Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site...

Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Contract Reference: MB0120

Report Number: 41 Version 6

December 2015

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 41. Title: Offshore Overfalls 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 Claire Mellett British Geological Survey (BGS) [email protected] Sophie Green British Geological Survey (BGS) [email protected] Acknowledgements We thank Alex Callaway, Matthew Curtis and Christopher Barrio Frojan (Cefas) 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 has 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 Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group

Date submitted: December 2015

Project Manager: David Limpenny

Report compiled by: Claire Mellett and Sophie Green

Quality control by: Alex Callaway and Christopher Barrio Frojan

Approved by & date: Keith Weston (22/12/2015)

Version: V6

Version Control History

Author Date Comment Version

Claire Mellett and Sophie Green

16/02/2015 First draft submitted to Cefas 1


17/02/2015 Second draft submitted following Cefas review 2


02/07/2015 Revised following external reviewers’ comments 3

C Barrio Frojan 05/10/2015 Revised following 2nd

round comments 4

C Barrio Frojan 12/11/2015 Final comments 5

C Barrio Frojan 22/12/2015 Additional MPAG comment 6

Offshore Overfalls 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 .................................................................................................... 2

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 .......................................................................... 6

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

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

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

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

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

4 Results ........................................................................................................ 11

4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map .................................................... 11

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ........................................ 11

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ............................................................. 13

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ..................................................................... 13

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ................................................................................ 14

4.6 Species FOCI identified .............................................................................. 16

4.7 Geological features identified ...................................................................... 16

4.8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................... 16

4.9 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ......................... 17

4.10 Observations of human impacts on the seabed .......................................... 17

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 18

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ............................................... 18

5.2 Presence and extent of habitat FOCI .......................................................... 18

5.3 Presence and distribution of species FOCI ................................................. 19

5.4 Evidence of human activities impacting the seabed .................................... 19

References ............................................................................................................... 20

Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii

Data sources ............................................................................................................ 22

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 23

Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG. ..................................... 23

Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. ............................................................ 24

Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG. ....................... 25

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. ..................................... 26

Annex 5. Video and stills processing protocol. .................................................... 27

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (CEND0812) ........................................................ 29

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys ......................................................... 32

Appendix 3. Species list ....................................................................................... 34

Appendix 4. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ....... 42

Appendix 5. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and stills ........ 44

Appendix 6. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ..................... 45

Appendix 7. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI ................................ 46

Offshore Overfalls 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. .............................................. 14

Table 5. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. ......................................................... 15

Table 6. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ ........................................................ 16

Table 7. Geological features identified in this rMCZ. ............................................... 16

Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ. Bathymetry is from Astrium, 2011. .................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ. Bathymetry is from Astrium (2011). ................................................................... 8

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document. .................................. 11

Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data. ................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map. ......................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified. ............................................................................ 15

Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1

1 Executive Summary: Report Card

This report details the findings of the 2012 dedicated seabed survey at the Offshore Overfalls 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 survey of the site conducted by Cefas in 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

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 5.94 km2 433.74 km

2 +427.80 km

2

A5.2 Subtidal sand 38.83 km2 13.30 km

2 -25.53 km

2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 548.74 km2 38.70 km

2 -510.04 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 1.25 km

2 Not observed N/A N/A

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 44.77 km2* 447.04 km

2 +402.27 km

2

Species FOCI

Undulate Ray (Raja undulata) Not given N/A** N/A N/A

Geology

English Channel outburst flood features Not given N/A N/A N/A

* This is the corrected value calculated using the combined estimated spatial extent of the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ broadscale habitats stated in the SAD. Note ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ are considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat features ‘Subtidal sand’ and/or ‘Subtidal coarse sediment’, and is no longer included within MCZ designations.

** The 2012 dedicated survey was not designed to detect highly mobile species FOCI.


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

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock N/A 108.85 km

2 N/A +108.85 km

2

Habitat FOCI

Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis)

Beds Uncertain Not observed N/A

Sheltered Muddy Gravels Uncertain Not observed N/A

Subtidal Chalk N/A 49.66 km2* N/A +49.66 km

2

Species FOCI

Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) Uncertain Not observed N/A

* Tentative extent.

1.3 Evidence of human activities occurring within the rMCZ

There is no evidence from the MBES image of human activities present 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.

Due 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 Overfalls rMCZ site during June 2012.

2.1 Location of the rMCZ

The Offshore Overfalls rMCZ is located in the eastern English Channel approximately 18 km south-east of the Isle of Wight (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Location of the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ. Bathymetry is from Astrium, 2011.

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation

The Offshore Overfalls rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to 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 BSHs 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

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 5.94 km2

A5.2 Subtidal sand 38.83 km2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 548.74 km2

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation

Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG. The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ was included in the recommendations for designation (Table 2). It should be noted that the spatial extent for this habitat FOCI stated in the SAD appears to have been miscalculated as 438.94 km2. The correct spatial extent


(derived from combining the estimated spatial extent of the BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’) is 44.77 km2. The corrected value will be used in this report when comparing the SAD and the updated habitat map.

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

Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 1.25 km2

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 44.77 km2*


2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation

One Highly mobile species FOCI was included in the recommendations for designation of this rMCZ, the Undulate Ray (Raja undulata). No ‘Low or limited mobility species’ FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this site (Table 3). The full list of species FOCI is presented in Annexes 3 and 4.

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

Species FOCI Spatial extent according to SAD

Low or limited mobility species

None proposed N/A

Highly mobile species

Undulate Ray (Raja undulata) Not given*

* No spatial data are held for this species, but anecdotal evidence has been provided by local stakeholders.

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 broad scale habitats and habitat FOCI reported for the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ was Low/Moderate (Balanced Seas, 2011; 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 within 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

New multibeam echosounder (MBES) bathymetry, backscatter and sidescan sonar data were acquired by Cefas for the purpose of mapping the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ. The survey was carried out in June 2012 on RV Cefas Endeavour (cruise code: CEND08c12). Bathymetry data were collected at four designated locations after a review of existing MBES data and the predicted BSH maps developed by the South Coast Regional Environmental Characterisation (James et al., 2010) and English Channel Synthesis studies (James et al., 2011). Bathymetry data were also collected opportunistically, during transit between the groundtruthing stations.

Bathymetry data were collected using a Kongsberg EM2040 MBES system and processed using Caris HIPS. The data were collected and processed in accordance with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys - Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). Processing of the backscatter data was undertaken by Cefas using the raw data. 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. Both bathymetry and backscatter datasets were gridded at 2 m resolution for analysis. The software package QPS FM Geocoder Toolkit (FMGT) was used to produce a fully compensated and corrected backscatter mosaic image that was exported as a floating point geotiff for further analysis. Two prospective sidescan sonar lines were run across the survey site in an east-west orientation using an Edgetech FS-4200 dual frequency (300/600 kHz) sidescan sonar in combination with the Edgetech Discovery software for data recording. Sidescan sonar data were recorded in XTF format and post-processed using the Triton Imaging software suite. Both bathymetry and backscatter data were gridded at 2 m resolution for analysis (see Appendix 2 for images derived from acoustic data).

New MBES bathymetry data did not provide complete coverage of the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ. Therefore, modelled bathymetry data compiled for Defra (Astrium, 2011) were used to guide interpretation in areas not covered by the site specific survey data (Vanstaen et al., 2013). Further details about data compilation, processing and resolution can be found in Astrium (2011).

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition

The location of sampling stations was informed by existing bathymetric data and the predicted BSH maps developed by the South Coast and English Channel Synthesis studies (James et al., 2010; James et al., 2011). Ground truth sampling stations within the sedimentary habitats were positioned using triangular lattice grids overlaid on the predictive habitat map. This resulted in an array of sample stations which varied with density according to the predicted habitat type.

A mini Hamon grab (sampling area: 0.1 m2) was used to collect sediment samples at 59 stations (Figure 2; Appendix 1). The grab system was fitted with a video camera, the combined gear being known as a HamCam. This provided an image of the undisturbed seabed surface at each sampling station. Sub-samples of the sediment recovered using the mini Hamon grab were taken for particle size analysis (PSA).


The remaining sample was photographed and processed for the extraction of macrofauna by washing the sample with sea-water over a 1 mm mesh sieve. The retained fraction was preserved in buffered 4% formaldehyde for later analysis ashore.

Further groundtruthing was accomplished using a video sledge system fitted with a camera with the capability to capture still images. The seabed was successfully sampled at 21 locations using the video sledge system. Illumination was provided by two high intensity LED striplights and a flash unit. The camera was fitted with a four-spot laser-scaling device to provide a reference scale in the video image. Set-up and operation followed the MESH Recommended Operating Guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques (Coggan et al., 2007). Video was recorded simultaneously to a Sony GV-HD700 DV tape and a computer hard drive. A video overlay was used to provide station metadata, time and GPS position (of the vessel) in the recorded video image.

Each camera tow lasted a minimum of 10 minutes, with the sledge towed 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. Video and still images were analysed following an established protocol developed and used by Cefas (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; see Annex 5).

For further detail on ground truth sample collection see the ‘Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Survey Report’ (Vanstaen et al., 2013).

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ. Bathymetry is from 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 broadscale 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 Overfalls rMCZ.

Geophysical and groundtruthing data were reviewed manually to assign sedimentological characterisations in accordance with the EUNIS habitat classification system. Using an understanding of geological processes and characteristics in relation to the distribution of broadscale habitats, the analyst can extrapolate the BSH classification to areas where high-resolution geophysical and ground truth data are not available. The mapping initially focussed on the corridors of geophysical data collected during the dedicated 2012 survey (Vanstaen et al., 2013). These data were of appropriate resolution to detect a change in substratum. This was corroborated with ground truth sample stations where available. Finally, the polygons were extrapolated into the area of lower resolution modelled bathymetric data using expert judgement, combined with interpretation of data within the geophysical corridors.

Areas of hard substrate (rock and rock with thin sediment) were visible in bathymetric data. The texture of the rock was pitted which is characteristic for Chalk. The rock type in these areas according to BGS is Chalk. In addition, there were a limited number of PSA samples in these areas which implied seabed sampling failed, most likely due to the presence of rock. Using all this information, these areas were interpreted as Subtidal Chalk. It is acknowledged that there may be pockets of Subtidal Chalk within these areas as opposed to complete coverage. The mapping produced should be considered as a representation of the dominant substrate type present within a polygon area.

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

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

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


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.


4 Results

The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples is presented in Appendix 3; a total of 278 infaunal and 45 epifaunal taxa were recorded.

A summary of the particle size analysis of the grab samples is given in Appendix 4. Of the 59 stations where a sample was obtained, coarse sediment was recorded at 44 stations, mixed sediments at 14 stations and sand at one station.

In total, 21 videos and 289 still images were available for analysis. Of the still images analysed, 5% were classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, 83% ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, 10% ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and 2% as ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. The analysis of the seabed video and stills is 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 et al., 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 the 2012 dedicated survey data 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

Two sources of geophysical data were used to create the BSH map. The survey data collected in 2012 targeted specific areas and did not provide full coverage of the rMCZ (Vanstaen et al., 2013). Outside of this survey footprint, lower resolution bathymetry data (Astrium, 2011) were used for the purpose of mapping. Differences between the quality and accuracy of the geophysical data used have led to the calculation of two MESH confidence scores according to the data used. In areas covered by the 2012 dedicated survey, the 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 footprint 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’ was the most widespread, occupying almost three quarters of the rMCZ (Figure 4; Table 4). The BSHs ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ together occupy almost one tenth of the rMCZ. The remainder of the rMCZ is classified as the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’.

The BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ is located in two isolated patches that fringe the northern margin of the Northern Palaeovalley; a geological feature that is the remains of an ancient river valley that flowed through the English Channel in the


past. Sand was encountered in one of the ground truth samples and six of the video stills. The location of these ground truth samples is at the margins of areas of marine bedforms that form a collection of sediment ripples and waves. It is interpreted that these marine bedforms predominantly comprise sandy sediment although some coarse or mixed sediments may be present in the troughs of the sediment waves.

The BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ is confined to the northeast of the rMCZ, just north of the northern margin of the Northern Palaeovalley. The bathymetry shows bedrock structures are visible at the seabed in this region but the bedrock is covered with a thin veneer of mixed sediments.

The BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ is distributed sporadically across the rMCZ. In the northwest, rock is predominantly exposed at the seabed and is evident in the acquired video and stills. The geological structures are clearly visible and can be used to delineate the margins of this habitat. Elsewhere, rock is exposed at seabed on streamlined islands within the Northern Palaeovalley, and as a thin ribbon along the valley’s margins where the slope angle is greater than the surrounding seabed.

The BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ is predominant within the rMCZ. It is located on the flanks and terraces of the Northern Palaeovalley, and within the valley floor. In the central northern region of the rMCZ, bedrock structures can be seen at seabed therefore it is expected sediment cover may be thin in this region and in places isolated patches of rock may be present. No new geophysical data was collected in this region and there is a single PSA sample, therefore interpretation of habitat type in this region is with lower confidence than elsewhere across the rMCZ. At the base of the Northern Palaeovalley, coarse sediment is the predominant substrate type. However, at three sample stations, mixed sediments were sampled. There is no strong correlation between the location of the samples and geological characteristics observed using bathymetric data. Therefore, these sample stations are considered outliers and not representative of isolated areas of habitat. Further, at the base of the Northern Palaeovalley, new survey data and backscatter imagery indicate rock is locally present at seabed. Again, due to the low spatial resolution of survey data, these habitats cannot be mapped with confidence.

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

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock N/A 108.85 km2

A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 5.94 km2 433.74 km

2

A5.2 Subtidal sand 38.83 km2 13.30 km

2

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 548.74 km2 38.70 km

2

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified

The SAD estimates that approximately 10% of the rMCZ is covered by the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’. However, the updated habitat map revealed large areas of coarse and sandy sediment making the estimate of ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ much higher (Table 5) covering up to three quarters of the rMCZ. The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ was not identified in the SAD report but was


encountered at 6 of the video sampling stations. These sampling stations coincide with an area of BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Consequently, this area of subtidal rock has been assigned as potential ‘Subtidal Chalk’ habitat FOCI with a calculated extent of 49.66 km2 (Table 5, Figure 6). This is a tentative estimate and further ground truth sampling is required to confirm that extent. The habitat FOCI ‘Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs’ was reported in the SAD. However, no evidence for this habitat FOCI was found during the 2012 dedicated ground truth survey or in the geophysical data record.

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

Ross Worm (Sabellaria spinulosa) Reefs 1.25 km2* Not observed

Subtidal Sands and Gravels 44.77 km2* 447.04 km

2

Subtidal Chalk Not reported 49.66 km2**


** Tentative extent.


4.6 Species FOCI identified

The SAD identified Undulate Ray (Raja undulata) as a species FOCI for designation within the rMCZ (Table 6). However, this species was not identified from video or still images collected during the 2012 dedicated survey (Appendix 3). The 2012 dedicated survey was not designed to detect Highly mobile species FOCI, therefore it was very unlikely they would have been observed.

Table 6. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ

Species FOCI Spatial extent according

to the SAD Presence according to the

updated habitat map

Highly mobile species

Undulate Ray (Raja undulata) Not given N/A

Low or limited mobility species

None N/A N/A

4.7 Geological features identified

The SAD identified geomorphology associated with an English Channel outburst flood as a proposed feature for designation within the Offshore Overfalls rMCZ (Table 7). This feature is a large ancient valley that flows through the site.

Table 7. Geological features identified in this rMCZ.

Geological Feature Conservation objective

English Channel outburst flood feature Maintain

4.8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

4.8.1 Acoustic data

The acoustic data utilised for production of the updated habitat map were collected by Cefas (Vanstaen et al., 2013). Acquisition and processing of the bathymetry data complied with the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) Standards for Hydrographic Surveys-Order 1 (Special Publication 44, Edition 4). The accompanying backscatter data were reviewed and processed by specialist BGS staff to ensure these data were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretations and production of the updated habitat map.

4.8.2 Particle Size Analysis of sediments

PSA was carried out by Kenneth Pye Associated Ltd following standard laboratory practice and the results checked by specialist Cefas staff following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011).

4.8.3 Infaunal samples from grabs

Infaunal samples were processed by Seastar Survey Ltd following standard laboratory practices and results checked following the recommendations of the NMBAQC scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).


4.8.4 Video and still images and analysis

Video and photographic stills were processed by Seastar Survey 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).

4.9 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 and misinterpretation in areas where geophysical data was not of high enough quality to confidently delineate boundaries between BHS or habitat FOCI. The limited number of ground truth samples prevented a thorough external accuracy assessment of the mapping model, which would have been a more reliable indicator of the quality of the map.

The survey has 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 BSH depicted on the 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. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of any of the mapped habitats or FOCI (e.g., the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’).

4.9.1 Presence of Species FOCI

The species FOCI ‘Undulate Ray (Raja undulata)’ was included in the recommendations for proposal of this rMCZ, based on stakeholders’ observations. However, no records of this species were recorded during the survey. This is likely a result of the survey design and equipment utilised not being optimal for the detection of mobile megafauna.

4.10 Observations of human impacts on the seabed

No wrecks were identified in the areas covered by the footprint of the 2012 dedicated survey. There was no evidence of trawl scars resulting from demersal fishing within the area. There is no conclusive evidence of human impacts on the seabed using MBES bathymetry and backscatter images or modelled bathymetry.


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 ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, these were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an rMCZ.

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

5.1.2 Extent

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ on the updated habitat map is 108.85 km2. This was not identified in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ on the updated habitat map is 433.74 km2. This is 427.80 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 38.70 km2. This is 510.04 km2 less than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ on the updated habitat map is 13.30 km2. This is 25.54 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’ that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an rMCZ.

The 2012 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ at this site. This habitat FOCI was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an rMCZ.

5.2.2 Extent and distribution

The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ on the updated habitat map is 447.04 km2. This is 402.27 km2 more than its re-calculated spatial extent in the SAD habitat map. The original extent quoted in the SAD was found to have been miscalculated.


The spatial extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ on the updated habitat map is 49.66 km2. This is a tentative estimate of extent and will require further verification.

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 is no conclusive evidence from the MBES bathymetry or backscatter image of any human activity impacting 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 Recommendations Submission to Natural England and JNCC, Version 2.0.

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 30/01/2015]

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. and 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., Arnott, S.H.L., Clark, R.W.E., Plim, J.F., Pinnion, J., Barrio-Frójan, 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.

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.

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

McBreen, F., Askew, N., Cameron, A., Connor, D., Ellwood, H. and Carter, A. (2011). UKSeaMap 2010 v5: Predictive mapping of seabed habitats in UK waters. JNCC Report, No. 446. Available online from 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 cycle. Geomorphology 203: 79-96.

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

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


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)

Vanstaen, K., Whomersley, P., Rance, J. and Callaway, A. (2013). Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Survey Report. Cefas. Report No: FOV/X/AB/06-12. 48 pp.

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 30/01/2015]

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 broadscale habitat features ‘Subtidal sand’ and/or ‘Subtidal coarse sediment’, and is no longer included within MCZ designations. ***** ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat feature ‘Subtidal mud’ and is no longer included within MCZ designation.


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

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

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. *** Fan mussel should be correctly described as Atrina fragilis. **** 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 (CEND0812)

Date Cruise Stn No. Stn Code Gear Latitude Longitude

03/06/2012 CEND0812 88 MX_23 HC 50.45201 -0.54194

03/06/2012 CEND0812 89 MX_23 SOL CS 50.45209 -0.54094

03/06/2012 CEND0812 89 MX_23 EOL CS 50.45169 -0.54202

03/06/2012 CEND0812 91 MX_24 HC 50.4104 -0.56828

04/06/2012 CEND0812 93 MX_22 HC 50.44569 -0.61158

04/06/2012 CEND0812 95 MX_21 HC 50.43872 -0.68208

04/06/2012 CEND0812 96 MX_21 SOL CS 50.43782 -0.68588

04/06/2012 CEND0812 96 MX_21 EOL CS 50.43821 -0.68473

04/06/2012 CEND0812 98 MX_20 HC 50.43214 -0.75214

04/06/2012 CEND0812 100 MX_19 HC 50.42556 -0.82125

04/06/2012 CEND0812 102 MX_18 HC 50.41939 -0.89075

04/06/2012 CEND0812 103 MX_18 SOL CS 50.41891 -0.88954

04/06/2012 CEND0812 103 MX_18 EOL CS 50.41889 -0.89159

04/06/2012 CEND0812 105 MX_13 HC 50.46146 -0.8649

04/06/2012 CEND0812 107 MX_14 HC 50.46747 -0.79485

04/06/2012 CEND0812 110 MX_15 HC 50.47396 -0.72533

04/06/2012 CEND0812 111 MX_15 SOL CS 50.4741 -0.72405

04/06/2012 CEND0812 111 MX_15 EOL CS 50.47372 -0.72514

04/06/2012 CEND0812 113 MX_16 HC 50.48048 -0.65562

04/06/2012 CEND0812 115 MX_17 HC 50.4869 -0.58595

04/06/2012 CEND0812 116 MX_17 SOL CS 50.48609 -0.58782

04/06/2012 CEND0812 116 MX_17 EOL CS 50.48656 -0.58695

04/06/2012 CEND0812 118 S_19 HC 50.51613 -0.59627

04/06/2012 CEND0812 120 S_20 HC 50.51801 -0.57522

04/06/2012 CEND0812 122 S_18 HC 50.53403 -0.52644

04/06/2012 CEND0812 124 S_17 HC 50.53249 -0.54648

04/06/2012 CEND0812 125 S_17 SOL CS 50.53162 -0.54986

04/06/2012 CEND0812 125 S_17 EOL CS 50.53202 -0.54879

04/06/2012 CEND0812 127 S_16 HC 50.53025 -0.56725

04/06/2012 CEND0812 129 S_15 HC 50.52835 -0.58829

04/06/2012 CEND0812 131 MX_12 HC 50.52245 -0.62985

04/06/2012 CEND0812 132 MX_12 SOL CS 50.5222 -0.63055

04/06/2012 CEND0812 132 MX_12 EOL CS 50.52212 -0.63441

04/06/2012 CEND0812 134 S_10 HC 50.53899 -0.60135

04/06/2012 CEND0812 135 S_10 SOL CS 50.53962 -0.59823

04/06/2012 CEND0812 135 S_10 EOL CS 50.53908 -0.60005

04/06/2012 CEND0812 137 S_11 HC 50.54105 -0.5803

04/06/2012 CEND0812 139 S_12 HC 50.54323 -0.55967

04/06/2012 CEND0812 141 S_13 HC 50.54529 -0.53847

04/06/2012 CEND0812 142 S_13 SOL CS 50.54562 -0.53636

04/06/2012 CEND0812 142 S_13 EOL CS 50.54518 -0.53749

04/06/2012 CEND0812 144 S_14 HC 50.54736 -0.51673

04/06/2012 CEND0812 146 S_09 HC 50.55763 -0.5306

04/06/2012 CEND0812 148 S_08 HC 50.55565 -0.55152



04/06/2012 CEND0812 149 S_08 SOL CS 50.55606 -0.54999

04/06/2012 CEND0812 149 S_08 EOL CS 50.55555 -0.55097

04/06/2012 CEND0812 151 S_07 HC 50.55357 -0.57258

04/06/2012 CEND0812 153 S_06 HC 50.5517 -0.59352

05/06/2012 CEND0812 155 MX_07 HC 50.56417 -0.60312

04/06/2012 CEND0812 156 MX_07 SOL CS 50.56394 -0.60619

04/06/2012 CEND0812 156 MX_07 EOL CS 50.56414 -0.60491

05/06/2012 CEND0812 158 S_03 HC 50.56609 -0.56479

05/06/2012 CEND0812 160 S_04 HC 50.56799 -0.54375

05/06/2012 CEND0812 162 S_05 HC 50.56984 -0.52263

05/06/2012 CEND0812 163 S_05 SOL CS 50.56951 -0.5258

05/06/2012 CEND0812 163 S_05 EOL CS 50.56972 -0.5246

05/06/2012 CEND0812 165 S_02 HC 50.58038 -0.53573

05/06/2012 CEND0812 167 S_01 HC 50.57846 -0.55684

05/06/2012 CEND0812 168 S_01 SOL CS 50.57815 -0.55942

05/06/2012 CEND0812 168 S_01 EOL CS 50.5784 -0.55819

05/06/2012 CEND0812 170 MX_06 HC 50.55747 -0.67338

05/06/2012 CEND0812 172 MX_05 HC 50.55121 -0.74309

05/06/2012 CEND0812 173 MX_05 SOL CS 50.55179 -0.73917

05/06/2012 CEND0812 173 MX_05 EOL CS 50.55156 -0.7407

05/06/2012 CEND0812 175 C_02 HC 50.54129 -0.75149

05/06/2012 CEND0812 177 C_01 HC 50.53986 -0.76499

05/06/2012 CEND0812 178 C_03 HC 50.53156 -0.7705

05/06/2012 CEND0812 179 C_03 SOL CS 50.53191 -0.7679

05/06/2012 CEND0812 179 C_03 EOL CS 50.53166 -0.76925

05/06/2012 CEND0812 180 C_04 HC 50.53316 -0.75689

05/06/2012 CEND0812 181 C_05 HC 50.53444 -0.74308

05/06/2012 CEND0812 182 C_05 SOL CS 50.53441 -0.74417

05/06/2012 CEND0812 182 C_05 EOL CS 50.53401 -0.74533

05/06/2012 CEND0812 184 C_08 HC 50.5273 -0.73449

05/06/2012 CEND0812 186 C_07 HC 50.52582 -0.74839

05/06/2012 CEND0812 189 C_06 HC 50.52449 -0.76265

05/06/2012 CEND0812 190 C_06 SOL CS 50.52469 -0.76368

05/06/2012 CEND0812 190 C_06 EOL CS 50.52467 -0.76234

05/06/2012 CEND0812 192 C_09 HC 50.51749 -0.75376

05/06/2012 CEND0812 194 C_10 HC 50.51878 -0.73955

05/06/2012 CEND0812 196 MX_11 HC 50.5158 -0.69952

05/06/2012 CEND0812 197 MX_11 SOL CS 50.5155 -0.70157

05/06/2012 CEND0812 197 MX_11 EOL CS 50.51573 -0.70035

05/06/2012 CEND0812 199 MX_10 HC 50.50927 -0.7697

05/06/2012 CEND0812 201 MX_09 HC 50.50268 -0.83883

05/06/2012 CEND0812 202 MX_09 SOL CS 50.50282 -0.84169

05/06/2012 CEND0812 202 MX_09 EOL CS 50.50282 -0.84047

05/06/2012 CEND0812 204 MX_08 HC 50.49617 -0.90863

05/06/2012 CEND0812 206 MX_03 SOL CS 50.53794 -0.88026

05/06/2012 CEND0812 206 MX_03 EOL CS 50.5379 -0.88163

05/06/2012 CEND0812 209 MX_02 HC 50.57964 -0.85678

05/06/2012 CEND0812 210 MX_02 SOL CS 50.57933 -0.85692



05/06/2012 CEND0812 210 MX_02 EOL CS 50.57904 -0.85819

05/06/2012 CEND0812 212 MX_01 HC 50.5731 -0.92674

12/06/2012 CEND0812 360 S_21 HC 50.57047 -0.54991

12/06/2012 CEND0812 361 S_23 HC 50.57171 -0.53511

12/06/2012 CEND0812 362 S_22 HC 50.56365 -0.53932

12/06/2012 CEND0812 363 MX_25 HC 50.57798 -0.89634

12/06/2012 CEND0812 364 MX_26 HC 50.57353 -0.89922

12/06/2012 CEND0812 365 MX_27 HC 50.56543 -0.91054

12/06/2012 CEND0812 366 MX_28 HC 50.56483 -0.88768

Key: HC – HamCam; CS – Camera sledge; SOL – Start of Line; EOL - End of Line


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

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Actiniaria 15

Campanulariidae 2

Edwardsiidae 2

Tubularia 2

FLATWORMS

Turbellaria 14

RIBBON WORMS

Nemertea 59

Cerebratulus 14

Tubulanus 2

NEMATODES

Nematoda 19

PEANUT WORMS

Golfingia vulgaris 25

Golfingia elongata 2

Sipuncula 2

SEGMENTED WORMS

Lumbrineris gracilis 81

Notomastus latericeus 81

Glycera lapidum 69

Spirobranchus lamarcki 59

Laonice bahusiensis 54

Polynoidae 51

Polycirrus medusa 49

Clymenura johnstoni 47

Pholoe baltica (sensu Petersen) 41

Mediomastus fragilis 39

Polycirrus 39

Sabellaria spinulosa 36

Aonides paucibranchiata 32

Eunereis longissima 29

Lanice conchilega 29

Caulleriella alata 25

Syllis variegata 24

Diplocirrus glaucus 22

Lepidonotus squamatus 22

Scalibregma celticum 22

Thelepus cincinnatus 22

Chaetozone zetlandica 17

Clymenura 17

Euclymene oerstedii 17

Eulalia mustela 17

Goniada maculata 17


Taxa % Occurrence

Marphysa bellii 17

Paradoneis lyra 17

Scalibregma inflatum 17

Syllidae 17

Aphelochaeta 15

Chaetozone gibber 15

Eumida bahusiensis 15

Spirobranchus triqueter 15

Syllis cornuta 15

Lagis koreni 14

Lysidice unicornis 14

Poecilochaetus serpens 14

Schistomeringos rudolphi 14

Terebellides stroemi 14

Aphelochaeta (Type A) 12

Glycera oxycephala 12

Pista cristata 12

Praxillella affinis 12

Eupolymnia nesidensis 10

Phyllodocidae 10

Sclerocheilus minutus 10

Spiophanes bombyx 10

Autolytus 8

Eteone longa 8

Eumida sanguinea 8

Laonice 8

Nephtys cirrosa 8

Odontosyllis fulgurans 8

Ophelia borealis 8

Syllis hyalina 8

Terebellida 8

Ampharete lindstroemi 7

Glycinde nordmanni 7

Harmothoe extenuata 7

Harmothoe glabra 7

Nephtys 7

Pseudopolydora antennata 7

Sabellidae 7

Spirobranchus 7

Aonides oxycephala 5

Aphrodita aculeata 5

Arabella iricolor 5

Asclerocheilus intermedius 5

Eunice vittata 5

Maldanidae 5

Marphysa sanguinea 5

Nephtys caeca 5

Nereididae 5

Nicomache lumbricalis 5

Odontosyllis ctenostoma 5


Taxa % Occurrence

Owenia fusiformis 5

Petaloproctus 5

Phyllodoce mucosa 5

Pterocirrus macroceros 5

Scoloplos armiger 5

Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 5

Spio armata 5

Spionidae 5

Ampharete 3

Amphitritides gracilis 3

Aphelochaeta marioni 3

Clymenura tricirrata 3

Dipolydora caulleryi 3

Euclymene (Type A) 3

Glycera fallax 3

Glycera unicornis 3

Hesionidae 3

Jasmineira elegans 3

Lumbrineridae 3

Odontosyllis gibba 3

Scalibregma 3

Sphaerodorum gracilis 3

Syllides japonicus 3

Syllis armillaris 3

Thelepus setosus 3

Ampharetidae 2

Amphicteis 2

Amphicteis midas 2

Aphelochaeta (Type C) 2

Caulleriella bioculata 2

Chaetozone christiei 2

Ephesiella 2

Eulalia 2

Eulalia ornata 2

Eulalia tripunctata 2

Eulalia viridis 2

Eunicidae 2

Eurysyllis tuberculata 2

Glycera 2

Glycera alba 2

Goniada emerita 2

Harmothoe imbricata 2

Lysidice ninetta 2

Malmgrenia ljungmani 2

Malmgrenia marphysae 2

Ophelia rathkei 2

Opheliidae 2

Paranaitis kosteriensis 2

Petaloproctus terricola 2

Podarkeopsis capensis 2


Taxa % Occurrence

Protodorvillea kefersteini 2

Pseudopolydora 2

Sabella pavonina 2

Scolelepis tridentata 2

Scoletoma fragilis 2

Serpulidae 2

Sphaerodoropsis 2

Spinther 2

Spio decorata 2

Spiophanes 2

Sthenelais boa 2

Streptosyllis websteri 2

Subadyte pellucida 2

Syllides 2

SEA SPIDERS

Nymphon brevirostre 7

Callipallene brevirostris 2

Phoxichilidium femoratum 2

CRUSTACEANS

Pisidia longicornis 32

Ampelisca spinipes 27

Callianassa subterranea 20

Galathea intermedia 19

Othomaera othonis 12

Gammaropsis maculata 10

Urothoe elegans 10

Bodotria scorpioides 8

Pagurus 8

Anthura gracilis 7

Decapoda (zoea) 7

Leptocheirus hirsutimanus 7

Maerella tenuimana 7

Pagurus bernhardus 7

Unciola crenatipalma 7

Amphipoda 5

Parapleustes bicuspis 5

Stenothoe marina 5

Upogebia deltaura 5

Ampelisca diadema 3

Anapagurus hyndmanni 3

Balanus 3

Cymodoce truncata 3

Dyopedos 3

Eurydice pulchra 3

Eurynome spinosa 3

Gammaropsis nitida 3

Janira maculosa 3

Lekanesphaera rugicauda 3

Liocarcinus pusillus 3

Nototropis vedlomensis 3


Taxa % Occurrence

Orchomenella nana 3

Paguridae 3

Pilumnus hirtellus 3

Acidostoma obesum (sensu Stoddart & Lowry) 2

Ampelisca brevicornis 2

Axius stirhynchus 2

Bodotria arenosa 2

Calocaris macandreae 2

Cheirocratus 2

Crustacea 2

Ebalia tuberosa 2

Ericthonius punctatus 2

Gnathia oxyuraea 2

Harpinia 2

Harpinia antennaria 2

Hippolytidae 2

Hyas coarctatus 2

Leptocheirus pectinatus 2

Liljeborgia pallida 2

Liocarcinus 2

Macropodia 2

Maera grossimana 2

Melitidae 2

Monocorophium sextonae 2

Odius carinatus 2

Photis reinhardi 2

Pinnotheres pisum 2

Pontocrates arenarius 2

Tanaopsis graciloides 2

Thia scutellata 2

Tritaeta gibbosa 2

MOLLUSCS

Leptochiton asellus 51

Spisula elliptica 34

Abra alba 31

Glycymeris glycymeris 10

Phaxas pellucidus 10

Leptochiton cancellatus 8

Mysia undata 8

Sphenia binghami 8

Abra prismatica 7

Kurtiella bidentata 5

Lucinoma borealis 5

Timoclea ovata 5

Euspira nitida 3

Gibbula tumida 3

Moerella donacina 3

Musculus discors 3

Nucula sulcata 3

Spisula 3


Taxa % Occurrence

Abra 2

Abra nitida 2

Aeolidiidae 2

Aequipecten opercularis 2

Arcopagia crassa 2

Bivalvia 2

Buccinidae 2

Chlamys 2

Diplodonta rotundata 2

Donax variegatus 2

Emarginula rosea 2

Gastropoda 2

Heterostropha 2

Hiatella arctica 2

Lepton squamosum 2

Limatula subauriculata 2

Lutraria magna 2

Nucula hanleyi 2

Nucula nucleus 2

Pholadidae 2

Polititapes rhomboides 2

Tapes aureus 2

Thracia phaseolina 2

HORSESHOE WORMS

Phoronis 10

Phoronis muelleri 3

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Echinocyamus pusillus 64

Ophiothrix fragilis 41

Psammechinus miliaris 24

Amphipholis squamata 22

Amphiura chiajei 17

Amphiuridae 10

Ophiura 8

Ophiura albida 8

Ophiuroidea 8

Ophiura sarsi 7

Amphiura filiformis 5

Amphiura securigera 3

Ophiura ophiura 2

SEA SQUIRTS

Molgula 2

Polycarpa 2

FISH

Ammodytes tobianus 2

Gobiesocidae 2


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 57

Hymedesmia 5

Polymastia boletiformis 5

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES

Urticina 100

Hydroid 86

Actiniaria 67

Alcyonium digitatum 33

Hydrallmania falcata 29

Nemertesia antennina 29

Sagartia 19

Actinothoe sphyrodeta 5

Cerianthidae 5

Metridium senile 5

Nemertesia ramosa 5

Tubularia indivisa 5

Urticina felina 5

SEGMENTED WORMS

Spirobranchus 90

CRUSTACEANS

Paguridae 81

Brachyura 33

Cirripedia 14

Majidae 14

Ebalia 5

MOLLUSCS

Pectinidae 24

Polyplacophora 19

Gastropoda 10

Trochinae 5

BRYOZOANS

Bryozoa 71

Flustra foliacea 29

Vesicularia spinosa 19

Pentapora fascialis 5

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS

Asterias rubens 81

Crossaster papposus 24

Ophiura 19

Ophiura albida 10

Anseropoda placenta 5

Echinoidea 5

Henricia 5

SEA SQUIRTS

Ascidiacea 5


Taxa % Occurrence

FISH

Chelidonichthys cuculus 5

Gadidae 5

Raja clavata 5

Scyliorhinus canicula 5

Teleostei 5

Trachinidae 5

Trisopterus luscus 5


Appendix 4. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition

Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%)

88 MX23 50.45201 -0.5419426 Coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 46.38 50.04 3.57









110 MX15 50.47396 -0.7253296 Mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 56.57 38.45 4.98

113 MX16 50.48048 -0.655618 Mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 59.89 31.49 8.62


118 S19 50.51613 -0.5962699 Mixed sediments A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 35.83 53.54 10.63


122 S18 50.53403 -0.5264413 Coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 38.99 57.82 3.20












151 S07 50.55357 -0.5725814 Sand A5.2 Subtidal sand 4.44 95.56 0.00




Stn No. Stn Code Latitude Longitude Sediment Description EUNIS Level 3/BSH Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt/clay (%)








175 C02 50.54129 -0.75149 Coarse sediment A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 88.54 10.00 1.46
























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

Station No. Station Code Latitude Longitude Habitat No. EUNIS Level 3/BSH MNCR Code

88 MX23 50.45208 -0.54094 S1 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS





124 S17 50.53161 -0.54990 S1 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS


131 MX12 50.52212 -0.63441 S2 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa


134 S10 50.53955 -0.59846 S2 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa


148 S08 50.55600 -0.55010 S1 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx



167 S01 50.57815 -0.55942 S1 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments SS.SMx.CMx

172 MX05 50.55178 -0.73917 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.EcCr.FaAlCr.Flu


178 C03 50.53191 -0.76791 S1 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment SS.SCS.CCS




206 MX03 50.53797 -0.88067 S1 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock CR.MCR.SfR



209 MX02 50.57920 -0.85744 S2 A5.2 Subtidal sand SS.SSa


Appendix 6. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats

Broadscale Habitats Description Example Image taken during survey

A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock

Deeper water rock, with some shelter from waves and currents.

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.

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

A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments

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


Appendix 7. Example images from survey for habitat FOCI

Habitat FOCI

Description Example Image taken during survey

Subtidal Sand and Gravels

Sand and gravel seabeds widespread around the UK.

Subtidal Chalk Areas where chalk is exposed at seabed and overlain with patches of coarse sediment.

Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site...

Documents

Transcript of Offshore Overfalls rMCZ Post-survey Site...