South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report Contract Reference: MB0120 Report Number: 51 Version 2 February 2016

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas Data and Evidence Co-ordination Programme Report No 51. Title: South of Portland 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

Peter Mitchell Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Christopher Barrio Froján Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We thank Alex Callaway and Suzanne Ware 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: South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Survey Co-ordination & Evidence Delivery Group Date submitted: February 2016 Project Manager: Sue Ware Report compiled by: Peter Mitchell & Christopher Barrio Froján Quality control by: Alex Callaway and Suzanne Ware Approved by & date: Keith Weston (25/02/2016) Version: V2

Version Control History Author Date Comment Version P Mitchell & 01/12/2015 First draft submitted to MPAG 1 C Barrio Froján P Mitchell & 10/02/2016 Amended following 1st round of reviewers’ 2 C Barrio Froján comments

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 listed but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation ...... 2 1.3 Features observed but not listed in the SAD ...... 2 1.4 Evidence of human activities occurring within the MCZ ...... 2 2 Introduction ...... 3 2.1 Location of the MCZ ...... 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 ...... 9 3.4 Quality of the updated map ...... 11 4 Results ...... 12 4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map ...... 12 4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data ...... 13 4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map ...... 15 4.4 Broadscale habitats identified ...... 15 4.5 Habitat FOCI identified ...... 16 4.6 Species FOCI identified ...... 17 4.7 Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) ...... 18 4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map ...... 18 4.9 Observations of human activities on the seabed ...... 20 5 Conclusions ...... 21 5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats ...... 21 5.2 Presence and distribution of habitat FOCI ...... 21 5.3 Presence of species FOCI ...... 22 5.4 Evidence of human activity on the seabed ...... 22 References ...... 23

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report i

Data sources ...... 25 Annexes ...... 26 Annex 1. Broadscale habitat features listed in the ENG...... 26 Annex 2. Habitat FOCI listed in the ENG...... 27 Annex 3. Low or limited mobility species FOCI listed in the ENG...... 28 Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG...... 29 Annex 5. Video and still images processing protocol...... 30 Appendices ...... 32 Appendix 1. Survey metadata (cruise code CEND0614) ...... 32 Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys (CHP data) ...... 35 Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ ...... 37 Appendix 4. Species list ...... 38 Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition ...... 46 Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and still images ...... 47 Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats ...... 50 Appendix 8. Example images for habitat FOCI ...... 51

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. .... 4 Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this MCZ was proposed for designation...... 5 Table 3. Species FOCI for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation...... 5 Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry (where specified)...... 9 Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ...... 16 Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ...... 16 Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ...... 18

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the South of Portland rMCZ. Bathymetry is from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011)...... 4 Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the South of Portland MCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). . 8 Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document...... 12 Figure 4. Updated map of broadscale habitats based on newly acquired survey data...... 14 Figure 5. Overall MESH confidence score for the updated broadscale habitat map...... 15 Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified...... 17

Corrigendum

In July 2015 Defra declared the following amendments to reporting of Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) in MPAG reports to reflect changes described within Defra MCZ consultation and designation material:

• The habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’ is 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 species FOCI ‘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 species FOCI ‘Fan mussel (Atrina pectinata)’ should be correctly referred to as ‘Fan mussel (Atrina fragilis)’. • MCZs are no longer considered to be an appropriate tool for the protection of the species FOCI ‘European eel (Anguilla anguilla)’. 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. • The species FOCI ‘Sea snail (Paludinella littorina)’ has been removed from Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This means that it is no longer a FOCI so has been removed as a feature for MCZ designation.

In January 2016 Defra declared the following amendments to reporting of Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) in MPAG reports to reflect changes described within Defra MCZ consultation and designation material:

• The habitat FOCI ‘Mud Habitats in Deep Water’ is considered to be adequately protected by its component broadscale habitat features, subtidal mud, and is no longer included within MCZ designations.

Whilst the agreed changes will be reflected in MCZ Post-survey Site Reports written after the declaration, those reports produced prior to August 2015 may still contain references to the above FOCI as they appeared in the original Ecological Network Guidance document (NE & JNCC, 2010).

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report iv

1 Executive Summary: Report Card This report details the findings of a dedicated seabed survey of the South of Portland 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. The original 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 dedicated survey was to provide direct evidence of the presence and extent of the broadscale habitats (BSHs) and habitat FOCI (Features of Conservation Importance) that had been detailed in the original Site Assessment Document (SAD; Lieberknecht et al., 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 2014. The comparison covers BSHs and habitat FOCI.

1.1 Features proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the MCZ designation Extent Extent according Accordance between according to to updated SAD and updated Feature SAD* habitat map habitat map Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 2.84 km2 N/A**  N/A** A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 8.21 km2 N/A**  N/A** A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/ A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 11.05 km2*** 9.93 km2  -1.12 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 2.50 km2 5.34 km2  +2.84 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.85 km2 2.20 km2  +1.35 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 3.00 km2 1 record  1 record Habitat FOCI None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A Species FOCI None proposed N/A N/A N/A N/A * The SAD provides two extent values for BSHs that fall within and outside the portion of the rMCZ that overlaps with the Studland to Portland SCI. Both values are combined in this table. ** Although this BSH was identified during the 2013 survey, its extent could not be calculated. *** Combined area of constituent BSHs according to SAD.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 1

1.2 Features listed but not proposed in the SAD for inclusion within the rMCZ designation Extent Extent according Accordance between according to updated SAD and updated Feature to SAD habitat map habitat map Broadscale Habitats Presence Extent A3.1 High energy infralittoral rock 0.09 km2 N/A N/A N/A Habitat FOCI Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments) 0.67 km2 28 records*  +28 records* Subtidal Sands and Gravels** 0.83 km2 N/A N/A N/A * Indicative evidence – physical sample necessary for confirmation. ** Removed from list of FOCI in July 2015. See Corrigendum.

1.3 Features observed but not listed in the SAD Extent Extent according Accordance between according to updated SAD and updated Feature to SAD habitat map habitat map Habitat FOCI Presence Extent Peat and Clay Exposures* N/A 98 records  +98 records * Indicative evidence – physical sample necessary for confirmation.

1.4 Evidence of human activities occurring within the MCZ Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ was observed in the form of litter and possible static fishing gear.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 2

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 coordinated by Cefas, to collect and interpret new survey data at selected rMCZs. This report provides an interpretation of the survey data collected by Cefas and Natural England personnel at the South of Portland rMCZ during June 2014.

2.1 Location of the MCZ The South of Portland rMCZ is located off the south Dorset coast, south-west of Portland Bill. The water depth across the rMCZ ranges from 15 to 98 m (Figure 1). The rMCZ is characterised by a strong tidal race known as the Portland Race, which is caused by tides clashing between the Bill and the Shambles sandbank. The site also contains a feature of geomorphological importance known as Portland Deep, which supports a high diversity of benthic species. The north-eastern corner of the rMCZ overlaps with the Studland to Portland Site of Community Importance (SCI) (Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 3

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

2.2 Rationale for site position and designation The South of Portland rMCZ was included in the proposed network because of its contribution to Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) criteria to broadscale habitats (BSHs), and its added ecological importance. For a detailed site description see ‘Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations 2011’ (Lieberknecht et al., 2011) and ‘The Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance’ (Natural England and the JNCC, 2010).

2.2.1 Broadscale habitats proposed for designation Five BSHs were included in the recommendations for designation at this site, namely: ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ (Table 1). See Annex 1 for full list of BSH features listed in the ENG.

Table 1. Broadscale habitats for which this rMCZ was proposed for designation. Broadscale habitat type (EUNIS Level 3) Spatial extent according to the SAD* A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock 2.84 km2 A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock 8.21 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 2.50 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.85 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 3.00 km2 * The SAD provides two extent values for BSHs that fall within and outside the portion of the rMCZ that overlaps with the Studland to Portland SCI. Both values are combined in this table.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 4

2.2.2 Habitat FOCI proposed for designation No habitat FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this MCZ (Table 2). Annex 2 presents the habitat FOCI listed in the ENG.

Table 2. Habitat FOCI for which this MCZ was proposed for designation. Habitat FOCI Spatial extent according to the SAD None proposed N/A

2.2.3 Species FOCI proposed for designation No ‘Low or limited mobility species’ or ‘Highly mobile species’ FOCI were included in the recommendations for designation of this rMCZ (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 Records according to the SAD Low or limited mobility species None proposed N/A Highly mobile species 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 BSH 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 BSHs and habitat FOCI reported for the South of Portland rMCZ was Low/Moderate (Lieberknecht et al., 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 groundtruthing data to allow the production of an updated map which could be used to inform the presence of BSHs 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 within the MCZ.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 5

 To report evidence of human activity occurring within the MCZ 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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 6

3 Methods

3.1 Acoustic data acquisition Multibeam echosounder (MBES) data were collected under the Civil Hydrography Programme (CHP) in the area around this rMCZ for the purpose of updating navigation charts. The bathymetric component of these data has been used in the creation of the Defra Digital Elevation Model (DEM; Astrium, 2011). Existing MBES bathymetry data from the UK's CHP were provided to Cefas as fully processed and cleaned bathymetry data, as well as raw data files for further backscatter processing by Cefas. The bathymetry 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 provided. The software package QPS FM Geocoder Toolkit (FMGT) was used to produce fully compensated and corrected backscatter mosaics and these were exported as Floating Point Geotiff files for further analysis.

3.2 Ground truth sample acquisition Ground truth samples were collected on board RV Cefas Endeavour in June 2014 (Cruise code: CEND0614; Callaway and Mason, 2014). Sampling stations were positioned within the rMCZ using a triangular lattice grid overlaid on the CHP map. The exact location of each sampling station was adjusted to coincide with notable bathymetric features. An underwater camera system was deployed at stations to collect video and still images of the seabed. A benthic grab was deployed to collect sediments and infauna samples at a subset of stations, where either the backscatter data indicated the presence of sediment, or the footage from the underwater video camera suggested a grab sample would be successful (Figure 2; Appendix 1).

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 7

Figure 2. Location of ground truth sampling sites in the South of Portland MCZ. Bathymetry displayed is from Defra’s Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). Underwater imagery was acquired using a frame mounted drop camera towed at c 0.5 knots (c. 0.25 m s-1) across a 50 m ‘bullring’ centred on the sampling location. A minimum tow duration of two minutes was carried out per deployment. Drop camera tows at stations which were not successfully sampled by the grab were extended to a minimum of 10 minutes. Extended duration tows were also conducted at approximately one third of ground truth sampling sites located to coincide with each of the acoustically distinct facies observed in the bathymetry and backscatter data. During each tow, still images were captured at regular one minute intervals and opportunistically if specific features of interest were encountered A four-point laser scaling device was used to provide a reference scale in the video and still images and imagery was geo referenced using a High Precision Acoustic Positioning system. 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. 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). Grab sampling equipment comprised a mini Hamon grab (sampling area: 0.1 m2). On recovery, the contents of the grab were emptied into a large plastic bin and a representative sub-sample of sediment (approx. 0.5 litres) was taken for subsequent Particle Size Analysis (PSA). The remaining sample was photographed and sieved over a 1 mm mesh sieve to collect the benthic fauna. Fauna were preserved in 4% buffered formaldehyde for later processing ashore. For further detail on ground truth

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 8

sample collection see the ‘South of Portland rMCZ Survey Report’ (Callaway and Mason, 2014).

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 (as detailed above) and the ground truth data collected by the 2014 dedicated survey of this site. The mapping process is a combination of two approaches, statistical modelling and image analysis, as described below. The object-based image analysis (OBIA) is a two-step approach consisting of segmentation and classification (Blaschke, 2010), implemented in the software package eCognition v9.0.3. The acoustic data image layers are segmented into objects (sections of the image with homogeneous characteristics). For each of these objects, mean values of the primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives were calculated and used in a Bayes model with ground truth data, to predict substratum type. Each stage in the process is numbered and described in detail below.

Stage 1. Data preparation Prior to analysis, the bathymetry and backscatter data were resampled onto a common grid at 2 m resolution (Appendix 2). This data preparation stage results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each 2 x 2 m grid cell, and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process. All data were projected into WGS84 UTM Zone 30 North to ensure compatibility.

Stage 2. Derivatives calculated From the two primary acoustic datasets, bathymetry and backscatter, a range of derivatives were calculated, however, only those detailed in Table 4 were used during the mapping process.

Table 4. Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry (where specified). Derivative Description BPI Bathymetric position index (Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 3, 5, 9, 25 cells. Slope The slope in degrees using the maximum change in elevation of each cell and its 8 neighbours (Wilson et al., 2007).

Stage 3. Segmentation The goal of segmentation is to divide the image into meaningful objects that represent areas of homogeneous values in the image layers, based on their spectral and spatial characteristics. The resulting objects can be characterised by their various features, such as layer values (mean, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.), texture and many others. Segmentation was carried out using the multi-resolution segmentation algorithm in eCognition. This is an optimisation procedure that starts with an individual pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels based on the relative homogeneity criterion. The process continues until a threshold value for a scale parameter determining the variability allowed in the objects is reached. The threshold is

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 9

determined by the operator. For a fixed value of the scale parameter, a homogeneous area of seabed will have larger objects than a heterogeneous area. Likewise, for a fixed seabed heterogeneity, larger values of the scale parameter produce larger objects than smaller values. Underwater video footage indicated that the BSHs were highly heterogeneous, with some video tows exhibiting multiple changes in BSH type within a single station. Consequently, in this analysis a small scale parameter was used, as this helped to minimise the likelihood that still images representing different BSH classes would occur within the same segmentation object. It also had the effect of producing smaller segmentation objects, which was more appropriate to the highly heterogeneous nature of the seabed in this area. The final segmentation was carried out at a pixel level on backscatter strength only with the scale parameter set at 5. For each of the objects created, mean and standard deviation values of the primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives were calculated (e.g., the mean backscatter value for the grid cells lying within the object) for further statistical analysis.

Stage 4. Classification A classification algorithm within eCognition was trained to predict the distribution of the four BSHs that were observed in the ground-truth data. These BSHs, based on the EUNIS classification system, were ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. One PSA sample was classified as the BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ within the rMCZ; however, it was considered that a single sample constituted insufficient evidence for the inclusion of this BSH into the classification algorithm. The BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ were differentiated in the video and photographic still images by the presence of various characteristic taxa. However, these BSHs were associated with similar acoustic signatures and could not be separated acoustically during the mapping process. Therefore, the subtidal rock BSHs within the rMCZ were grouped together and mapped as a matrix of ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. The Bayes algorithm is a simple probabilistic classifier based on applying Bayes’ theorem (from Bayesian statistics) with strong independence assumptions. The advantage of the Bayes classifier is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. This algorithm has been shown to perform well in predicting marine sediment types (Stephens and Diesing, 2014). A training dataset was generated by assigning a BSH classification to those objects created in the segmentation process which contained a PSA or an underwater video still image ground truth sample. Each training sample contained a label for BSH type and values for the acoustic variables. The Bayes algorithm was trained using object mean backscatter, mean bathymetry, mean slope and mean BPI at 25 cells as

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 10

predictors. This Bayes model was then applied to all objects to predict the most probable habitat class based on their acoustic values. While the habitat map produced by the classification algorithm appeared to show a reasonable representation of the majority of the site, expert judgement suggested that certain areas had been misclassified. For example, the classification algorithm poorly differentiated between sediment waves and rock outcrops, perhaps due to the number and location of ground truth samples. Thus, additional classification rules were applied to reclassify segments that met certain criteria based on the acoustic variables. Segments classified as ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ with a mean backscatter value of more than -24 dB were reclassified as ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Neighbouring segments with the same BSH classification were then merged to create a number of larger objects. Segments classified as ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ with the standard deviation pixels within that segment of BPI at 25 cells less than 0.2, were reclassified as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’. Finally, segments classified as ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ with an area less than 5,000 pixels that share 50% of their border with a segment classified as ‘A5.2 Subtidal Sand’ were reclassified as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’. The resulting BSH map was exported from eCognition as shapefiles for further analysis in ArcGIS 10.1.

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 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. Subsequent to the MESH project, the confidence assessment tool has been applied to provide a benchmark score that reflects the technical quality of newly developed habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100 but, 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/confidenmasonce/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 30/07/2015]

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 11

4 Results A summary of results from the particle size analysis of the grab samples is given in Appendix 5. Of the 17 stations where a sample was obtained, coarse sediment was recorded at 14 stations, sand and muddy sand at two stations, and mixed sediments at one station. Results from the analysis of the seabed video and still images acquired from 60 camera sampling stations is summarised in Appendix 6. The list of benthic taxa found in the grab and video samples is presented in Appendix 4; a total of 238 and 56 taxa were recorded from each sample type, respectively. Example images taken during the survey of the BSHs and habitat FOCI recorded in the video analysis are given in Appendices 7 and 8 respectively.

4.1 Site Assessment Document habitat map The SAD habitat map (Figure 3) was produced using modelled data from the UKSeaMap (McBreen et al, 2011). For further detail see Lieberknecht et al. (2011).

Figure 3. Habitat map from the Site Assessment Document.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 12

4.2 Updated habitat map based on new survey data The updated habitat map resulting from an integrated analysis of data collected by the CHP and during the 2014 dedicated survey is presented in Figure 4. The map suggests that in the majority of the site, particularly in the northeast and towards the southern half of the site, the seabed consists of the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. In the northwest and towards the centre of the site there is an area of sediment accumulation which consists of the BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 13

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

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 14

4.3 Quality of the updated habitat map Based on the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool, the updated habitat map attained a score of 80 (Figure 5). This score is considered good, given that the maximum possible score for a map based on purely physical data is 88.

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

4.4 Broadscale habitats identified The ground truth samples from the 2014 dedicated survey of the rMCZ were classified into five BSHs, namely: ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’; ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’; ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’; ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’; and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. However, using the available acoustic data to map habitat boundaries, there was insufficient information to differentiate between certain BSHs. In particular, it was not possible to delineate boundaries between the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Consequently, these were grouped together and mapped as a hybrid of both BSHs. Also, due to only one PSA sample indicating the presence of the BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’, there were insufficient data to meaningfully predict the distribution of this BSH. Should further ground truth sampling be performed, it may be possible to predict the distribution of ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ within the rMCZ. The spatial extent of each of the other BSHs identified is presented in Table 5 and Figure 4. Example images of the mapped BSHs are presented in Appendix 7. The mapped hybrid BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ is the most widespread, occupying over half of the rMCZ,

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 15

predominantly in the southern half of the rMCZ, and in the shallow nearshore northeast corner of the rMCZ. Video and still image data suggest that there are localised patches of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ overlying the bedrock habitat. As this site is likely to experience strong currents around the Isle of Portland, these small and patchy areas of sedimentary habitat may be prone to natural change in presence and extent. The BSHs ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ are more predominant in the northwest of the rMCZ, including the depression known as Portland Deep. These zones of sediment accumulation display extensive sand waves and rippling, which are evident in the acoustic data and video transects (see Appendix 2). The video and still image data suggest that the BSH may vary between ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ at a fine scale, therefore the mapped boundaries of these two BSH types may be prone to change in the short-term.

Table 5. Broadscale habitats identified in this rMCZ. Broadscale Habitat Type Spatial extent Spatial extent according to (EUNIS Level 3) according to the SAD the updated habitat map A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/ A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock* 11.05 km2 ** 9.93 km2 A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment 2.50 km2 5.34 km2 A5.2 Subtidal sand 0.85 km2 2.20 km2 A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments 3.00 km2 1 record * Constituent BSHs, although identified by groundtruthing data, could not be differentiated by the analysis of the newly acquired acoustic data. ** Combined area of BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ according to SAD.

4.5 Habitat FOCI identified The SAD notes the presence of two habitat FOCI within the rMCZ, ‘Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)’ and ‘Subtidal Sands and Gravels’. The 2014 dedicated survey acquired evidence that is indicative of both these habitat FOCI within the rMCZ, as well as of a third habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ (Figure 6, Table 6). The habitat FOCI 'Subtidal Sands and Gravels' listed in the SAD as a recommended feature for the designation of this site has since been removed from the list of FOCI, therefore its extent has not been calculated or displayed in the updated habitat map. Example images of the mapped habitat FOCI are presented in Appendix 8.

Table 6. Habitat FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Spatial extent according to Spatial extent according to Habitat FOCI the SAD the updated habitat map Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments) 0.67 km2 28 records* Peat and Clay Exposures N/A 98 records* Subtidal Sands and Gravels** 0.83 km2 N/A * Indicative evidence – physical sample necessary for confirmation ** Removed from list of FOCI in July 2015. See Corrigendum.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 16

Figure 6. Habitat FOCI identified. Evidence indicative of the habitat FOCI ‘Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)’ consists of 28 still images taken at four sampling stations near the Isle of Portland headland at a depth of less than 40 m. The geographic extent of this FOCI could not be determined using acoustic data. ‘Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)’ were exclusively observed in still images classified as the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ – not as a sedimentary BSH – therefore confirmation on the presence of this habitat FOCI can only occur when a physical sample of the mussel beds determines whether there is a sediment veneer on top of the bedrock on which the mussels are settled. Similarly, evidence indicative of the habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ consists of 98 still images taken at 22 sampling stations across the whole of the site. This FOCI was predominantly observed in still images that were classified as ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, however, a geographic extent could not be determined using acoustic data. In all video transects where ‘Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)’ were identified the habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ was also observed. Physical samples of the substrate are necessary to confirm whether the substrate conforms to the accepted definition of the FOCI.

4.6 Species FOCI identified Analysis of ground truth samples from the 2014 dedicated survey did not record any of the species FOCI listed in the ENG (Natural England and JNCC, 2010) (Table 7).

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 17

Table 7. Species FOCI identified in this rMCZ. Previously recorded Identified during evidence Species FOCI within rMCZ gathering survey Low or limited mobility species None observed N/A N/A Highly mobile species None observed N/A N/A

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

4.7.1 Acoustic data The acoustic data used in the production of the updated habitat map were collected under the CHP. 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 MBES backscatter data were reviewed and processed by specialist Cefas staff to ensure these data were suitable for use in the subsequent interpretations and production of the updated habitat map.

4.7.2 Particle Size Analysis of sediments PSA was carried out by Cefas Lowestoft following standard laboratory practices and the results checked following the recommendations of the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011).

4.7.3 Infaunal samples from grabs Infaunal samples were processed by Marine Ecology Services Ltd following standard laboratory practices and results checked following the recommendations of the NMBAQC scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

4.7.4 Video and still images and analysis Video and photographic still images were processed by Ocean Ecology 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 still image data (Coggan and Howell, 2005; JNCC, in prep.; summarised in Annex 5).

4.8 Data limitations and adequacy of the updated habitat map According to the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool, the quality of the derived habitat map is assessed to be good (attaining a score of 80 out of a possible 88). However, the limited number of sediment ground truth samples prevented a thorough external accuracy assessment of the updated habitat map, which would have been a more reliable indicator of the quality of the map. Based on an internal accuracy assessment using the ground truth data used to generate the model, the map appears to be of reasonable quality. The BSH map shows an overall agreement of 82.4% with the PSA samples, and 72.3% with the still image data.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 18

There are certain limitations associated with the ground truth data that should be considered before interpreting the final habitat map. A source of potential misclassification of habitats arises from the location of groundtruthing samples in relation to habitat types. This may be particularly problematic where underwater still images indicate that the seabed is highly heterogeneous. Furthermore, due to the exposed position of the rMCZ and strong currents associated with the nearby headland, it is also likely that the precise location and makeup of the overlying sediment habitat may change over time. This might have introduced additional uncertainty to the map, considering the MBES data and ground truth data were collected at least 5 years apart. Finally, due to the limited number and spread of PSA samples, it was necessary to use the underwater still images to inform sediment type in the mapping process. Underwater still images are regularly only used to provide detail of rocky BSHs, as the classification of sediment type based on a still image can be highly subjective. However, there was a high level of agreement between the two sampling techniques and, based on expert judgement, using the underwater still images appeared to improve the final habitat map. The precise location of the boundaries between the BSHs depicted on the updated habitat map should be regarded as indicative, not definitive. In nature, such boundaries are rarely abrupt. Rather, it is typical for one BSH to grade into another across a transitional boundary. Within this rMCZ, the acoustic signature of some BSH types was very similar, leading to the mapped boundary between those BSHs being either indistinguishable, or inevitably imprecise. This may have implications when calculating the overall extent of each of the mapped habitats. For example, small changes to the habitat model, such as during segmentation or feature selection, produced equally plausible yet differing maps. In particular, delineating zones from acoustic data where a thin veneer of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ overlay the predominant habitat type ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral sediment/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral sediment’ was troublesome. Further PSA groundtruthing would be necessary to delineate the BSHs more accurately across the major sediment bank in the north of the rMCZ. These issues of data and model specification errors are encountered frequently when applying predictive models (Barry and Elith, 2006). Nevertheless, the final prediction, presented in Figure 4 and Table 5, has been created based on the best available evidence and a scientifically rigorous methodology. Physical samples of the seabed substrate are necessary to corroborate the presence of the habitat FOCI indicated by the newly acquired photographic evidence. At present, the presence of such habitat FOCI is probable, but it cannot be confirmed given the lack of physical samples. If physical samples of the seabed confirm the presence of the habitat FOCI, their extent cannot be inferred from the newly acquired acoustic data, as they do not appear to return a distinct acoustic signature. 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. For example, ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ was identified only once in the ground truth samples, however it may be more widely distributed within the rMCZ.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 19

4.9 Observations of human activities on the seabed Two underwater video transects revealed evidence of human activity on the seabed (Appendix 3). One shows a thick rope under tension in the water column, and is presumed to be part of static fishing gear. The other shows a tangle of rope caught around a rugose rocky outcrop and is assumed to be discarded litter.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 20

5 Conclusions

5.1 Presence and extent of broadscale habitats

5.1.1 Presence  The 2014 dedicated survey has confirmed the presence of the BSHs ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ that were included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ.

5.1.2 Extent  The spatial extent of the hybrid BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock/A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ is 9.93 km2 (the constituent BSHs could not be differentiated during the mapping process). This is 1.12 km2 less than the combined spatial extent of its two constituent BSHs in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ on the updated habitat map is 5.34 km2. This is 2.84 km2 more 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 2.20 km2. This is 1.35 km2 more than its spatial extent in the SAD habitat map.

 The spatial extent of the BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ could not be determined during the mapping process.

5.2 Presence and distribution of habitat FOCI

5.2.1 Presence  The 2014 dedicated survey has indicated the potential presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)’ that was included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ. Physical samples are required to confirm its presence.

 The 2014 dedicated survey has indicated the potential presence of the habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ at this site. This habitat FOCI was not included in the recommendations made by the SAD for designating this site as an MCZ. Physical samples are required to confirm its presence.

5.2.2 Distribution  Indications of the habitat FOCI ‘Blue Mussel Beds (including Intertidal Beds on Mixed and Sandy Sediments)’ were confined to the north-eastern corner of

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 21

the rMCZ, near the Isle of Portland. The potential FOCI was found exclusively in an area classified as the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’.

 Indications of the habitat FOCI ‘Peat and Clay Exposures’ were distributed throughout most of the rMCZ, coincident with the distribution of the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’.

5.3 Presence 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 2014 dedicated survey.

5.3.2 Highly mobile species FOCI  No highly mobile species FOCI were recorded at this site by the 2014 dedicated survey.

5.4 Evidence of human activity on the seabed Tangled rope was observed littering the seabed, as well as presumably active static fishing gear.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 22

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. Barry, S. and Elith, J. (2006). Error and uncertainty in habitat models. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 413-423. Blaschke, T. (2010). Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 65, 2-16. Callaway, A. and Mason, C. (2014). South of Portland rMCZ Survey Report. 61 pp. Coggan, R., Mitchell, A., White, J. and Golding, N. (2007). Recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques. www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_video_ROG.pdf [Accessed 16/07/2015] 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. 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. Lieberknecht, L.M., Hooper, T.E.J., Mullier, T.M., Murphy, A., Neilly, M., Carr, H., Haines, R., Lewin, S. and Hughes, E. (2011). Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations. A report submitted by the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England. http://findingsanctuary.marinemapping.com/ Final report as one document (PDF, 43 MB) - 14 September 2011 version. [Accessed 07/09/2015]. Lundblad, E. R., Wright, D. J., Miller, J., Larkin, E. M., Rinehart, R., Naar, D. F., Donahue, B. T., Anderson, S. M. and Battista, T. (2006). A benthic terrain classification scheme for American Samoa. Marine Geodesy 29, 89-111. Mason, C. (2011). NMBAQC’s Best Practice Guidance Particle Size Analysis (PSA) for Supporting Biological Analysis. 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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 23

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) Stephens, D. and Diesing, M. (2014). A comparison of supervised classification methods for the prediction of substrate type using multibeam acoustic and legacy grain-size data. PLoS ONE 9. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093950 Wilson, M.F.J., O’Connell, B., Brown, C., Guinan, J.C. and Grehan, A.J. (2007). Multiscale terrain analysis of multibeam bathymetry data for habitat mapping on the continental slope. Marine Geodesy 30, 3-35. 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/1175/nmbaqc-inv-prp-v10- june2010.pdf [Accessed 16/07/2015]

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 24

Data sources

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

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 25

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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 26

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 Habitat FOCI is 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. ***** ‘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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 27

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 Burgundy Maerl Paint Weed Grateloupia montagnei Grateloup’s Little-Lobed Weed Lithothamnion corallioides Coral Maerl Phymatolithon calcareum Common Maerl Annelida Alkmaria romijni** Tentacled Lagoon-Worm** Armandia cirrhosa** Lagoon Sandworm** Teleostei Gobius cobitis Giant Goby Gobius couchi Couch’s Goby Hippocampus guttulatus Long Snouted Seahorse Hippocampus hippocampus Short Snouted Seahorse Bryozoa Victorella pavida Trembling Sea Mat Cnidaria Amphianthus dohrnii Sea-Fan Anemone Eunicella verrucosa Pink Sea-Fan Haliclystus auricula*** Stalked Jellyfish Leptopsammia pruvoti Sunset Cup Coral Lucernariopsis campanulata Stalked Jellyfish Lucernariopsis cruxmelitensis Stalked Jellyfish Nematostella vectensis Starlet Sea Anemone Crustacea Gammarus insensibilis** Lagoon Sand Shrimp** Gitanopsis bispinosa Amphipod Shrimp Pollicipes pollicipes Gooseneck Barnacle Palinurus elephas Spiny Lobster Mollusca Arctica islandica Ocean Quahog Atrina pectinata**** Fan Mussel Caecum armoricum** Defolin’s Lagoon Snail** Ostrea edulis Native Oyster Paludinella littorina***** Sea Snail Tenellia adspersa** 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. ****Fan mussel should be correctly described as Atrina fragilis. *****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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 28

Annex 4. Highly mobile species FOCI listed in the ENG. Group Scientific name Common Name Teleostei Osmerus eperlanus Smelt Anguilla anguilla** 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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 29

Annex 5. Video and still images 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). Still image 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 still image 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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 30

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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 31

Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey metadata (cruise code CEND0614) Station Code Gear Station Number Replicate Latitude Longitude SPRT001 DC 323 A1 SOL 50.5156682 -2.490462 SPRT001 DC 323 A1 EOL 50.5148997 -2.491137 SPRT002 DC 321 A1 SOL 50.5136667 -2.48522 SPRT002 DC 321 A1 EOL 50.5134914 -2.485323 SPRT003 DC 317 A1 SOL 50.5109249 -2.485101 SPRT003 DC 317 A1 EOL 50.5109632 -2.484838 SPRT004 DC 319 A1 SOL 50.5136952 -2.482872 SPRT004 DC 319 A1 EOL 50.5135479 -2.482751 SPRT005 DC 315 A1 SOL 50.5110087 -2.481657 SPRT005 DC 315 A1 EOL 50.511047 -2.480312 SPRT006 DC 275 A1 SOL 50.50891 -2.47756 SPRT006 DC 275 A1 EOL 50.50874 -2.47759 SPRT007 DC 311 A1 SOL 50.4851297 -2.50215 SPRT007 DC 311 A1 EOL 50.485702 -2.503131 SPRT008 DC 270 A1 SOL 50.48139 -2.49872 SPRT008 DC 270 A1 EOL 50.48186 -2.49983 SPRT009 DC 263 A1 SOL 50.47039 -2.494695 SPRT009 DC 263 A1 EOL 50.47037 -2.494957 SPRT010 DC 266 A1 SOL 50.47878 -2.49585 SPRT010 DC 266 A1 EOL 50.47861 -2.49584 SPRT011 DC 287 A1 SOL 50.4851833 -2.495081 SPRT011 DC 287 A1 EOL 50.4857121 -2.496191 SPRT012 DC 264 A1 SOL 50.47392 -2.491563 SPRT012 DC 264 A1 EOL 50.47397 -2.491833 SPRT013 DC 283 A1 SOL 50.48219 -2.49405 SPRT013 DC 283 A1 EOL 50.48216 -2.49377 SPRT014 DC 265 A1 SOL 50.47863 -2.48988 SPRT014 DC 265 A1 EOL 50.47814 -2.48884 SPRT015 DC 286 A1 SOL 50.48554 -2.48823 SPRT015 DC 286 A1 EOL 50.48557 -2.48836 SPRT016 DC 284 A1 SOL 50.48341 -2.48764 SPRT016 DC 284 A1 EOL 50.48340 -2.48635 SPRT017 DC 285 A1 SOL 50.48481 -2.48195 SPRT017 DC 285 A1 EOL 50.48484 -2.48221 SPRT018 DC 299 A1 SOL 50.4976252 -2.47945 SPRT018 DC 299 A1 EOL 50.497354 -2.478077 SPRT019 DC 300 A1 SOL 50.4939406 -2.47602 SPRT019 DC 300 A1 EOL 50.4938563 -2.475779 SPRT020 DC 277 A1 SOL 50.50081 -2.47418 SPRT020 DC 277 A1 EOL 50.50094 -2.47430 SPRT021 DC 278 A1 SOL 50.49949 -2.47054 SPRT021 DC 278 A1 EOL 50.49932 -2.46915 SPRT022 DC 280 A1 SOL 50.50577 -2.47121 SPRT022 DC 280 A1 EOL 50.50511 -2.47202

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 32

Station Code Gear Station Number Replicate Latitude Longitude SPRT023 DC 279 A1 SOL 50.50325 -2.46565 SPRT023 DC 279 A1 EOL 50.50253 -2.46654 SPRT024 DC 272 A1 SOL 50.50869 -2.46783 SPRT024 DC 272 A1 EOL 50.50949 -2.46818 SPRT025 DC 312 A1 SOL 50.5062531 -2.461249 SPRT025 DC 312 A1 EOL 50.5063623 -2.461459 SPRT026 DC 294 A1 SOL 50.4719005 -2.537 SPRT026 DC 294 A1 EOL 50.4718596 -2.535626 SPRT027 DC 306 A1 SOL 50.4779762 -2.532409 SPRT027 DC 306 A1 EOL 50.4779221 -2.532134 SPRT028 DC 295 A1 SOL 50.4715516 -2.526881 SPRT028 DC 295 A1 EOL 50.4716354 -2.526624 SPRT029 DC 307 A1 SOL 50.4838448 -2.526791 SPRT029 DC 307 A1 EOL 50.4837887 -2.526513 SPRT030 DC 296 A1 SOL 50.4669942 -2.520318 SPRT030 DC 296 A1 EOL 50.4670598 -2.520163 SPRT031 DC 305 A1 SOL 50.4782998 -2.521633 SPRT031 DC 305 A1 EOL 50.4780307 -2.520403 SPRT032 DC 309 A1 SOL 50.4891001 -2.519644 SPRT032 DC 309 A1 EOL 50.48917 -2.519868 SPRT033 DC 304 A1 SOL 50.4723224 -2.516513 SPRT033 DC 304 A1 EOL 50.4722788 -2.516196 SPRT034 DC 308 A1 SOL 50.4834789 -2.516764 SPRT034 DC 308 A1 EOL 50.4834264 -2.515104 SPRT035 DC 291 A1 SOL 50.4953981 -2.516822 SPRT035 DC 291 A1 EOL 50.4954227 -2.51649 SPRT036 DC 302 A1 SOL 50.4668029 -2.509344 SPRT036 DC 302 A1 EOL 50.4660775 -2.509997 SPRT037 DC 268 A1 SOL 50.47858 -2.51095 SPRT037 DC 268 A1 EOL 50.47835 -2.51081 SPRT038 DC 310 A1 SOL 50.4890128 -2.509416 SPRT038 DC 310 A1 EOL 50.4891477 -2.509623 SPRT039 DC 303 A1 SOL 50.4719667 -2.503523 SPRT039 DC 303 A1 EOL 50.4718814 -2.503757 SPRT040 DC 269 A1 SOL 50.48404 -2.50645 SPRT040 DC 269 A1 EOL 50.48315 -2.50645 SPRT041 DC 262 A1 SOL 50.46635 -2.49955 SPRT041 DC 262 A1 EOL 50.46628 -2.49849 SPRT042 DC 339 A1 SOL 50.5008641 -2.509257 SPRT042 DC 339 A1 EOL 50.500813 -2.509006 SPRT043 DC 338 A1 SOL 50.5022633 -2.506766 SPRT043 DC 338 A1 EOL 50.5025469 -2.507465 SPRT045 DC 330 A1 SOL 50.5072273 -2.505097 SPRT045 DC 330 A1 EOL 50.5071832 -2.505348 SPRT046 DC 288 A1 SOL 50.4891721 -2.498643 SPRT046 DC 288 A1 EOL 50.4892783 -2.498908 SPRT047 DC 335 A1 SOL 50.501555 -2.500698 SPRT047 DC 335 A1 EOL 50.5015443 -2.500674

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 33

Station Code Gear Station Number Replicate Latitude Longitude SPRT048 DC 327 A1 SOL 50.5118348 -2.498684 SPRT048 DC 327 A1 EOL 50.5123343 -2.497662 SPRT049 DC 292 A1 SOL 50.4956583 -2.495615 SPRT049 DC 292 A1 EOL 50.4956113 -2.495338 SPRT050 DC 331 A1 SOL 50.5063951 -2.495682 SPRT050 DC 331 A1 EOL 50.5062333 -2.495785 SPRT051 DC 289 A1 SOL 50.4889142 -2.48853 SPRT051 DC 289 A1 EOL 50.4890894 -2.48864 SPRT052 DC 334 A1 SOL 50.5011456 -2.489253 SPRT052 DC 334 A1 EOL 50.5009541 -2.489457 SPRT053 DC 325 A1 SOL 50.5116197 -2.491984 SPRT053 DC 325 A1 EOL 50.5115447 -2.491781 SPRT054 DC 301 A1 SOL 50.4954441 -2.483822 SPRT054 DC 301 A1 EOL 50.4953546 -2.48406 SPRT055 DC 313 A1 SOL 50.5066036 -2.483821 SPRT055 DC 313 A1 EOL 50.5074269 -2.484003 SPRT056 DC 290 A1 SOL 50.4890204 -2.480393 SPRT056 DC 290 A1 EOL 50.4883244 -2.481125 SPRT057 DC 297 A1 SOL 50.5017575 -2.477217 SPRT057 DC 297 A1 EOL 50.5017457 -2.477477 SPRT058 DC 282 A1 SOL 50.50776 -2.47612 SPRT058 DC 282 A1 EOL 50.50763 -2.47632 SPRT059 DC 260 A1 SOL 50.51072 -2.47532 SPRT059 DC 260 A1 EOL 50.50994 -2.47570 SPRT060 DC 273 A1 SOL 50.50915 -2.47488 SPRT060 DC 273 A1 EOL 50.50846 -2.47413 SPRT061 DC 281 A1 SOL 50.50592 -2.47534 SPRT061 DC 281 A1 EOL 50.50513 -2.47575 SPRT062 DC 271 A1 SOL 50.51055 -2.47167 SPRT062 DC 271 A1 EOL 50.51067 -2.47190 SPRT001 HG 324 A3 50.5149376 -2.491145 SPRT003 HG 318 A1 50.5110156 -2.484791 SPRT004 HG 320 A1 50.5134856 -2.482507 SPRT005 HG 316 A1 50.5110457 -2.480284 SPRT006 HG 276 A3 50.50869 -2.47768 SPRT043 HG 337 A1 50.5021978 -2.506515 SPRT045 HG 329 A1 50.5071034 -2.505111 SPRT047 HG 336 A1 50.5015008 -2.50048 SPRT048 HG 328 A1 50.5123397 -2.497619 SPRT049 HG 293 A1 50.4955897 -2.495288 SPRT050 HG 332 A1 50.5060824 -2.495965 SPRT052 HG 333 A1 50.5012307 -2.489218 SPRT053 HG 326 A1 50.5115246 -2.491732 SPRT055 HG 314 A1 50.5074569 -2.484069 SPRT057 HG 298 A1 50.5017382 -2.477543 SPRT059 HG 261 A1 50.50989 -2.47570 SPRT060 HG 274 A3 50.50922 -2.47495 Key: HG - Mini Hamon grab, DC - Drop camera; SOL – Start of line; EOL – End of line.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 34

Appendix 2. Outputs from acoustic surveys (CHP data)

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 35

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 36

Appendix 3. Evidence of human activities within the rMCZ

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 37

Appendix 4. Species list Species list for grab samples (Species FOCI indicated by grey shading, if present). Percentage occurrence was calculated as the ‘Number of samples where the species occurs/total number of samples x 100’.

Taxa % Occurrence SPONGES Porifera 29 Cliona 6

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Hydrallmania falcata 47 Actiniaria 35 Diphasia 24 Amphisbetia operculata 18 Sertularia 18 Campanulariidae 18 Sertularella 12 Sertularella rugosa 12 Calycella syringa 6 Campanulina pumila 6 Halecium 6 Kirchenpaueria 6 Tridentata distans 6 Eudendrium 6 Clytia gracilis 6

FLATWORMS Turbellaria 12

RIBBON WORMS Nemertea 53

ROUND WORMS Nematoda 35

ARROW WORMS Chaetognatha 18

PEANUT WORMS Golfingiidae (juv) 29

SEGMENTED WORMS Glycera lapidum 71 Glycera (juv) 59 Pisione remota 53 Polygordius 53 Lumbrineris cingulata 41 Sabellaria spinulosa 41 Eulalia mustela 35

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 38

Taxa % Occurrence Nematonereis unicornis 35 Mediomastus fragilis 35 Polycirrus 35 Syllis parapari 29 Syllis variegata 29 Lumbrineriopsis paradoxa 29 Notomastus latericeus 29 Asclerocheilus intermedius 29 Spirobranchus triqueter 29 Polynoidae 24 Pholoe inornata (sensu petersen) 24 Dipolydora socialis 24 Caulleriella alata 24 Chaetozone zetlandica 24 Pseudonotomastus southerni 24 Lepidonotus squamatus 18 Eumida sanguinea 18 Pterocirrus macroceros 18 Syllidia armata 18 Eurysyllis tuberculata 18 Syllis armillaris 18 Syllis licheri 18 Trypanosyllis coeliaca 18 Nereididae (juv) 18 Marphysa sanguinea 18 Protodorvillea kefersteini 18 Dipolydora coeca 18 Aphelochaeta (Type A) 18 Diplocirrus stopbowitzi 18 Praxillella 18 Phisidia aurea 18 Hydroides norvegica 18 Malmgrenia ljungmani 12 Pholoe baltica (sensu Petersen) 12 Glycera oxycephala 12 Sphaerodorum gracilis 12 Ophiodromus flexuosus 12 Autolytinae 12 Odontosyllis fulgurans 12 Eunereis longissima 12 Nephtys caeca 12 Nephtys kersivalensis 12 Arabella iricolor 12 Schistomeringos rudolphi 12 Paradoneis lyra 12 Aonides paucibranchiata 12 Dipolydora caulleryi 12 Scolelepis 12 Spiophanes bombyx 12 Galathowenia oculata 12

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 39

Taxa % Occurrence Lysilla nivea 12 Anaitides longipes 6 Eteone longa 6 Eulalia aurea 6 Eulalia bilineata 6 Eulalia tripunctata 6 Eumida bahusiensis 6 Ephesiella peripatus 6 Gyptis propinqua 6 Psamathe fusca 6 Eusyllinae 6 Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 6 Syllis 6 Nephtyidae (juv) 6 Aglaophamus rubella 6 Nephtys cirrosa 6 Pareurythoe borealis 6 Aponuphis bilineata 6 Lumbrineridae (juv) 6 Scoletoma magnidentata 6 Schistomeringos neglecta 6 Orbinia sertulata 6 Prionospio banyulensis 6 Scolelepis korsuni 6 Spio symphyta 6 Aphelochaeta marioni 6 Caulleriella bioculata 6 Cirratulus (Type A) 6 Monticellina dorsobranchialis 6 Ophelia celtica 6 Travisia forbesii 6 Scalibregma celticum 6 Sclerocheilus minutus 6 Amphitritinae 6 Ampharete lindstroemi 6 Lanice conchilega 6 Nicolea venustula 6 Trichobranchus roseus 6 Sabellidae 6 Chone 6 Jasmineira elegans 6 Metavermilia multicristata 6 Spirobranchus 6 Spirorbidae 6 Grania 6

CRUSTACEANS Verruca stroemia 29 Ampelisca tenuicornis 29 Balanus crenatus 24

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 40

Taxa % Occurrence Gnathia oxyuraea 24 Pilumnus hirtellus 24 Socarnes erythrophthalmus 18 Leptocheirus hirsutimanus 18 Leptocheirus tricristatus 18 Unciola crenatipalma 18 Anthura gracilis 18 Urothoe elegans 12 Animoceradocus semiserratus 12 Gnathia vorax 12 Upogebia deltaura 12 Pisidia longicornis 12 Gammarellus homari 6 Pontocrates arenarius 6 Leucothoe 6 Acidostoma neglectum (sensu Stoddart and Lowry) 6 Liljeborgia kinahani 6 Ampelisca diadema 6 Bathyporeia elegans 6 Maerella tenuimana 6 Gammaropsis cornuta 6 Gnathia dentata 6 Limnoria quadripunctata 6 Natatolana gallica 6 Pseudoparatanais batei 6 Apseudes talpa 6 Paguridae (juv) 6 Pagurus bernhardus 6 Ebalia tuberosa 6 Ebalia tumefacta 6 Liocarcinus pusillus 6

MOLLUSCS Sphenia binghami 41 Striarca lactea 29 Timoclea ovata 29 Mytilidae (juv) 18 Cuthona 12 Venerupis senegalensis 12 Thracia (juv) 12 Leptochiton asellus 6 Leptochiton cancellatus 6 Diodora graeca 6 Emarginula rosea 6 Jujubinus montagui 6 Manzonia crassa 6 Euspira pulchella 6 Vitreolina philippi 6 Ocenebra erinacea 6 Chrysallida pellucida 6

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 41

Taxa % Occurrence Nucula nucleus 6 Anomiidae 6 Anomiidae (juv) 6 Moerella pygmaea 6 Abra (juv) 6 Tapes rhomboides 6 Hiatella arctica 6

BRYOZOANS Flustra foliacea 59 Crisia denticulata 53 Cellaria fistulosa 53 Chorizopora brongniarti 47 Schizomavella 41 Electra pilosa 35 Callopora discreta 35 Bicellariella ciliata 35 Scrupocellaria scruposa 35 Hippothoa flagellum 35 Escharoides coccinea 35 Disporella hispida 29 Aetea anguina 29 Escharella immersa 29 Escharella ventricosa 29 Plagioecia patina 24 Vesicularia spinosa 24 Callopora dumerilli 24 Puellina bifida 24 Fenestrulina malusii 24 Microporella ciliata 24 Crisia aculeata 18 Crisidia cornuta 18 Hincksina flustroides 18 Beania mirabilis 18 Celleporella hyalina 18 Escharella variolosa 18 Schizoporella 18 Pentapora fascialis 18 Crisia eburnea 12 Tubulipora 12 Alcyonidium diaphanum 12 Alcyonidium mytili 12 Puellina innominata 12 Neolagenipora collaris 12 Escharina johnstoni 12 Hippoporina pertusa 12 Plagioecia sarniensis 6 Nolella 6 Triticella flava 6 Scruparia chelata 6

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 42

Taxa % Occurrence Bugula 6 Bugula fulva 6 Bugula turbinata 6 Scrupocellaria scabra 6 Scrupocellaria scrupea 6 Collarina balzaci 6 Schizotheca 6 Schizotheca fissa 6

HORSESHOE WORMS Phoronis 18

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Amphipholis squamata 41 Echinocyamus pusillus 24 Ophiuroidea (juv) 18 Ophiothrix fragilis 6 Leptosynapta minuta 6

SEA SQUIRTS Ascidiacea (juv) 29

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 43

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 67 Hemimycale columella 25 Cliona celata 12 Dysidea fragilis 10 Pachymatisma johnstonia 1 Polymastia penicillus 1

HYDROIDS, CORALS, JELLYFISH, ANEMONES Hydrozoa 81 Actiniaria 75 Alcyonium digitatum 63 Tubularia sp. 54 Nemertesia sp. 45 Halecium sp. 19 Sertulariidae 7 Hydrallmania sp. 6 Urticina sp. 6 Gymnangium montagui 3 Actinothoe sphyrodeta 3 Ceriantharia 1 Corynactis viridis 1

SEGMENTED WORMS Serpulidae (tubes) 76 Sabellaria spinulosa (tubes) 4 Bispira volutacornis 3 Sabellidae (tubes) 1

CRUSTACEANS Paguridae 60 Cirripedia 51 Maja squinado 24 Majidae 13 Cancer pagurus 13 Ebalia sp. 10 Necora puber 6 Macropodia sp. 4 Decapoda 3

MOLLUSCS Calliostoma sp. 43 Pecten maximus 13 Mytilus edulis 12 Pectinidae 7 Nudibranchia (eggs) 4

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 44

Taxa % Occurrence Gibbula sp. 3 Crepidula fornicata 1 Nudibranchia 1 Bivalvia (siphons) 1

BRYOZOANS Bryozoa (crust) 70 Bryozoa (massive/turf) 69 Flustridae 52 Cellaria sp. 22 Pentapora foliacea 13

SEA STARS, URCHINS, SEA CUCUMBERS Asterias rubens 22 Henricia sp. 4 Asteroidea 1

SEA SQUIRTS Ascidiacea 43

FISH Actinopterygii 16 Elasmobranchii (eggs) 3 Gadidae 3 Raja brachyura 1 Ammodytidae 1

ALGAE Phaeophyceae 10

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 45

Appendix 5. Analyses of sediment samples: classification and composition Station Station Gravel Sand Silt/clay number code Latitude Longitude Sediment description Broadscale habitat (%) (%) (%) 261 SPRT059 50.50988 -2.47570 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 27.88 65.51 6.61 274 SPRT060 50.50922 -2.47495 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 20.00 73.11 6.89 276 SPRT006 50.50869 -2.47768 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 21.91 73.67 4.43 293 SPRT049 50.49559 -2.49529 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 29.70 69.78 0.52 298 SPRT057 50.50174 -2.47754 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 35.75 63.22 1.03 314 SPRT055 50.50746 -2.48407 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 24.11 73.01 2.88 316 SPRT005 50.51105 -2.48028 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 11.16 81.95 6.89 318 SPRT003 50.51102 -2.48479 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 35.30 62.46 2.24 320 SPRT004 50.51348 -2.48251 Mixed sediments A5.4 - Subtidal Mixed Sediments 39.45 52.63 7.92 324 SPRT001 50.51494 -2.49115 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 14.20 84.07 1.73 326 SPRT053 50.51152 -2.49173 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 30.55 68.42 1.04 328 SPRT048 50.51234 -2.49762 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 15.12 83.80 1.08 329 SPRT045 50.50710 -2.50511 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 10.41 88.78 0.81 332 SPRT050 50.50608 -2.49597 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 20.10 79.07 0.82 333 SPRT052 50.50123 -2.48922 Sand and muddy sand A5.2 - Subtidal Sand 4.02 95.44 0.55 336 SPRT047 50.50150 -2.50048 Sand and muddy sand A5.2 - Subtidal Sand 3.17 96.14 0.69 337 SPRT043 50.50220 -2.50652 Coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment 40.79 58.55 0.65

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 46

Appendix 6. BSH/EUNIS Level 3 descriptions derived from video and still images No of still Video sample ref. images Sediment description Broadscale habitat MNCR code SPRT001_STN_323_A1 11 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT002_STN_321_A1 5 Sublittoral sands and muddy sands A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa SPRT003_STN_317_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT004_STN_319_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT005_STN_315_A1 12 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT006_STN_275_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT007_STN_311_A1 11 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT008_STN_270_A1 13 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT009_STN_263_A1 3 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT010_STN_266_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT011_STN287_A1 12 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT012_STN_264_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT013_STN283_A1 4 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT014_STN_265_A1 12 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT015_STN286_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT016_STN284_A1_S1 8 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT016_STN284_A1_S2 4 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT017_STN285_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT018_STN_299_A1 14 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT019_STN_300_A1 3 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT020_STN_277_A1 4 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT021_STN_278_A1_S1 9 Circalittoral mussel beds on rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.CMus SPRT021_STN_278_A1_S2 2 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT021_STN_278_A1_S3 5 Circalittoral mussel beds on rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.CMus SPRT021_STN_278_A1_S4 5 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT022_STN280_A1_S1 2 Circalittoral mussel beds on rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.CMus SPRT022_STN280_A1_S2 11 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT023_STN279_A1 14 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 47

No of still Video sample ref. images Sediment description Broadscale habitat MNCR code SPRT024_STN_272_A1_S1 12 Circalittoral mussel beds on rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.CMus SPRT024_STN_272_A1_S2 2 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT025_STN_312_A1 3 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT026_STN_294_A1 11 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT027_STN_306_A1 4 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT028_STN_295_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT029_STN_307_A1 4 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT030_STN_296_A1 3 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT031_STN_305_A1 10 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT032_STN_309_A1 4 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT033_STN_304_A1 4 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT034_STN_308_A1 10 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT035_STN_291_A1 5 Moderate energy circalittoral rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR SPRT036_STN_302_A1 13 Moderate energy circalittoral rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR SPRT037_STN_268_A1 3 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT038_STN_310_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT039_STN_303_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT040_STN_269_A1 23 Moderate energy circalittoral rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR SPRT041_STN_262_A1 13 Moderate energy circalittoral rock A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR SPRT042_STN_339_A1 2 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT043_STN_338_A1 10 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT045_STN_330_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT046_STN_288_A1 3 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT048_STN_327_A1 8 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT049_STN_292_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT050_STN_331_A1 2 Sublittoral sands and muddy sands A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa SPRT051_STN_289_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT052_STN_334_A1 4 Sublittoral sands and muddy sands A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa SPRT053_STN_325_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT054_STN_301_A1 3 Sublittoral sands and muddy sands A5.2 - Subtidal Sand SS.SSa

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 48

No of still Video sample ref. images Sediment description Broadscale habitat MNCR code SPRT055_STN_313_A1 13 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT056_STN_290_A1 12 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT057_STN_297_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT058_STN_282_A1 3 Mixed faunal turf communities A4.1 - High Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.HCR.Xfa SPRT059_STN_260_A1 12 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS SPRT060_STN_273_A1 19 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT061_STN_281_A1 15 Soft rock communities A4.2 - Moderate Energy Circalittoral Rock CR.MCR.SfR SPRT062_STN_271_A1 3 Circalittoral coarse sediment A5.1 - Subtidal Coarse Sediment SS.SCS.CCS

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 49

Appendix 7. Example images from survey for broadscale habitats Broadscale habitats Description Example image taken during survey A4.1 High energy Extremely wave- circalittoral rock exposed to exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders subject to tidal streams ranging from strong to very strong.

A4.2 Moderate Exposed to moderately energy circalittoral wave-exposed rock circalittoral bedrock and boulders, subject to moderately strong and weak tidal streams.

A5.1 Subtidal coarse Coarse sediments sediment 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.

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 50

Appendix 8. Example images for habitat FOCI Habitat FOCI Description Example Image taken during survey Blue Mussel Beds Extensive beds, with (including Intertidal living and dead Beds on Mixed and mussels, sand and Sandy Sediments) – mud all bound indicative together by the mussels’ sticky SPRT_CEND0614_SPRT ‘beards’ of byssus 021_STN_278_A1_002 threads.

SPRT_CEND0614_SPRT 024_STN_272_A1_005

Peat and Clay Exposed peat or clay Exposures – indicative characterised by the presence of piddock SPRT_CEND0614_SPRT burrows. They can 061_STN_281_A1_003 be buried by sand or other sediments and exposed again on a regular basis.

SPRT_CEND0614_SPRT 014_STN_265_A1_004

South of Portland rMCZ Post-survey Site Report 51

© Crown Copyright 2016