis

Still images should be analysed separately, to supplement and validate the video analysis and to provide more-detailed (i.e. higher resolution) information than can be extracted from a moving video image.

For each segment of video, select three still images representative of the BSH or FOCI to which the video segment has been assigned. For each image, note the time and position it was taken, using information from the associated video overlay.

View the image at normal or greater than normal magnification, noting the physical and biological characteristics, such as substratum type, seabed character, species and life forms present. For each taxon record an actual abundance (where feasible) or a semi-quantitative abundance (e.g. SACFOR scale).

Record the analysis on the stills pro forma provided (paper and/or electronic), which is a modified version of the Sublittoral Habitat Recording Form used in the MNCR surveys. Assign each still image to the same BSH or Habitat FOCI as its ‘parent’ segment in the video.


Taxon identification

In all analyses, the identification of taxa should be limited to a level that can be achieved confidently from the available image. Hence, taxon identity could range from ‘life form’ level (e.g. sponge, hydroid, anemone) to species level (e.g. Asterias rubens, Alcyonium digitatum). Avoid the temptation to guess species identity if it cannot be determined positively from the image. For example, Spirobranchus sp. would be acceptable, but Spirobranchus triqueter would not, because the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.


Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata

Date Station Code Stn No Gear Latitude Longitude

06/03/2012 Muss01 SOL 2 DROP CAMERA 50°44.7792'N 0°17.9167'E

06/03/2012 Muss01 EOL 2 DROP CAMERA 50°44.7344'N 0°17.9474'E



06/03/2012 BHE4 SOL 6 DROP CAMERA 50°45.1970'N 0°21.2391'E

06/03/2012 BHE4 EOL 6 DROP CAMERA 50°45.1525'N 0°21.2570'E







06/03/2012 Chalk02 SOL 26 DROP CAMERA 50°43.9787'N 0°24.9168'E

06/03/2012 Chalk02 EOL 26 DROP CAMERA 50°43.9153'N 0°24.8880'E

















06/03/2012 Sab01 SOL 42 DROP CAMERA 50°46.1398'N 0°29.0919'E

06/03/2012 Sab01 EOL 42 DROP CAMERA 50°46.1311'N 0°28.9836'E











08/03/2012 BHE9 10 0.1 m2 Hamon grab 50°47.4192'N 0°22.0503'E






















































Key: EOL: End of line; SOL: Start of line


Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys



Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ


Appendix 4. Species list

Species list for grab samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples’ x 100.

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Cliona 14

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

ACTINIARIA 29

Alcyonium digitatum 7

Cerianthus lloydii 7

FILIFERA 7

Hydrallmania falcate 7

FLATWORMS

TURBELLARIA 14

RIBBONWORMS

NEMERTEA 64

Cerebratulus 14

Tubulanus polymorphus 14

NEMATODA 29

PEANUT WORMS

Golfingia elongata 21

Nephasoma minutum 7

SEGMENTED WORMS

Lumbrineris aniara/cingulata 57

Mediomastus fragilis 43

Notomastus 43

Spiophanes bombyx 43

Spirobranchus lamarcki 43

Eunereis longissima 36

Glycera lapidum agg. 36

Nephtys juv. 36

Poecilochaetus serpens 36

Scoloplos armiger 36

Aonides oxycephala 29

Eteone longa agg. 29

Glycera tridactyla 29

Ophelia borealis 29

Paradoneis lyra 29

Caulleriella alata 21

Chaetozone christiei 21

Lagis koreni 21

Magelona alleni 21

Nematonereis unicornis 21

Nephtys cirrosa 21

Pholoe baltica 21

Polycirrinae 21

Praxillella affinis 21

Sabellaria spinulosa 21


Taxa % Occurrence

Terebellides stroemii 21

Ampharete lindstroemi 14

Aonides paucibranchiata 14

Clymenura 14

Galathowenia oculata 14

Goniada maculata 14

Magelona filiformis 14

Magelona johnstoni 14

Malmgrenia castanea 14

Nephtys assimilis 14

Nephtys caeca 14

Podarkeopsis capensis 14

Polydora caeca agg. 14

Polynoidae 14

Sigalion mathildae 14

Spirobranchus 14

Spirobranchus triqueter 14

Syllis cornuta 14

Terebellidae 14

Aphelochaeta marioni 7

Arabella iricolor ? 7

Atherospio 7

Capitella 7

Chaetozone setosa 7

Euclymene oerstedi 7

Eulalia mustela 7

Eulalia ornate 7

Eumida bahusiensis 7

Flabelligera affinis 7

Glycera oxycephala 7

Glyceridae 7

Glycinde nordmanni 7

Harmothoe impar 7

Hesionides 7

Lepidonotus squamatus 7

Maldanidae 7

Malmgrenia arenicolae 7

Marphysa bellii 7

Megalomma vesiculosum 7

Nephtys longosetosa 7

Nicolea venustula 7

Odontosyllis fulgurans 7

Owenia fusiformis 7

Perkinsiana rubra 7

Pholoe inornata 7

Phyllodoce mucosa 7

Phyllodoce rosea 7

Proceraea 7

Psamathe fusca 7

Pseudopolydora antennata 7


Taxa % Occurrence

Sabellidae 7

Scalibregma celticum 7

Scalibregmatidae juv. 7

Schistomeringos rudolphii 7

Scolelepis bonnieri 7

Scolelepis squamata 7

Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 7

Spio filicornis 7

Sthenelais boa 7

Syllidia armata 7

Syllis variegate 7

Thelepus setosus 7

CRUSTACEANS

Bathyporeia elegans 57

Pisidia longicornis 21

Urothoe elegans 21

Anthura gracilis 14

Gnathia oxyuraea 14

Perioculodes longimanus 14

Abludomelita obtusata 7

Ampelisca brevicornis 7

Ampelisca diadema 7

Ampelisca spinipes 7

Anapagurus hyndmanni 7

Balanus crenatus 7

Bathyporeia 7

Bathyporeia tenuipes 7

Callianassidae 7

Ebalia juv. 7

Eualus cranchii 7

Gnathiidae 7

Leucothoe incise 7

Leucothoe richiardii 7

Liocarcinus juv. 7

Liocarcinus navigator 7

Pagurus cuanensis? 7

Pilumnus hirtellus 7

Pinnotheres pisum 7

Socarnes erythrophthalmus 7

Synchelidium maculatum 7

Unciola crenatipalma 7

MOLLUSCS

Abra alba 36

Kurtiella bidentata 36

Nassarius reticulatus 36

Angulus fibula 21

Corbula gibba 21

Mytilus edulis juv. 21

Buccinum undatum 14

Diplodonta rotundata 14


Taxa % Occurrence

Diplodonta rotundata juv. 14

Spisula elliptica 14

Abra prismatica 7

Acanthocardia echinata 7

Angulus donacinus 7

Anomiidae juv. 7

Crepidula fornicata 7

Crepidula fornicata juv. 7

Ensis magnus 7

Gibbula cineraria 7

Leptochiton cancellatus 7

Mactra stultorum 7

Nucula hanleyi 7

Nuculidae juv. 7

Pectinidae juv. 7

Phaxas pellucidus 7

Polititapes virgineus 7

Sphenia binghami 7

Spisula juv. 7

Thracia juv. 7

SEAMATS

Conopeum reticulum 64

Schizomavella auriculata 43

Electra monostachys 21

Cellepora pumicosa 14

Escharella immersa 14

Scrupocellaria scruposa 14

Alcyonidioides mytili 7

Bugula flabellate 7

Chartella papyracea 7

Chorizopora brongniartii 7

Disporella hispida 7

Tubulipora 7

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 43

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Echinocyamus pusillus 21

Amphipholis squamata 14

Amphiuridae juv. 7

Asterias rubens 7

OPHIUROIDEA juv. 7

Psammechinus miliaris 7

ACORNWORMS

HEMICHORDATA 7

SEA SQUIRTS

ASCIDIACEA 7

Dendrodoa grossularia 7


Species list for video samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of video samples where the species occurs/total number of video samples’ x 100.

Taxa % Occurrence

SPONGES

Porifera 74

Hemimycale columella 13

Raspailia ramosa 13

Halichondria 10

Polymastia penicillus 8

Amphilectus fucorum 5

Axinellidae 3

Pachymatisma johnstonia 3

Polymastia 3

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Hydrozoa 74

Alcyonium digitatum 67

Urticina felina 54

Actiniaria 23

Anthozoa 23

Tubularia indivisa 15

Nemertesia antennina 13

Sagartiidae 13

Sagartia 8

Sagartia elegans 3

Sagartia troglodytes 3

SEGMENTED WORMS

Spirobranchus 59

Sabellaria spinulosa 8

Serpulidae 3

CRUSTACEANS

Cancer pagurus 8

Paguridae 5

Cirripedia 3

MOLLUSCS

Gastropoda 21

Calliostoma zizyphinum 5

Modiolus modiolus 3

Mytilidae 3

SEAMATS

Bryozoa 69

Flustra foliacea 10

Crisiidae 8

Bugula 5

Pentapora fascialis 5

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Asterias rubens 87

Ophiura 31

Ophiura albida 15

Ophiura ophiura 8


Taxa % Occurrence

Ophiuridae 8

Echinidae 3

Ophiothrix fragilis 3

FISH

Callionymus lyra 3

Teleostei 3

RED ALGAE

Rhodophyta 18

No visible fauna 5


Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition

Stn Code Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%)

BHE 1 Coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 48.03 48.03 3.94

BHE 2 Mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 14.99 72.41 12.60

BHE 3 Sand and muddy sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 3.92 94.29 1.79













Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills

Station Code

Habitat No

No of stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

MNCR Code

Muss01 1 3 Cobbles with small boulders A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx

Muss02 1 4 Cobbles with small boulders A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE4 1 4 Sand, gravel and shell A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE6 1 4 Mosaic of poorly sorted pebbles, cobbles & shell overlying sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE5 1 4 Rippled sand with gravel and shell material A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS




Muss3 1 4 Silty cobbles and boulders with sand and shell A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx

Muss4 1 3 Sand with some pebbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

Muss5 1 4 Slightly silty sandy gravel - cobbles and some small boulders A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx

BHE11 1 3 Cobbles, pebbles and shells on sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE12 1 4 Shell sand with occasional large boulders and cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE13 1 4 Slightly silty sandy gravel - cobbles and some small boulders A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx


Muss06 1 4 Cobbles and boulders on sand A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock CR.HCR

Chalk01 1 4 Coarse sediment with gravel and shells A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE15 1 4 Pebbles and cobbles on shelly sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

BHE17 1 2 Cobbles and boulders on shelly sandy sediment or pebbles A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock CR.HCR

BHE17 2 2 Shelly sand with occasional boulder with hydroid turf A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

Muss07 1 4 Rippled sand and pebbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

Chalk02 1 4 Sand with pebbles and gravel A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

Chalk03 1 4 Large boulders interspersed with patches of sand and shell A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock IR.MIR



Chalk04 1 4 Cobbles, pebbles and shells on rippled sand A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock CR.HCR

BHE20 1 4 Sandy sediment with cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS


Station Code

Habitat No

No of stills Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

MNCR Code

BHE21 1 3 Cobbles, boulders, sands and shells A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS



BHE27 1 4 Rippled gravelly shelly sand A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS



Sab01 1 4 Shelly/gravelly sand with occasional cobbles A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS



BHE33 1 4 Cobbles and boulders covered in silty sand A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx

Sab02 1 4 Rippled sand with gravel A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS

Sab03 1 4 Rippled sand A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa



Appendix 7. Example images for broadscale habitats from survey

Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during suvey

A4 Circalittoral rock Circalittoral rock is characterised by animal dominated communities (a departure from the algae dominated communities in the infralittoral zone).

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment

Coarse sediments including coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles which are often unstable as a consequence of tidal currents and/or wave action.

A5.2 Subtidal sand Clean medium to fine sands or non-cohesive slightly muddy sands on open coasts, offshore or in estuaries and marine inlets.


Appendix 8. Example images for habitat FOCI from survey

Habitat FOCI Description Example Image taken during survey


Sab03

(Fig. 2. Stn No 47)


BHdE5

(Fig. 2. Stn No 8)


This page intentionally left blank

© Crown Copyright 2014

Documents

Beachy Head East rMCZ Post-survey Site Reportrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=12821...Prior to the dedicated survey, the site assessment had been made on the basis of best