Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Reportrandd.defra.gov.uk/...OffshoreBrightonrMCZ...v4.pdf · personnel at the Offshore Brighton rMCZ site during June, 2012. 2.1 Location of

Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 40 Version 4

September 2015

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 40. Title: Offshore Brighton 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 Dayton Dove British Geological Survey (BGS) [email protected] Sophie Green British Geological Survey (BGS) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Markus Diesing, Alex Callaway and Christopher Barrio Frojan for reviewing earlier drafts of this report. 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 report’s content. Although the data provided in this report have been quality assured, the final products - e.g. habitat maps – may be subject to revision following any further data provision or once they have been used in SNCB advice or assessments.

Cefas Document Control Title: Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group

Date submitted: September 2015

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Dayton Dove, Sophie Green

Quality control by: Markus Diesing, Alex Callaway and Christopher Barrio Frojan

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (23/09/2015)

Version: V4

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Dove, D., and Green, S.

06/03/2014 1st draft to internal reviewer V1


19/03/2014 2nd draft to internal reviewer V2


07/07/2015 Revised following external reviewers’ comments V3

Weston, K. 23/09/2015 Revised following Defra comments V4

Offshore Brighton 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 ...... 1

1.2 Features present but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ ............................... 2

2 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Location of the rMCZ ..................................................................................... 3

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation .................................................... 4

2.3 Rationale for prioritising this rMCZ for additional evidence collection ........... 5

2.4 Survey aims and objectives .......................................................................... 5

3 Methods ........................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition ............................................................................... 7

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition .................................................................... 7

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map ......................................................... 8

3.4 Quality of the updated map ........................................................................... 9

4 Results ........................................................................................................ 10

4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map .................................................... 10

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ........................................ 10

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 12

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 12

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 13

4.6 Species FOCI identified .............................................................................. 14

4.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................... 15

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 15

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed .......................................... 16

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 17

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ............................................... 17

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI .......................................................... 17

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ................................................. 18

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 18

References ............................................................................................................... 19

Data sources ............................................................................................................ 21

Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 22

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. ..................................... 22

Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................ 23

Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ....................... 24

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ..................................... 25

Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol. .................................................... 26

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 28

Appendix 1. Survey metadata .............................................................................. 28

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ......................................................... 30

Appendix 3. Species list ....................................................................................... 32

Appendix 4. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 38

Appendix 5. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 40

Appendix 6. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ..................... 42

Appendix 7. Example image from survey for habitat FOCI .................................. 43

Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .... 4

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. ............... 5

Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .............. 5

Table 4. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. .............................................. 13

Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ......................................................... 14

Table 6. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ....................................................... 14

Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Offshore Brighton rMCZ. .................................................... 4

Figure 2. Location of groundtruthing sampling sites in the Offshore Brighton rMCZ. ........................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 10

Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. ................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified. ............................................................................ 14

Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey at the Offshore Brighton 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 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 analysis of available data. Data analysed were collected during surveys of the site conducted by Cefas in February and June, 2012. The comparison covers broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI.

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

Feature

Extent according

to SAD

Extent according to updated

habitat map*

Accordance between SAD and updated

habitat map

Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 175.67 km2 128.21 km2 -47.46 km2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 11.04 km2 0 km2 -11.04 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 675.92 km2 233.64 km2 -442.28 km2

Habitat FOCI

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 458.19 km2 498.94 km2 +40.75 km2

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 1,879 m2 0 m2 -1,879 m2

Species FOCI

None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A

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

Feature

Extent according

to SAD

Extent according to updated habitat map

Accordance between SAD and updated

habitat map

Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment Not

Reported 498.94 km2 498.94 km2

Habitat FOCI

None reported N/A N/A N/A N/A

Species FOCI

None reported N/A N/A N/A N/A


1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ

There is no evidence from the multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetry and backscatter of human activities impacting the seabed within the boundaries of the rMCZ.


2 Introduction

In accordance 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 the 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 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 projects proposed a total of 127 recommended MCZs (rMCZs) and compiled a Site Assessment Document (SAD) for each site. The SAD summarises what evidence was 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.

Owing to 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 on features for which some sites had been recommended as MCZs was of variable quality. Consequently, 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 co-ordinated 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 Cefas and JNCC personnel at the Offshore Brighton rMCZ site during June, 2012.

2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Offshore Brighton rMCZ is located in the English Channel, approximately 45 km south of Selsey Bill, West Sussex (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Location of the Offshore Brighton rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation

The Offshore Brighton rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) criteria to broadscale habitats (BSH), and its added ecological importance. For a detailed site description see 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

Three broadscale habitats were included in the recommendations for designation at this site (Table 1). See Annex 1 for full list of broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG.

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

EUNIS code & Broadscale Habitat Spatial extent according to the SAD

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 175.67 km2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 11.04 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 675.92 km2


2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

Two habitat FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation at this site, ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ and ‘Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs’ (Table 2). Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG.

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

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 458.19 km2

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 1,879 m2

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

No species FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this rMCZ (Table 3).

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

Species FOCI

Low or limited mobility species FOCI

None Proposed N/A

Highly mobile species FOCI

None Proposed N/A

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 amount and quality of evidence for the presence and extent of broadscale habitat features and habitat FOCI and, where possible, 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 Offshore Brighton rMCZ was Low/Moderate (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 groundtruthing data to allow the production of an updated map which could be used to inform the presence of broadscale habitats and habitat FOCI, and 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 in the ENG (Annexes 3 and 4) within the rMCZ.

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

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

Whilst 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 of condition of given habitat features in the future.


3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition

Acoustic data were acquired over only part of the Offshore Brighton rMCZ, with data coverage of approximately 10% (Appendix 2). MBES bathymetry and backscatter data were acquired by the RV Cefas Endeavour in June 2012 (cruise code: CEND 08c12) along corridors, as well as within two small (c. 2 km x 2 km) ‘nested’ survey areas where 100% data coverage was achieved. Bathymetric data were collected and processed in accordance with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys - Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). Further details on the acquisition and processing of MBES bathymetry data can be found in the Survey Report (Whomersley, 2013). Processing of the backscatter data was undertaken by Cefas. The software package QPS FM Geocoder Toolkit (FMGT) was used to produce fully compensated and corrected backscatter mosaic images, and these were exported as floating point geotiff files for further analysis.

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

Ground truth samples were acquired from the RV Cefas Endeavour in February and June, 2012 (cruise codes: CEND 03b12 and 08c12, respectively). Ground truth samples were collected from 44 stations which were positioned according to seabed sediment predictions made from pre-existing data and reports, in particular from the MALSF English Channel Synthesis Regional Environmental Characterisation (James et al., 2011), and overlaid on the SAD habitat map (Figure 2; Appendix 1). A combination of physical sediment grabs and seabed imagery were acquired during each survey. Sediment grabs were acquired using a 0.1 m² mini Hamon grab fitted with a video camera (the combined gear known as the HamCam), allowing for an image to be captured of the undisturbed seabed. Sediment samples were sub-sampled for particle size analysis (PSA). Complete sediment analysis was conducted by Cefas, and samples were classified into both Folk and EUNIS BSH classes. Video and stills imagery were acquired with camera sledge (CS) and drop-camera (DC) systems. Set-up and operation followed the MESH Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques (Coggan et al., 2007). The DC system was used over rocky substrate areas not amenable to the use of the CS system. Video and stills imagery was taken at all stations, except where the initial station confirmed the BSH predictions, in which case imagery was acquired at approximately every third station. Camera deployments lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the vessel executing a controlled drift at c. 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s-1) across a 50 m ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling station. Still images were captured at regular one minute intervals and opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered.


Figure 2. Location of groundtruthing sampling sites in the Offshore Brighton rMCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011).

3.3 Production of the updated habitat map

All new maps and their derivatives have been based on a WGS84 datum. A new habitat map for the site was produced by analysing and interpreting the available acoustic data and the groundtruthing data collected by the dedicated survey of this site. The process solely relies on expert interpretation as automated or semi-automated approaches were not possible given the spatial extent of geophysical and ground truth sample data in the Offshore Brighton rMCZ.

Prior to analysis, the ship-based bathymetry and backscatter data were re-sampled onto a common grid at 2 m resolution. This data preparation results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 2 m x 2 m grid cell and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data).

Geophysical and groundtruthing data were reviewed manually to assign sedimentological characterisations in accordance with the EUNIS habitat classification system. With an understanding of geological processes and characteristics in relation to the distribution of BSH, the analyst can extrapolate BSH classification to areas where high resolution geophysical and ground truth data are not available. This was corroborated with evidence from ground truth sample stations, where available. Finally the polygons were extended into the area of lower resolution modelled bathymetric data (Astrium, 2011) using expert judgement


developed from the interpretation of data within the geophysical corridors. The map produced should be considered as a representation of the dominant sediment type present within a polygon area.

As confirmed by the grab samples, high backscatter intensity values indicate gravel percentage values greater than 5%, indicating either ‘coarse’ or ‘mixed’ sediments. The analyst used the groundtruthing results to further sub-divide these areas of high backscatter into segregated ‘coarse’ and ‘mixed’ classes. Taking into account that the PSA data provide a more quantitative assessment of sediment fractions than that of the video/still image analysis, the PSA data were used as the primary groundtruthing dataset for purposes of mapping broadscale habitats. Because of the difficulty in discriminating between these two classes, and the relative sparse high-resolution acoustic data, significant emphasis was placed on the broadscale bathymetry, and the apparent geomorphological features within, for the prediction of BSH within this rMCZ.

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 north-west 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 score of 100 but, as the current rMCZ exercise requires the mapping of broadscale physical habitats, not biotopes, it excludes the need for biological data. In the absence of biological data, the maximum score attainable for a purely physical map is 88.

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

1 http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 29/01/2015]

http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html


4 Results

The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples is presented in Appendix 3; a total of 167 infaunal and 63 epifaunal taxa were recorded.

A summary of the PSA of the grab samples is given in Appendix 4. Of the 36 stations where a sample was obtained, coarse sediment was recorded at 19 stations, and mixed sediments at 17 stations.

Results from the analysis of the seabed video and stills are summarised in Appendix 5. Example images taken during the survey of the BSHs and habitat FOCI recorded in the video analysis are given in Appendices 6 and 7 respectively.

4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map

The SAD habitat map (Figure 3) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap 2010 (v5) (McBreen, 2011). For further detail see Balanced Seas (2011).

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document.

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data

The updated habitat map resulting from an integrated analysis of corridors of high-resolution acoustic data and groundtruthing data acquired in 2012, as well as broadscale bathymetry (Astrium, 2011), is presented in Figure 4.


Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data.


4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map

High-resolution acoustic data were only acquired along discrete corridors (Figure 5), with the remainder of the site covered by lower resolution bathymetry data (Astrium, 2011). Differences in the quality and accuracy of the geophysical datasets used have led to the calculation of two MESH confidence scores. In areas covered by the high-resolution survey data collected in 2012, this map attained a score of 84 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool (Figure 5), which is good, given that the maximum possible score for a purely physical map is 88. Areas outside of the 2012 survey attained a score of 71 due to the lower quality bathymetric data used for the purpose of mapping (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map.

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified

The BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ is the most widespread habitat type, occupying 58% of the rMCZ (Figure 4; Table 4). The BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ occupies 27%, and the BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ occupies 15% of the rMCZ.

This rMCZ incorporates one large-scale geomorphological feature, the English Channel Palaeovalley system, which influences the regional sediment distribution. The English Channel palaeovalleys are wide and frequently flat, as they incise bedrock, in this case Cretaceous chalk. Their origin is disputed. They may be the result of catastrophic flooding following the outburst of a glacial lake in the North Sea, previously dammed by the Dover Isthmus (e.g. Gupta et al., 2007), or may


result from more steady-state erosion from the drainage of Northern European river systems that fed the North Sea basin and English Channel (e.g. Mellett et al., 2013).

A large palaeovalley crosses the northwest sector of the rMCZ (Figure 1). A shallower, broad tributary channel system extends E-W across the rMCZ, and the BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ is exposed at seabed where this system becomes confluent with the deeper palaeovalley. This is confirmed by several video still results, and rugged topography observed in the MBES bathymetry. The lower resolution Astrium bathymetry data are used to extrapolate this bedrock domain over a larger (rugged) area. Chalk bedrock is present at or near seabed (≤1 m) across most, if not the entire rMCZ. A thin veneer of sediment frequently overlies the bedrock, however this sediment cover is discontinuous. As high-resolution acoustic data are sparse, most of the regional interpretation is based on the coarser bathymetry data, which is not sensitive to local variation in sediment cover. It is therefore important to note that the final map presents polygons of the dominant, but not exclusive, sediment type within an area (e.g. where rock is mapped, there will be significant occurrences of sediment cover, and where sediment is mapped there will be frequent exposures of rock).

As it is not possible to use MBES backscatter intensity values to discriminate between BSHs ‘A5. 1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’, bathymetry data is relied upon to provide some pattern, or set of morphology-based rules (e.g. landform-sediment associations) with which to extrapolate groundtruthing results across broader areas. With the exception of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ polygon which is mapped on a relative bathymetric high in the far east of the rMCZ, and the two broad terraces on the margins of the palaeovalley which are mapped as BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’, this method is unfortunately not viable across the majority of the rMCZ. There is no consistent relationship between the bathymetry and groundtruthing, therefore a simple boundary has been drawn to separate the BSHs ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ in the eastern third of the rMCZ, from ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, across much of the western area.

Table 4. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ.

Broadscale Habitat Type (EUNIS Level 3)

Spatial extent according to the SAD

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat map

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 175.67 km2 128.21 km2

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 11.04 km2 0 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment Not Reported 498.94 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 675.92 km2 233.64 km2

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The SAD estimates the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ as 458.19 km2 and of ‘Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs’ as 1879 m2 (Table 5; Figure 6). While Sabellaria spinulosa was identified in the groundtruthing samples, it was not sufficiently numerous, or dense enough to be considered as forming reefs that may be observed in the acquired groundtruthing images nor on the MBES bathymetry and backscatter data record.

The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ occupies 498.94 km2, or approximately 58% of the surveyed area. The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ may be


present within the rMCZ, as chalk is the expected bedrock type underlying the unconsolidated sediments. It however was not identified in the groundtruthing data and is not mapped in this investigation.

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified.

Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according

to the SAD

Spatial extent according to the updated habitat

map

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 458.19 km2 498.94 km2

4.6 Species FOCI identified

No species FOCI were observed by the 2012 dedicated surveys of this rMCZ (Table 6).

Table 6. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ.

Species FOCI Previously recorded

within rMCZ Identified during evidence

gathering survey

Low or Limited Mobility Species

None recorded N/A N/A

Highly Mobile Species

None recorded N/A N/A


4.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

4.7.1 Acoustic data

The acoustic data used for production of the updated habitat map were collected under the Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP) as well as by Cefas aboard the RV Cefas Endeavour. The acquisition and processing of the MBES bathymetry data complied with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys-Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). The accompanying MBES backscatter data were reviewed and processed by specialist Cefas staff to ensure they were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretation and production of the updated habitat map.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis

PSA was carried out by Cefas scientists following standard laboratory practice following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011). Infaunal samples from grabs were processed by Seastar Survey Ltd following standard laboratory practices, and results checked following the recommendations of the NMBAQC scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.7.3 Video and still images and analysis

Video and photographic stills were processed by Seastar Survey Ltd and OceanEcology Ltd in accordance with the guidance documents developed by Cefas and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (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). A source of potential misclassification of habitats arises from the location of groundtruthing samples in relation to habitat types.

The surveys have provided substantial, robust evidence for the presence of the mapped habitats. However, as 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 but has not been recorded, especially if it was limited in extent.

The precise location of the boundaries between the broadscale habitats depicted on the new habitat map should be regarded as indicative, not 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 judgment. Again, we stress that due to the absence of complete high-resolution acoustic data coverage, the final BSH map presents the dominant substrate classes expected at seabed, but there will be locations where small-scale variation at seabed will not be reflected in the final BSH map (e.g. rock exposures where sediment is mapped, due to discontinuous and thin


sediment cover). This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI.

4.9 Observations of human impacts on the seabed

No evidence of human impact was observed on the seabed.


5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ that were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey has not confirmed the presence of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’. This BSH was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ on the updated habitat map is 128.21 km2. This is 47.46 km2 less than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ on the updated habitat map is 498.94 km2. This is 40.75 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ on the updated habitat map is 233.64 km2. This is 442.28 km2 less than its spatial extent 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 habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’. This habitat FOCI was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey has not confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs’ that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ on the updated habitat map is 498.94 km2. This was not identified in the SAD habitat map.


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.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI

No highly mobile species FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2012 dedicated survey.

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed

There was no evidence of human activities recorded on the seabed.


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). Final Report and Recommendations to Natural England and JNCC.

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 08/01/2015]

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

Gupta, S., Collier, J.S., Palmer-Felgate, A., Potter, G. (2007). Catastrophic flooding origin of shelf valley systems in the English Channel. Nature 448, 342-345.

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, T.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. 158 pp.

JNCC (in prep.). Video/Stills Camera Standard Operating Procedure for Survey and Analysis: for groundtruthing 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.

JNCC and Natural England (2012). Marine Conservation Zone Project: JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine Conservation Zones. Peterborough and Sheffield. 1455 pp.

McBreen, F., Askew, N., Cameron, A., Connor, D., Ellwood, H. & Carter, A. 2011. UKSeaMap 2010: Predictive mapping of seabed habitats in UK waters. JNCC Report, No. 446. Available online [http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukseamap]. Mellett, C.L., Hodgson, D.M., Plater, A.J., Mauz, B., Selby, I. and Lang, A. (2013). Denudation of the continental shelf between Britain and France at the glacial–interglacial timescale. Geomorphology 20, 79-96.

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)

Whomersley, P. (2013). Offshore Brighton rMCZ Survey Report. Cruise Code: CEND 08c/12. 40 pp.

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


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. http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf [Accessed 08/01/2015]

http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf

http://www.nmbaqcs.org/media/9732/nmbaqc%20-%20inv%20-%20prp%20-%20v1.0%20june2010.pdf


Data sources

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

mailto:[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 reefs 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. **** Subtidal Sands and Gravels are considered to be adequately protected by its component habitat features subtidal sand and/or subtidal coarse sediment, and is no longer included within MCZ designations.


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***

Leptopsammia 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. *** The stalked jellyfish Haliclystus auricula is now referred to as Haliclystus species for the purpose of MCZ protection to account for potential presence of Haliclystus octoradiatus that has not been consistently differentiated within scientific records. The species are therefore considered jointly as an MCZ feature. **** The sea snail (Paludinella littorina) has been removed from Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that it is no longer a Feature of Conservation Importance (FOCI) so has been removed as a feature for MCZ designation


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. ** MCZs are no longer considered to be an appropriate tool for the protection of European eels. They have been identified as habitat generalists for which it is particularly difficult to identify unique nursery or foraging grounds due to their wide distribution across coastal and freshwater zones. Conservation and management of European eels is considered to be more effectively achieved through the Eel Regulations and Eel Management Plans.


Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol.

The purpose of the analysis of the video and still images is to identify which habitats exist in a video record, 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 should be re-analysed 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 substrate 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 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 Marine Nature Conservation Review (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 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 that are 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 substrate 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 confidently achieved from the available image. Hence, taxon identity could range from the ‘life form’ level (e.g. sponge, hydroid, anemone) to the species level (e.g. Asterias rubens, Alcyonium digitatum). Avoid the temptation to guess the species identity if it cannot be determined positively from the image. For example, Spirobranchus sp. would be acceptable, but Spirobranchus triqueter would not, as the specific identification normally requires the specimen to be inspected under a microscope.


Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata

Groundtruthing Survey CEND 03b12

Date sampled

Time Sampled Station code

Station number

Gear code

Latitude (degrees)

Longitude (degrees)

28/02/2012 13:47:00 OB1 925 DC 50.2832 -0.7753

28/02/2012 13:57:00 OB1 925 DC 50.2831 -0.7737

28/02/2012 14:27:00 OB2 926 DC 50.2827 -0.6958

28/02/2012 14:37:00 OB2 926 DC 50.2822 -0.6969

28/02/2012 15:04:00 OB3 927 DC 50.2825 -0.6250

28/02/2012 15:14:00 OB3 927 DC 50.2821 -0.6261

Groundtruthing Survey CEND 08c12

Date sampled


Station number

Gear code

Latitude (degrees)

Longitude (degrees)

06/06/2012 09:07:00 OB_MX_28 220 HC 50.2402 -0.2819

06/06/2012 10:06:00 OB_MX_19 222 HC 50.2756 -0.3252

06/06/2012 10:42:48 OB_MX_19 SOL 223 CS 50.2764 -0.3249

06/06/2012 10:52:20 OB_MX_19 EOL 223 CS 50.2762 -0.326

06/06/2012 11:41:00 OB_MX_16 225 HC 50.3173 -0.2988

06/06/2012 12:47:00 OB_MX_09 227 HC 50.3526 -0.342

06/06/2012 13:09:28 OB_MX_09 SOL 228 CS 50.354 -0.3446

06/06/2012 13:21:02 OB_MX_09 EOL 228 CS 50.3537 -0.3433

06/06/2012 14:17:00 OB_MX_08 230 HC 50.3461 -0.4119

06/06/2012 15:09:00 OB_MX_15 232 HC 50.3107 -0.3684

06/06/2012 15:52:00 OB_MX_18 234 HC 50.2694 -0.3946

06/06/2012 16:57:00 OB_MX_27 236 HC 50.2338 -0.3515

06/06/2012 17:42:00 OB_MX_26 238 HC 50.2275 -0.4208

06/06/2012 17:54:23 OB_MX_26 SOL 239 CS 50.2274 -0.4242

06/06/2012 18:05:38 OB_MX_26 EOL 239 CS 50.2276 -0.4228

06/06/2012 19:01:00 OB_MX_25 241 HC 50.2212 -0.4905

06/06/2012 19:47:00 OB_MX_24 243 HC 50.2148 -0.5598

06/06/2012 20:34:00 OB_MX_23 245 HC 50.2084 -0.6292

06/06/2012 20:46:19 OB_MX_23 SOL 246 CS 50.2081 -0.6264

06/06/2012 20:56:26 OB_MX_23 EOL 246 CS 50.2082 -0.6277

06/06/2012 22:11:00 OB_MX_22 248 HC 50.2023 -0.6966

06/06/2012 23:03:00 OB_MX_31 250 HC 50.1603 -0.7228

06/06/2012 23:54:00 OB_MX_21 252 HC 50.1953 -0.7681

07/06/2012 00:17:50 OB_MX_21 SOL 253 CS 50.1956 -0.7659

07/06/2012 00:29:12 OB_MX_21 EOL 253 CS 50.1953 -0.7672

07/06/2012 01:14:00 OB_MX_30 255 HC 50.1535 -0.7938

07/06/2012 02:06:00 OB_MX_29 257 HC 50.1468 -0.8636

07/06/2012 02:22:02 OB_MX_29 SOL 258 CS 50.1472 -0.866

07/06/2012 02:32:34 OB_MX_29 EOL 258 CS 50.1471 -0.8646

07/06/2012 03:25:00 OB_MX_20 260 HC 50.1893 -0.8388

07/06/2012 04:35:00 OB_MX_10 262 HC 50.2655 -0.8563


Date sampled


Station number

Gear code

Latitude (degrees)

Longitude (degrees)

07/07/2012 05:07:02 OB_MX_10 SOL 263 CS 50.2643 -0.8628

07/07/2012 05:17:02 OB_MX_10 EOL 263 CS 50.2644 -0.8615

07/07/2012 06:04:00 OB_MX_01 265 HC 50.3004 -0.8988

07/07/2012 07:46:23 OB_MX_02 SOL 268 CS 50.3073 -0.8294

07/07/2012 07:56:14 OB_MX_02 EOL 268 CS 50.3071 -0.8307

07/06/2012 08:47:00 OB_MX_03 270 HC 50.3138 -0.7597

07/06/2012 10:19:00 OB_MX_04 273 HC 50.3207 -0.6898

07/06/2012 10:33:31 OB_MX_04 SOL 274 CS 50.3214 -0.6865

07/06/2012 10:43:39 OB_MX_04 EOL 274 CS 50.321 -0.6878

07/06/2012 11:37:00 OB_MX_11 276 HC 50.2852 -0.6467

07/06/2012 12:32:00 OB_MX_05 278 HC 50.327 -0.6205

07/06/2012 13:14:00 OB_MX_12 280 HC 50.2916 -0.5774

07/06/2012 13:29:48 OB_MX_12 SOL 281 CS 50.2927 -0.579

07/06/2012 13:39:30 OB_MX_12 EOL 281 CS 50.2922 -0.5781

07/06/2012 14:30:00 OB_MX_06 283 HC 50.3334 -0.5511

07/06/2012 15:18:00 OB_MX_13 285 HC 50.2979 -0.5078

07/06/2012 16:01:00 OB_MX_07 287 HC 50.3396 -0.4814

07/06/2012 16:16:03 OB_MX_07 SOL 288 CS 50.3395 -0.484

07/06/2012 16:26:21 OB_MX_07 EOL 288 CS 50.3396 -0.4827

07/06/2012 17:10:00 OB_MX_14 290 HC 50.3043 -0.4379

07/06/2012 17:53:00 OB_MX_17 292 HC 50.2626 -0.4644

07/06/2012 18:07:24 OB_MX_17 SOL 293 CS 50.2624 -0.4677

07/06/2012 18:17:52 OB_MX_17 EOL 293 CS 50.2626 -0.4663

07/06/2012 19:54:32 OB_R_25 SOL 295 CS 50.2472 -0.4612

07/06/2012 20:05:45 OB_R_25 EOL 295 CS 50.2467 -0.4615

07/06/2012 20:50:33 OB_R_23 SOL 297 CS 50.2452 -0.4874

07/06/2012 21:02:00 OB_R_23 EOL 297 CS 50.245 -0.4883

07/06/2012 07:21:42 OB_R_18 SOL 299 CS 50.2353 -0.5086

07/06/2012 07:35:49 OB_R_18 EOL 299 CS 50.2355 -0.5067

09/06/2012 09:34:01 OB_R_14 SOL 302 CS 50.2328 -0.5363

09/06/2012 09:44:17 OB_R_14 EOL 302 CS 50.2324 -0.5376

09/06/2012 10:26:48 OB_R_17 SOL 304 CS 50.2424 -0.5115

09/06/2012 10:36:54 OB_R_17 EOL 304 CS 50.2417 -0.5122

09/06/2012 11:52:54 OB_R_19 SOL 306 CS 50.2506 -0.5087

09/06/2012 12:03:53 OB_R_19 EOL 306 CS 50.2503 -0.5099

09/06/2012 12:47:32 OB_R_13 SOL 308 CS 50.2569 -0.531

09/06/2012 12:58:04 OB_R_13 EOL 308 CS 50.2566 -0.5324

09/06/2012 14:01:36 OB_R_12 SOL 310 CS 50.2515 -0.5871

09/06/2012 14:11:40 OB_R_12 EOL 310 CS 50.2512 -0.5883

09/06/2012 17:21:00 OB_R_11 314 HC 50.2435 -0.6653

09/06/2012 17:54:00 OB_R_10 316 HC 50.2409 -0.7007

10/06/2012 07:24:00 OB_R_14 340 HC 50.2329 -0.5357

10/06/2012 07:57:00 OB_R_17 342 HC 50.2424 -0.5166

10/06/2012 08:28:00 OB_R_23 344 HC 50.245 -0.4886

10/06/2012 09:06:00 OB_R_25 346 HC 50.2475 -0.4609

28/02/2012 13:47:07 OB_1 SOL 925 DC 50.2832 -0.7753

Key: CS – Camera Sledge; DC – Drop Camera; HC – HamCam,


Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys



Appendix 3. 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

FLATWORMS

Platyhelminthes 8

RIBBON WORMS

Nemertea 78

PENIS WORMS

Priapulus caudatus 3

PEANUT WORMS

Sipunculidae 24

Golfingia vulgaris 3

Phascolion strombus 3

SEGMENTED WORMS

Lumbrineris cingulata (agg) 92

Polynoidae 89

Notomastus latericeus 78

Scalibregma celticum 73

Laonice bahusiensis 59

Cirratulus cirratus 51

Polycirrus medusa 46

Lumbrineriopsis paradoxa 43

Sabellaria spinulosa 43

Tharyx killariensis 43

Aonides oxycephala 41

Thelepus cincinnatus 41

Eumida bahusiensis 38

Pista cristata 38

Eulalia mustela 35

Lysidice ninetta 32

Pherusa plumosa 32

Levinsenia gracilis 30

Lysidice unicornis 30

Pholoe inornata (sensu Petersen) 30

Sphaerodorum gracilis 30

Clymenura johnstoni 27

Ampharete 24

Proceraea cornuta (agg) 24

Sthenelais limicola 24

Syllis variegata 24

Dorvillea rubrovittata 22

Eunice vittata 19

Podarkeopsis capensis 19

Chaetozone gibber 16

Euphrosine armadillo 16

Trypanosyllis coeliaca 16

Eupolymnia nebulosa 14

Glycera lapidum (agg) 14


Taxa % Occurrence

Nereis zonata 14

Arabella iricolor 8

Eulalia tripunctata 8

Eunereis longissima 8

Pelogenia arenosa 8

Syllis hyalina 8

Eteone longa 5

Haplosyllis spongicola 5

Nephtys 5

Nephtys cirrosa 5

Nephtys longosetosa 5

Ophelia rathkei 5

Sabellidae 5

Scoletoma fragilis 5

Syllidae 5

Abyssoninoe hibernica 3

Amphicteis midas 3

Anaitides longipes 3

Aphelochaeta marioni 3

Chaetozone zetlandica 3

Cirratulidae 3

Diplocirrus glaucus 3

Drilonereis filum 3

Euclymene oerstedii 3

Eulalia bilineata 3

Eurysyllis tuberculata 3

Exogone hebes 3

Glycera 3

Glycera alba 3

Hypereteone foliosa 3

Marphysa sanguinea 3

Mysta barbata 3

Nicomache lumbricalis 3

Onuphis eremita 3

Orbinia sertulata 3

Petaloproctus terricola 3

Pholoe pallida 3

Phyllodocidae 3

Prionospio cirrifera 3

Pseudopotamilla reniformis 3

Syllis prolifera 3

SEA SPIDERS

Achelia echinata 24

Callipallene tiberi 11

Nymphon brevirostre 11

Callipallene brevirostris 8

CRUSTACEANS

Unciola crenatipalma 24

Pisidia longicornis 22

Animoceradocus semiserratus 19


Taxa % Occurrence

Decapoda 19

Eurynome spinosa 19

Galathea 19

Janira maculosa 19

Ampelisca spinipes 14

Leptocheirus hirsutimanus 11

Nannonyx spinimanus 11

Phtisica marina 11

Urothoe elegans 11

Amphilochus manudens 8

Conilera cylindracea 8

Cyathura carinata 8

Ebalia tuberosa 8

Eurydice truncata 8

Galathea dispersa 8

Galathea intermedia 8

Alpheus macrocheles 5

Anthura gracilis 5

Eurydice 5

Eusirus longipes 5

Gammaropsis maculata 5

Iphimedia eblanae 5

Microdeutopus gryllotalpa 5

Paguridae 5

Pagurus 5

Pilumnus hirtellus 5

Sphaeromatidae 5

Ampelisca 3

Apherusa ovalipes 3

Atelecyclus rotundatus 3

Cymodoce truncata 3

Dyopedos porrectus 3

Harpinia pectinata 3

Hippolyte longirostris 3

Hyas coarctatus 3

Leptocheirus pectinatus 3

Leucothoe spinicarpa 3

Liocarcinus pusillus 3

Lysianassa ceratina 3

Lysianassa plumosa 3

Macropodia 3

Monoculodes 3

Pagurus pubescens 3

Pseudoprotella phasma 3

Upogebia pusilla 3

Urothoe brevicornis 3

Vaunthompsonia cristata 3

MOLLUSCS

Glycymeris glycymeris 78

Nucula nucleus 59


Taxa % Occurrence

Emarginula rosea 30

Gari tellinella 24

Timoclea ovata 22

Acanthochitona fascicularis 14

Mimachlamys varia 14

Aequipecten opercularis 8

Calyptraea chinensis 8

Leptochiton asellus 8

Leptochiton scabridus 8

Polititapes rhomboides 8

Diodora graeca 5

Spisula elliptica 5

Barnea 3

Eulima bilineata 3

Modiolus adriaticus 3

Mya truncata 3

Pecten maximus 3

Sphenia binghami 3

Trivia arctica 3

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 8

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Ophiothrix fragilis 65

Amphiura 49

Ophiothrix 24

Amphiura securigera 8

Amphiura filiformis 3

Crossaster papposus 3

Echinocyamus pusillus 3

Psammechinus miliaris 3

FISH

Diplecogaster bimaculata 3

Liparis liparis 3

Species list for video 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

Porifera 70

Hemimycale columella 26

Stelligera 17

Axinella dissimilis 4

Dysidea fragilis 4

Pachymatisma johnstonia 4

Polymastia boletiformis 4

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Hydrozoa 100


Taxa % Occurrence

Nemertesia 83

Hydrallmania falcata 78

Urticina 61

Cerianthus lloydi 52

Actinaria 48

Anthozoa 13

Alcyonium digitatum 9

Halecium 9

Sertulariidae 9

Thuiaria thuja 9

Sagartia elegans 4

SEGMENTED WORMS

Spirobranchus 87

Sabellaria spinulosa 39

Serpulidae 17

Filograninae 13

CRUSTACEANS

Paguridae 83

Cirripedia 61

Ebalia 61

Hyas araneus 43

Brachyura 30

Inachus 22

Majidae 9

Caridea 4

Galatheidae 4

MOLLUSCS

Aequipecten opercularis 87

Pectinidae 70

Calliostoma zizyphinum 65

Gastropoda 57

Buccinum undatum 48

Pecten maximus 43

Gibbula tumida 13

Pelecypoda 9

BRYOZOANS

Bryozoa 100

Flustra foliacea 96

Pentapora facialis 39

Vesicularia spinosa 17

Flustridae 13

Crisia 9

Alcyonidium diaphanum 4

Cellaria 4

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Ophiothrix fragilis 61

Asterias rubens 48

Henricia 43

Crossaster papposus 39

Anseropoda placenta 22


Taxa % Occurrence

Ophiocomina nigra 17

Asteroidea 13

Ophiuroidea 9

Echinoidea 4

SEA SQUIRTS

Ascidiacea 74

FISH

Gadidae 9

Callionymus lyra 4

Gobiidae 4

Scyliorhinus canicula 4

ALGAE

Red algae 43


Appendix 4. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition

Station number

Station code

Latitude (degrees)

Longitude (degrees)

Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

Silt/clay (%)

220 OB_MX_28 50.2402 -0.2819 mixed sediments Subtidal mixed sediments 64.65 29.69 5.66


225 OB_MX_16 50.3173 -0.2988 coarse sediment Subtidal coarse sediment 86.21 3.19 10.59


230 OB_MX_08 50.3461 -0.4119 mixed sediments Subtidal mixed sediments 46 48.03 5.98

























Station number

Station code

Latitude (degrees)

Longitude (degrees)

Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH

Gravel (%)

Sand (%)

Silt/clay (%)



314 OB_R_11 50.2435 -0.6653 coarse sediment Subtidal coarse sediment 46.82 52.1 1.08

316 OB_R_10 50.2409 -0.7007 mixed sediments Subtidal mixed sediments 62.7 31.87 5.43


342 OB_R_17 50.2424 -0.5166 mixed sediments Subtidal mixed sediments 67.57 20.59 11.84




Appendix 5. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills

Station No.

Station Code Latitude Longitude

Habitat No. Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code

223 OB_MX_19 50.276414 -0.324911 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS

228 OB_MX_09 50.354009 -0.344556 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx

239 OB_MX_26 50.227441 -0.424198 1 Muddy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.OphMx


253 OB_MX_21 50.195594 -0.765870 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.OphMx

258 OB_MX_29 50.147205 -0.866007 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.OphMx

258 OB_MX_29 50.147168 -0.865666 2 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.FluHyd


268 OB_MX_02 50.307310 -0.829359 1 Muddy gravel and pebbles A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx

268 OB_MX_02 50.307222 -0.829938 2 Cobbles and pebbles A4.1 - High energy circalittoral rock CR.HCR.XFa

268 OB_MX_02 50.307156 -0.830183 3 Muddy gravel and pebbles A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx

268 OB_MX_02 50.307152 -0.830241 4 Cobbles and pebbles A4.1 - High energy circalittoral rock CR.HCR.XFa

274 OB_MX_04 50.321375 -0.686376 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.FluHyd

281 OB_MX_12 50.292698 -0.579076 1 Muddy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx


288 OB_MX_07 50.339459 -0.484020 1 Muddy gravel A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS


295 OB_R_25 50.247212 -0.461208 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.OphMx

295 OB_R_25 50.247120 -0.461278 2 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx

295 OB_R_25 50.246818 -0.461548 3 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.OphMx

297 OB_R_23 50.245237 -0.487432 1 Sandy gravel A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS

299 OB_R_18 50.235337 -0.508590 1 Gravel A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS

302 OB_R_14 50.232672 -0.536733 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.4 - Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx.FluHyd



306 OB_R_19 50.250603 -0.508702 1 Muddy sandy gravel A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS




Station No.

Station Code Latitude Longitude

Habitat No. Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code


925 OB1 50.283151 -0.775339 1 Cobble and boulder A4.1 - High energy circalittoral rock CR.HCR

926 OB2 50.282666 -0.695812 1 Cobbles and pebbles A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS

927 OB3 50.282550 -0.624988 1 Gravel A5.1 - Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS


Appendix 6. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats

Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey

A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock

Occurs on extremely wave-exposed to exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders subject to tidal streams ranging from strong to very strong.

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment

Coarse sediments including coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles which are often unstable due to tidal currents and/or wave action.

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments

Sublittoral mixed (heterogeneous) sediments found from the extreme low water mark to deep offshore circalittoral habitats.


Appendix 7. Example image from survey for habitat FOCI

Habitat FOCI

Description Example Image taken during survey

Subtidal Sands and Gravels

Sand and gravel seabeds widespread around the UK.


This page intentionally left blank

© Crown Copyright 2015

Documents

Offshore Brighton rMCZ Post-survey Site Reportrandd.defra.gov.uk/...OffshoreBrightonrMCZ...v4.pdf · personnel at the Offshore Brighton rMCZ site during June, 2012. 2.1 Location of