Beachy Head West MCZ MPA Monitoring Programme V3

Beachy Head West Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) Characterisation Report 2015

MPA Monitoring Programme

Contract Reference: MB0129 Report Number: 4 Version 3 July 2018

Project Title: Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Monitoring Programme Report No 4. Title: Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 Defra Project Code: MB0129 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

Louise Brown Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Matthew Curtis Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Jon Hawes Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We thank the Marine Protected Areas Group (MPAG) representatives 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 reports 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 Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) advice or assessments.

Cefas Document Control

Title: Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015

Submitted to: Marine Protected Areas Group (MPAG) Date submitted: August 2018 Portfolio Lead: Clare Leech Project Manager: Mark Etherton Principal Investigator: Sue Ware MPA Programme Science Lead: Joanna Murray, Tammy Nobel-James, Ross Bullimore Report compiled by: Louise Brown, Matthew Curtis, Jon Hawes Quality control by: Sue Ware, Tammy Noble-James, Silke Kröger, Ross Bullimore Approved by & date: Ross Bullimore 08/08/2018 Version: 3

Version Control History Author Date Comment Version Brown & Curtis March 2017 Draft submitted for MPAG and external review V1 Brown et al. October Revised draft following initial MPAG and external V2 2017 review. New format applied Brown et al. July 2018 Comments from final MPAG review addressed and V3 updated.

Contents

Contents ...... i Tables ...... iii Figures ...... iv Executive Summary ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Site overview ...... 3 1.2 Aims and objectives ...... 7 1.2.1 High-level conservation objectives ...... 7 1.2.2 Definition of favourable condition ...... 7 1.2.3 Report aims and objectives ...... 8 2 Methods ...... 10 2.1 Survey elements: feature attributes and supporting processes ...... 10 2.2 Data sources ...... 10 2.3 Survey design ...... 11 2.4 Data acquisition and processing ...... 12 2.4.1 Acoustic data ...... 12 2.4.2 Seabed imagery ...... 13 2.4.3 Seabed sediments ...... 13 2.5 Data preparation and analysis...... 13 2.5.1 Habitat map ...... 13 2.5.2 Sediment particle size distribution ...... 14 2.5.3 Biological community data preparation ...... 15 2.5.4 Statistical analyses ...... 15 2.5.5 Tidal modelling ...... 16 2.5.6 Physico-chemical properties ...... 16 3 Results and Interpretation ...... 17 3.1 Broadscale Habitat (BSH): extent and distribution ...... 17 3.2 Subtidal rock BSH: Physical structure and biological communities ...... 20 3.2.1 Moderate energy infralittoral rock ...... 23 3.2.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock ...... 23 3.2.3 High energy circalittoral rock ...... 25

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 i

3.3 Subtidal sedimentary BSH: Sediment composition and biological communities ...... 25 3.3.1 Subtidal coarse sediment ...... 28 3.3.2 Subtidal sand ...... 30 3.3.3 Subtidal mixed sediments ...... 32 3.3.1 Subtidal mud ...... 32 3.4 Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) ...... 32 3.4.1 Subtidal chalk ...... 32 3.4.2 Other habitat FOCI ...... 35 3.5 Species Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) ...... 35 3.6 Non-indigenous species (NIS) ...... 35 3.7 Additional monitoring: supporting processes ...... 36 3.7.1 Hydrodynamics: tidal energy and exposure ...... 36 3.7.2 Water quality parameters ...... 38 3.7.3 Sediment quality parameters ...... 38 3.7.4 Marine litter ...... 38 4 Discussion ...... 39 4.1 Broadscale Habitat extent and distribution ...... 39 4.2 Subtidal rock BSH: Physical structure and biological communities ...... 39 4.3 Subtidal sedimentary BSH: Sediment composition and biological communities ...... 40 4.4 Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) ...... 40 4.5 Species Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) ...... 41 4.6 Non-indigenous species (NIS) ...... 41 4.7 Supporting processes ...... 41 4.8 Recommendations for future monitoring ...... 42 5 References ...... 44 Annex 1. Methods for the production of the habitat map...... 46 Annex 3. Infauna data truncation protocol...... 53 Annex 4. Seafloor litter monitoring...... 54 Annex 5. Non-indigenous species (NIS)...... 55

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 ii

Tables

Table 1. Beachy Head West MCZ site overview, including General Management Approach (GMA) for designated features...... 6 Table 2. Survey elements and outputs aligned with the feature attributes and supporting processes identified at Beachy Head West MCZ...... 10 Table 3. Number of samples collected in each BSH...... 17

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 iii

Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Beachy Head West MCZ in the context of Marine Protected Areas and management jurisdictions proximal to the site...... 5 Figure 2. Location of ground truth samples collected at Beachy Head West MCZ in 2015...... 11 Figure 3. Extent of acoustic data available within the Beachy Head West MCZ. .... 12 Figure 4. Habitat map of Beachy Head West MCZ (Beachy Head to Newhaven section)...... 18 Figure 5. Habitat map of Beachy Head West MCZ (Newhaven to Shoreham section)...... 19 Figure 6. Example images of the rock features at Beachy Head West MCZ...... 21 Figure 7. MNCR habitat classes (MNCR, 1990) assigned to each still image acquired for subtidal rock features...... 22 Figure 8. Example image of biotope observed to be associated with the infralittoral rock feature at Beachy Head West MCZ...... 23 Figure 9. Example images of biotopes observed to be associated with the circalittoral rock feature from at Beachy Head West MCZ...... 24 Figure 10. Classification of particle size distribution (half phi) information for each sampling point...... 26 Figure 11. Distribution of sediment fractions at grab sample locations...... 27 Figure 12. MDS plot indicating similarity in species composition between stations. 27 Figure 13. Example images of fauna observed to be associated with the coarse sediment feature at Beachy Head West MCZ...... 29 Figure 14. Example images of fauna observed to be associated with the subtidal sand feature at Beachy Head West MCZ...... 31 Figure 15. Extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ within Beachy Head West MCZ (Beachy Head to Newhaven)...... 32 Figure 16 Extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ within Beachy Head West MCZ (Newhaven to Shoreham)...... 33 Figure 17. Example images for ‘Subtidal Chalk’ observed within the Beachy Head West MCZ from the 2015 survey...... 34 Figure 18. Location of samples where non-native species were observed...... 36 Figure 19. Physical environment at Beachy Head West MCZ……………………….37 Figure 20. Locations and categories of marine litter observed in the samples collected as part of the 2015 survey...... 38

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 iv

Executive Summary

This report is one of a series of Marine Protected Area (MPA) characterisation and monitoring reports delivered to Defra by the Marine Protected Areas Group (MPAG). The purpose of the report series is to provide the necessary information to allow Defra to fulfil its obligations in relation to MPA assessment and reporting, currently in relation to OSPAR, the UK Marine & Coastal Act (2009) and other relevant Directives (e.g., Marine Strategy Framework Directive). This characterisation report is informed by data acquired during a dedicated survey carried out at Beachy Head West Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) (during 2015) and will form part of the ongoing time series data and evidence for this MPA. Beachy Head West MCZ is an inshore site located on the coast of East Sussex within the ‘Eastern Channel’ Charting Progress 2 (CP2) sea area. This report provides a characterisation of a number of the Broadscale Habitats (BSHs) (‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’) and the habitat feature of conservation importance (FOCI), ‘Subtidal Chalk’ designated within the MCZ. The subtidal habitats observed within Beachy Head West MCZ consist of infralittoral and circalittoral moderate energy rock surrounded and overlain in places by a mosaic of sand and coarse sediment. The rock feature at the site comprises exposed chalk bedrock occasionally overlain by boulders and cobbles. The entirety of the rock feature within the Beachy Head West MCZ is considered to be the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ consisting of chalk bedrock and boulders. The main biotope observed in association with the ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ BSH was ‘Dense foliose red seaweeds on silty moderately exposed infralittoral rock, (IR.MIR.KR.XFoR). The main biotopes observed in association with the ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ include ‘Soft rock communities’ (CR.MCR.SfR) and ‘Piddocks with a sparse associated fauna in sublittoral very soft chalk or clay’ (CR.MCR.SfR.Pid). The majority of the sedimentary habitats surrounding the rock features within the MCZ comprise a mosaic of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments, was observed at two stations within the MCZ but was not possible to map. One Non-Indigenous Species (NIS), the gastropod mollusc Crepidula fornicata, was present in both the infaunal samples and underwater imagery collected within Beachy Head West MCZ. A number of supporting processes were considered as part of this report. Results of hydrological modelling indicated that the MCZ is exposed to waves coming off of the Atlantic and mainly has moderate (0.5-1.5 m s-1) to weak (<0.5 m s-1) tidal currents. Water and sediment quality assessments were not included as part of the surveys carried out at Beachy Head West MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 1

Six incidences of marine litter were observed in the in the seabed imagery data and these were predominately plastic bags. A number of recommendations for future assessment and monitoring of designated features within Beachy Head West MCZ (and other comparable sites) are provided.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 2

1 Introduction

Beachy Head West Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) is part of a network of sites designed to meet conservation objectives under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009). These sites will also contribute to an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) across the North-east Atlantic agreed under the Oslo Paris (OSPAR) Convention and other international commitments to which the UK is signatory. Under the UK Marine & Coastal Access Act (2009), Defra is required to provide a report to Parliament every six years that includes an assessment of the degree to which the conservation objectives set for MCZs are being achieved. In order to fulfil its obligations, Defra has directed the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) to carry out a programme of MPA monitoring. The SNCB responsible for nature conservation inshore (between 0 nm and 12 nm from the coast) is Natural England (NE) and the SNCB responsible for nature conservation offshore (between 12 nm and 200 nm from the coast) is the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). Where possible, this monitoring will also inform assessment of the status of the wider UK marine environment; for example, assessment of whether Good Environmental Status (GES) has been achieved, as required under Article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). This report primarily explores data acquired from the first dedicated monitoring survey of Beachy Head West MCZ. The specific aims of the report are discussed in more detail in section 1.2. 1.1 Site overview Beachy Head West MCZ is an inshore site on the south coast of Sussex (Figure 1) and was recommended as a MCZ by the ‘Balanced Seas’ regional stakeholder group project. It is located in the jurisdictional area of the Sussex Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (SIFCA) and falls within the wider ‘Charting Progress 2’ (CP2) area ‘Eastern Channel’. The site is neighboured by Kingmere, Offshore Brighton, Offshore Overfalls and Pagham Harbour MCZs as well as Bassurelle Sandbank Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Severn Sisters Voluntary Marine Conservation Area (VMCA) overlaps the site (Figure 1). The MCZ runs from Beachy Head to 100 m west of Brighton Marina. The site is split into two distinct sections, Beachy Head to Newhaven to the east and Newhaven to Brighton Marina to the west. This is due to a central gap at Newhaven which avoids the Ouse estuary mouth allowing this section of the coastline to be dredged to maintain marine traffic access to Newhaven port. The eastern boundary of the MCZ connects to the proposed boundary of the Beachy Head East rMCZ, further information can be found in the Balanced Seas Project report (2011).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 3

The Beachy Head West MCZ Designation Order 20131 lists three sedimentary subtidal BSHs as protected features; ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’, as well as three sedimentary ‘Marine Habitats’; ‘Infralittoral muddy sand’, ‘Infralittoral sandy mud’ and ‘Low energy infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment’ which are not ENG features but have been specifically designated at this site. An amendment was made to the designation order in 20162 to include the Broadscale Habitats (BSHs) ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. Beachy Head West contains some of the best examples of chalk habitat in the south- east region. Here the chalk reefs and gullies support specialised communities of animals and seaweeds. Additionally, the sites are known to support the rare Short Snouted Seahorse. Table 1 lists the BSHs and Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI) that have been reported at the site in the Site Assessment Document (SAD) (Balanced Seas Project report, 2011). The features afforded protection in the site designation order and the General Management Approach (GMA) to be applied to each feature are also provided in Table 1.

1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukmo/2013/2/pdfs/ukmo_20130002_en.pdf [accessed 23/4/2018] 2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukmo/2016/24/pdfs/ukmo_20160024_en.pdf [accessed 23/4/2018]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 4

Figure 1. Location of the Beachy Head West MCZ in the context of Marine Protected Areas and management jurisdictions proximal to the site.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 5

Table 1. Beachy Head West MCZ site overview, including General Management Approach (GMA) for designated features.

Charting Progress 2 Region3 Balanced Seas Project report (2011) Spatial Area (km2) 24 km2 Water Depth Range (m) TBC Existing Data & Information Stevens, E. (2017). Beachy Head West MCZ 2015 Survey Report. 103 pp.

Current & Proposed Management Measures CIFCA Byelaw-Prohibition of fishing within Beachy Head West MCZ4 Features Present (BSH) Designated GMA A2.1 Intertidal coarse sediment* ✓ Maintain A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock  N/A A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock ✓ Recover A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock ✓ Recover A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment  N/A A5.2 Subtidal sand ✓ Maintain A5.3 Subtidal mud ✓ Maintain A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments ✓ Maintain Marine Habitat Infralittoral muddy sand** ✓ Maintain Infralittoral sandy mud** ✓ Maintain Low energy infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment** ✓ Recover Features Present (Habitat FOCI) Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Beds ✓ Maintain Littoral Chalk Communities* ✓ Recover Subtidal Chalk ✓ Maintain Features Present (Species FOCI) Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis)*** ✓ Maintain Short Snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus)*** ✓ Maintain

* The characterisation survey reported here did not extend into the intertidal. ** Non- Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) features which have been included in the designation order for this site. *** The characterisation survey was not specifically designed to target species FOCI.

3http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20141203170558tf_/http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/ [accessed 23/4/2018] 4https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/34087/sitedata/files/MPAs/SXIFCA-MPA-Byelaw-2015.pdf [accessed 23/4/2018]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 6

1.2 Aims and objectives 1.2.1 High-level conservation objectives High-level site-specific conservation objectives serve as benchmarks against which the efficacy of the GMA in achieving the conservation objectives (i.e., maintaining designated features at, or recovering them to, ‘favourable condition’) can be assessed and monitored. As detailed in Beachy Head West MCZ designation order1, the conservation objectives for the site are that the designated features: a) So far as already in favourable condition, remain in such condition; and b) So far as not already in favourable condition, be brought into such condition, and remain in such condition. It should be noted that the ‘maintain’ GMAs have been applied based on a proxy assessment, as opposed to being based on empirical monitoring evidence (i.e., direct observations). As such, the vulnerability assessment took into account the level of exposure of the features to those pressures to which they are perceived to be sensitive. 1.2.2 Definition of favourable condition For habitat features, a number of attributes5 (shown below in bold) are assessed and monitored to determine whether or not features are in favourable condition. Favourable condition, with respect to a habitat feature, means that: a) Its extent and distribution is stable or increasing; b) Its structures and functions, including its quality, and the composition of its characteristic biological communities, are such as to ensure that it remains in a condition which is healthy and not deteriorating; and c) Its natural supporting processes are unimpeded. The extent of a habitat feature refers to the total area in the site occupied by the qualifying feature and must also include consideration of its distribution. A reduction in feature extent has the potential to alter the physical and biological functioning of sedimentary habitat types (Elliott et al., 1998). The distribution of a habitat feature influences the component communities present and can contribute to the condition and resilience of the feature (JNCC, 2004). The assessment and monitoring of extent is only appropriate for those features with a discrete boundary, which are likely to be affected by pressures that can be regulated as part of the management approach. Examples of such features are, among others, biogenic reefs and Maerl beds. The spatial extent of most

5https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/Marine/SupAdvice.aspx?SiteCode=UKMCZ0002&Site Name=beachy+head+west&SiteNameDisplay=Beachy+Head+West+MCZ&countyCode=&responsibl ePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea= [accessed 23/4/2018]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 7

Broadscale Habitats is not likely to change in response to most pressures. Exceptions to this include activities such as dredging and disposal of dredged materials, which will directly impact the type of seabed habitat present. The other components (i.e., feature structure and function) are more appropriate measures of favourable condition for most habitat features. Feature and sub-feature specific targets (and details of their supporting processes) are provided in the supplementary advice5 for designated sites.

Structure encompasses the physical components of a habitat type and the key and influential species present. Physical structure refers to topography, sediment composition and distribution. Physical structure can have a significant influence on the hydrodynamic regime operating at varying spatial scales in the marine environment as well as influencing the presence and distribution of associated biological communities (Elliott et al., 1998). The function of habitat features includes processes such as: sediment reworking (e.g., through bioturbation) and habitat modification, primary and secondary production and recruitment dynamics. Habitat features rely on a range of supporting processes (e.g., hydrodynamic regime, water quality and sediment quality) which act to support their functioning as well as their resilience (e.g., ability to recover following impact). For species features, favourable condition means that: a) The quality and quantity of its habitat are such as to ensure that the population is maintained in numbers which enable it to thrive; b) The composition of its population in terms of number, age and sex ratio are such as to ensure that the population is maintained in numbers which enable it to thrive; and c) Its natural supporting processes are unimpeded.

1.2.3 Report aims and objectives

The primary aim of this characterisation report is to explore and describe the attributes of the designated features within Beachy Head West MCZ (details of the specific attributes and supporting processes for designated features within Beachy Head West MCZ are provided in Appendix 1). The results presented will be used to develop recommendations for the future establishment of a monitoring time-series. The specific objectives of this monitoring report are provided below: a) Provide a description of the structural and (where possible) functional attributes of the designated habitat features within and adjacent to the site; b) Present evidence relating to additional monitoring requirements for both the designated features and their natural supporting processes, and;

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 8 c) Provide practical recommendations for appropriate future monitoring approaches for both the designated features and their natural supporting processes (e.g., metric selection, survey design, data collection approaches) with a discussion of their requirements.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 9

2 Methods

2.1 Survey elements: feature attributes and supporting processes

The features and sub-features designated at Beachy Head West MCZ, along with their attributes and supporting processes, are detailed in Annex 1. The survey carried out at Beachy Head West MCZ was designed to provide data and evidence of the status of designated features in alignment with the conservation advice available for this MCZ (Table 2).

Table 2. Survey elements and outputs aligned with the feature attributes and supporting processes identified at Beachy Head West MCZ.

Attribute/Supporting Process Features Surveyed Outputs Attributes: Distribution, structure and function Extent and distribution A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock Habitat map A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock A5.2 Subtidal sand A5.3 Subtidal mud A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal Chalk Physical structure of rocky A5.2 Subtidal sand Habitat map substrate A5.3 Subtidal mud A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments Sediment composition and A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment Habitat map and PSA distribution A5.2 Subtidal sand derived from seabed A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments sediment samples Presence and abundance of key A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock Biological communities structural and influential species A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock (and derived biotopes) A5.2 Subtidal sand derived from ground Species composition of A5.3 Subtidal mud truth samples component communities A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments Subtidal Chalk Non-indigenous species (NIS) Beachy Head West MCZ Location of samples where NIS were recorded Supporting process: Energy/exposure Beachy Head West Hydrological model

2.2 Data sources

Data used to inform this characterisation report have been compiled from the survey carried out at Beachy Head West MCZ in 2015 by the Environment Agency (EA) (Stevens, 2017) and from acoustic data downloaded from the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Data Archive Centre6 (UKHO INSPIRE DAC). Substrate maps created by the Channel Coastal Observatory for the western section (Newhaven to Shoreham) have been used to supplement a lack of INSPIRE available MBES data for this section (Colenutt et al., 2016). Locations of video tows and grab samples collected during the 2015 survey is shown in Figure 2.

6 http://aws2.caris.com/ukho/mapViewer/map.action [[accessed 23/4/2018]]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 10

2.3 Survey design

Sixty-five stations were planned for the Beachy Head West survey in August 2015 by the EA to support the verification of feature presence and distribution. The station positions were selected using a triangular lattice spaced 500 m apart. A full Before- After-Control-Impact (BACI) sampling design was not possible due to the small area of comparable habitat (inshore of the ten metre depth contour) outside the MCZ. The survey was undertaken on-board the survey vessel the Solent Guardian. Seabed imagery samples were collected using a Drop-down camera system between the 8th and 11th August 2015 and grab samples were collected between 1st and 2nd September 2015.

A total of 59 video tows were collected, 14 of which were outside of the site boundary. A total of 33 sediment samples were collected, of which five were taken outside the MCZ boundary. Samples from outside the site boundary have not been considered for analysis in this report due to the poor quality of the underwater imagery and the low number of grab samples acquired. For full details on ground truth sample collection and processing procedures refer to the Environment Agency survey report (Stevens, 2017).

Figure 2. Location of ground truth samples collected at Beachy Head West MCZ in 2015.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 11

2.4 Data acquisition and processing 2.4.1 Acoustic data Acoustic data was downloaded from the UKHO INSPIRE DAC in three separate layers to achieve as close to the maximum coverage of the site that is possible with the available resources (Figure 3). Block one and block two were downloaded from the DAC in tiff format, whereas Block 3 was downloaded as point data in csv format.

Full coverage multibeam echosounder (MBES) data were acquired for Blocks 1 and 2 (the “western section” of the MCZ- Newhaven to Shoreham) by the Maritime and Coastal Agency (MCA) project HI1478, completed in late 2015, as part of the Civil Hydrography Programme. These data were collected on board the vessels MV Vigilant (using a hull-mounted Konsberg Simrad EM2040D MBES system) and the MV Titan Endeavour (using a Reson 7125 MBES system), at 1 m resolution and quality controlled by the UKHO. These data, including bathymetry and backscatter, were compiled and analysed separately to this report (Colenutt et al., 2016), with the output Broadscale Habitat Map displayed herein (Figure 5).

Block 3 was collected in 2013 using a Simrad/Kongsberg EM3002D multibeam echosounder (MBES) by EGS (International) Ltd for the SW Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme on-board the MV Wessex Explorer according to IHO Order 1a, and has a 2 m resolution. Backscatter data were available for this block and were requested and delivered to Cefas by the UKHO in raw format. The backscatter data were processed using Fledermaus Geocoder Toolbox (FMGT) and exported as a floating point geotif.

Figure 3. Extent of acoustic data available within the Beachy Head West MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 12

2.4.2 Seabed imagery Drop down video data were collected in accordance with the MESH ‘recommended operating guidelines (ROG) for underwater video and photographic imaging techniques’ (Coggan et al., 2007). An STR SeaSpyder camera system was deployed from the stern gantry. Real time navigation data acquisition and manual position fixing, when the gear contacted the seabed, was captured via Trimble® HYDROpro™ software. Images of the seabed were captured every 10-15 m over a distance of >150 m. Full details can be found in the survey report (Stevens, 2017).

2.4.3 Seabed sediments Grab samples for particle size analysis (PSA) and benthic faunal analysis were collected using a 0.1 m2 Mini-Hamon Grab deployed from the stern gantry. A 0.5 L sediment subsample was taken from valid grab samples for sediment PSA. Sediment samples were processed by National Laboratory Service following the recommended methodology of the North East Atlantic Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme (Mason, 2011). The less than 1 mm sediment fraction was analysed using laser diffraction and the greater than 1 mm fraction was dried, sieved and weighed at 0.5 phi (ϕ) intervals. Sediment distribution data were merged and used to classify samples into sedimentary Broadscale Habitats.

The faunal fraction was washed over a 1 mm mesh, photographed and fixed with buffered 8% formaldehyde solution. If the volume of sediment collected was insufficient for faunal analysis (i.e., <5 L in volume) in each of the three grab attempts made at a particular station, a photograph was taken and, if possible, sediment sampled for PSA. The station was then abandoned.

Faunal samples were processed by APEM Ltd and the fauna present were identified to the highest possible taxonomic resolution, enumerated and weighed following the recommendations of the NMBAQC scheme (Worsfold et al., 2010).

2.5 Data preparation and analysis 2.5.1 Habitat map

Habitat mapping was undertaken to illustrate the distribution of BSHs within both sections of the MCZ (western and eastern), however different methods were used in mapping these sections due to data availability. The eastern section of the MCZ, the “Beachy Head to Newhaven” section, was mapped by Cefas (Figure 4) using MBES data, described above as “Block 3”. The western section (“Newhaven to Shoreham”) was mapped by the Channel Coastal Observatory (Colenutt et al., 2016) on behalf of Sussex IFCA for the SCHIP1 project, Figure 5 shows the area mapped.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 13

The map of the eastern half of the site was completed using an object-based image analysis methodology and statistical modelling of acoustic and ground truth data. Segmentation of the acoustic data was carried out in two stages within eCognition (v9.1). The first stage used the multiresolution segmentation algorithm at the pixel level on varying combinations of GIS layers consisting of BPI, slope, bathymetry and backscatter with a scale parameter of 2.5. Conditional Inference (CI) analysis (Hothorn et al., 2006) was used in R (R Core Team, 2015) and aimed to identify the difference between rock and sedimentary habitats. The second stage of the segmentation process used the same variables, but segmentation was undertaken on merged objects classified as sediment. Objects classified as rock and sediment were exported separately and CI analysis was undertaken to identify the acoustic and derivative variables that most successfully differentiated between BSH observed in groundtruthing datasets, and to determine the best cut off point for those variables. Full details on the acquisition and processing of the acoustic data and detailed description of mapping methodology can be found in the supplementary material (see Annex 2).

The mapping of the western part of the MCZ, as undertaken by the CCO, was achieved using manual delineation of areas showing variations in backscatter reflectance intensity. These derived polygons were then matched to substrate types recorded from groundtruthing sediment samples, acquired from a variety of different sources (see Colenutt et al., 2016). The infralittoral to circalittoral boundary was defined by the 20 m OD (Ordnance Datum) contour, derived from the MBES bathymetry data. The substrate map of the western section of the MCZ, as generated by the CCO, has been overlaid by the groundtruthing data collated by Cefas in 2017. This has allowed for verification of the CCO substrate mapping.

Of note is the designation of the BSH ‘A3.3 Low energy infralittoral rock’. This BSH was determined to be present in the western section due to a lack of observable bedforms associated with the fine sediments overlaying bedrock. However, the same segmented areas were assigned (by Cefas) the BSH ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’. As the Cefas classification was achieved following detailed assessment of the extensive video and stills data acquired from the area, this BSH designation (A3.2) has been used in the re-representation of the CCO substrate map for the western section (Figure 5).

2.5.2 Sediment particle size distribution

Sediment particle size distribution data (half phi classes) were grouped into the percentage contribution of gravel, sand and mud derived from the classification proposed by Folk (1954). In addition, each sample was assigned to one of four sedimentary Broadscale Habitats using a modified version of the classification model produced during the Mapping European Seabed Habitats (MESH) project (Long, 2006).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 14

2.5.3 Biological community data preparation The benthic faunal data set was checked to ensure consistent nomenclature using the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) taxon match tool7. Discrepancies were resolved using expert judgement following the truncation steps presented in Annex 3. Invalid taxa and fragments of countable taxa were removed from the dataset while the presence of colonial taxa was changed to a numeric value of one. Records defined as ‘juvenile’ were combined with ‘adult’ records of the same genus/species/family. It should be noted that for future comparisons, as part of the monitoring programme for this site, samples from future surveys should be analysed and recorded using the same protocol applied to this 2015 dataset.

Only stills imagery data of sufficient visual quality (good or excellent) were used to assess epifaunal communities in this report. Poor visibility, due to suspended sediment, made the majority of the video data unsuitable for reliable species identification. The same issue also meant that of the 777 images analysed from this site only 500 were of suitable quality.

The infaunal and epifaunal species abundance data (generated from the infaunal samples and seabed imagery data respectively) were cross-referenced against a list of 49 non-indigenous target species, which have been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2 (Stebbing et al., 2014; Annex 5). The list includes two categories; species which are already known to be present within the assessment area (present) and species which are not yet thought to be present but have a perceived risk of introduction and impact (horizon). An additional list of taxa, which were identified as invasive in the ‘Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory’ (Eno et al., in 1997) was also used to cross reference against all taxa observed (Annex 5).

2.5.4 Statistical analyses The truncated benthic faunal dataset was imported into PRIMER v6 (Clarke and Gorley, 2006) to enable multivariate analyses and the derivation of metrics for univariate analyses. A number of relevant factors/indicators were assigned to the datasets. The number of taxa (S), total abundance of enumerable individuals (N) and Shannon (Loge) and Hills (N1) diversity metrics were derived for each sample using the DIVERSE function in PRIMER v6. Multidimentional scaling (MDS) ordination plots, analysis of similarity between (ANOSIM) and within ‘similarity percentage analysis’ (SIMPER) groups were also produced in PRIMER v6 to explore any differences in the benthic communities within each BSH.

7 http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=match [Accessed 03/11/2017]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 15

The same analyses were conducted on the stills image data from within the MCZ, with number of taxa (S) being the only univariate metric generated and explored.

2.5.5 Tidal modelling

Mean and maximum tidal current velocities (ms-1) at the seabed were obtained from a hydrodynamic model built for the study area. The depth-averaged model of the Beachy Head West MCZ is nested within a larger English Channel model and has been built using an unstructured triangular mesh, using the hydrodynamic software Telemac2D (v7p1). The model domain extends between 48.10-53.24° N and 3.10° E-9.51° W. The un-structured mesh was discretized with 265,000 nodes and 522,000 elements. The mesh has a resolution of approximately 6 km along the open boundary. In the area of interest, the resolution is refined to approximately 50 m. Bathymetry for the model was sourced from the Defra Digital Elevation Model (Astrium, 2011). The resolution of the dataset is 1 arc second (~30 m). In the area of the MCZ, the MBES bathymetry from the area was used, gridded to a 2 m resolution. The hydrodynamics were forced along the open boundaries using 11 tidal constituents (M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, Q1, M4, MS4 and MN4) from the OSU TPXO European Shelf 1/30° regional model8. After a spin up period of five days, the model was run for 30 days to cover a full spring-neap cycle.

It should be noted that this model does not include wave or wind energy, and therefore does not provide a complete indication of hydrodynamics. In particular it is acknowledged that wave action at shallower depths will be altering the energy conditions experienced by the communities present and therefore this modelling will not resolve these small scale changes in energy regime.

2.5.6 Physico-chemical properties

No water or sediment quality parameters were acquired as part of the surveys at Beach Head West MCZ included in this report. Observations of marine litter on the seabed were recorded (using the protocol provided in Annex 4) as part of the analyses of video and still image data.

8 OSU, 2008, OSU Tidal Data Inversion Software and Atlas, Oregon State University, European Shelf (http://volkov.oce.orst.edu/tides/ES.html) [Accessed 03/11/2017]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 16

3 Results and Interpretation

3.1 Broadscale Habitat (BSH): extent and distribution

Figure 4 and Figure 5 outline the BSH types mapped within both sections (western and eastern) of the Beachy Head West MCZ. The mapping undertaken by Colenutt et al., (2016) was found to be broadly in agreement with the BSH groups assigned by Cefas to the groundtruthing samples acquired from eastern section in 2015.

The Beachy Head West MCZ subtidal habitats consist of ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’, ‘A 4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A 5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ (Table 3). The extent of subtidal mixed sediments has not been predicted in the updated Broadscale habitat map due to insufficient observations; it is therefore possible that the extent of coarse sediments is in fact smaller than indicated in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The distribution of mixed sediments point observations has been plotted on the updated Broadscale Habitat map. A small number of samples were collected from outside the MCZ boundary; ten within subtidal sand, two within moderate energy circalittoral rock, and one within each of subtidal coarse sediment, subtidal mud and subtidal mixed sediments. With the exception of underwater imagery for subtidal sand, there were insufficient numbers of samples to allow a comparison between these BSHs inside and outside the MCZ.

Table 3. Number of samples collected in each BSH.

Broadscale Habitat (BSH) Grab – PSA Grab – PSA Video Stills & Infauna only In Out In Out In Out In Out A3.2 Moderate energy N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 0 160 0 infralittoral rock A4.2 Moderate energy N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 24 24 circalittoral rock A5.1 Subtidal coarse 2 0 - - 0 1 16 3 sediment A5.2 Subtidal sand 24 3 - - 9 7 181 92 A5.3 Subtidal mud 0 1 - - 0 0 0 0 A5.4 Subtidal mixed 2 1 - - 1 0 0 1 sediments

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 17

Figure 4. Habitat map of Beachy Head West MCZ (Beachy Head to Newhaven section).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 18

Figure 5. Habitat map of Beachy Head West MCZ (Newhaven to Shoreham section).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 19

3.2 Subtidal rock BSH: Physical structure and biological communities

The rock feature at the site comprises exposed chalk bedrock occasionally overlain by boulders and cobbles (Figure 6). The main biotopes identified at the site are ‘Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ (IR.MIR) and ‘Dense foliose red seaweeds on silty moderately exposed infralittoral rock’ (IR.MIR.KR.XFoR) in the infralittoral, and ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ (CR.MCR), ‘Soft rock communities’ (CR.MCR.SfR) and occasionally ‘Piddocks with a sparse associated fauna in sublittoral very soft chalk or clay’ (CR.MCR.SfR.Pid) in the circalittoral zone (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

Preliminary analysis of the imagery data showed a large amount of variability across the rock BSHs. The data included in analyses were limited to those taxa which occurred in a minimum of 15 still images, and those stills with a minimum of one observed taxon. This reduced the number of images used and taxa recorded for the analysis to 158 images with 17 taxa (from 31) classified as ‘Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ at 25 stations within the MCZ, and 23 images with 7 taxa (from 21) classified as ‘Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ at 4 stations, which was insufficient for robust statistical analysis.

A description of epifaunal communities in each BSH is provided in the following sections.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 20

Moderate energy infralittoral rock

Moderate energy circalittoral rock

Figure 6. Example images of the rock features acquired at Beachy Head West MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 21

Figure 7. MNCR habitat classes (MNCR, 1990) assigned to each still image acquired for subtidal rock features.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 22

3.2.1 Moderate energy infralittoral rock Moderate energy infralittoral rock was observed at 25 stations within the MCZ. The BSH ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ was characterised by foliose and filamentous red algae, Molgula sp. and hydroid turf (Figure 8), which were the most common taxa observed.

Dense foliose red seaweeds on silty moderately exposed infralittoral rock (IR.MIR.KR.XFoR)

Figure 8. Example image of biotope observed to be associated with the infralittoral rock feature at Beachy Head West MCZ.

3.2.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock Moderate energy circalittoral rock was observed at four stations within the MCZ. The limited data (23 stills) indicates the moderate energy circalittoral rock feature is characterised by Molgula sp. and hydroid turf, similar to the moderate energy infralittoral rock, but lacking red algae (Figure 9).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 23

Soft rock communities (CR.MCR.SfR)

Piddocks with a sparse associated fauna in sublittoral very soft chalk or clay (CR.MCR.SfR.Pid)

Figure 9. Example images of biotopes observed to be associated with the circalittoral rock feature from at Beachy Head West MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 24

3.2.3 High energy circalittoral rock

The BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ protected within the Beachy Head West MCZ was not observed in any of the samples collected as part of the 2015 survey.

3.3 Subtidal sedimentary BSH: Sediment composition and biological communities

Results are presented for sediment samples where both PSA and faunal community analyses were conducted (n=25; 2015 survey). A small number of samples were collected from outside the MCZ boundary; ten within ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, two within A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, and one within each of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. With the exception of underwater imagery for ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, there were insufficient numbers of samples to allow a comparison between these BSHs inside and outside the MCZ. Table 3 shows the number of samples collected from the sedimentary BSH to which they were assigned. Too few samples were acquired from ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ to allow robust comparisons within the site. Therefore, descriptive statistics are presented in the absence of statistical analysis.

The distribution of sediment samples collected within the Beachy Head West MCZ, along with the percentage contribution of gravel, sand and mud is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Sediments observed at this site were predominantly ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. In the eastern corner of the site a higher gravel fraction was observed in the PSA samples. After truncation, 159 infaunal taxa were identified in the 2015 survey of the Beachy Head West (54, 31 and 128 taxa in coarse sediment, mixed sediments and sand respectively).

To reduce variability in the epifaunal data for the two sedimentary habitats observed within the MCZ, analyses were limited to those taxa which occurred in a minimum of 15 still images, and those stills with a minimum of one observed taxon. This reduced the number of images used and taxa recorded for the analysis to 86 images with taxa 9 (from 15) classified as ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ at 14 stations within the MCZ, and six images with taxa 5 (from 9) in A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ at five stations, which was insufficient for robust statistical analysis.

Infaunal communities associated with the sedimentary BSHs within the MCZ were explored using multivariate analyses, including hierarchical CLUSTER analysis and similarity profile analysis (SIMPROF). The results indicated that the taxa found within the site could be separated into five different groups (Figure 12).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 25

Figure 10. Classification of particle size distribution (half phi) information for each sampling point (closed black circles) into one of the sedimentary Broadscale Habitats (coloured areas) plotted on a true scale subdivision of the Folk triangle into the simplified classification for UKSeaMap (Long, 2006; Folk, 1954).

An MDS plot was created to indicate the similarity between these clusters in relation to sediment type. The MDS shows that ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ have a different species composition to ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. However, there also appears to be variation in species composition within the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ feature. The SIMPROF analysis identified four different groups according to the species composition of each station. This could be due to subtle differences in sediment composition (percentage of sand, gravel and mud) within a given BSH class. Therefore, the Broadscale Habitat ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ does not encapsulate the variation in faunal communities which exist in association with this class.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 26

Figure 11. Distribution of sediment fractions at grab sample locations.

Figure 12. MDS plot indicating similarity in species composition between stations. 2D stress: 0.11. Percentage similarity in species composition between stations indicated by green, dark blue and pale blue lines.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 27

3.3.1 Subtidal coarse sediment

Only two samples were assigned to the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ BSH within the site at the Beachy Head West MCZ, therefore, statistical analysis was not possible for this feature class. Of the taxa encountered within the MCZ 34% (54/159) were present within the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ sample. Kurtiella bidentata (a bivalve) was the most abundant species in this sample. Spirobranchus lamarcki was the second most abundant species, which is typically found on hard substrates (bedrock and cobbles).

A sparse epifaunal community was observed in the still images acquired from the ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ feature and included encrusting serpulid worms and hydroid turf and the sea squirt Molgula sp. (Figure 13). However, due to the limited number of stills acquired within this BSH, no statistical analyses were undertaken on the epifaunal data.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 28

Infralittoral coarse sediment (SS.SCS.ICS)

Circalittoral coarse sediment (SS.SCS.CCS)

Figure 13. Example images of fauna observed to be associated with the coarse sediment feature at Beachy Head West MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 29

3.3.2 Subtidal sand Eighty one percent of all benthic infaunal taxa encountered in grab samples collected in the 2015 survey within the Beachy Head West MCZ were represented in samples assigned to the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH.

Due to the small number of observations of ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediment’ it was decided that it was not appropriate to undertake an ANOSIM comparing these BSHs. A SIMPER analysis was undertaken (Figure 12), which stated that there was a relatively low similarity among benthic communities assigned to ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. Therefore, a SIMPROF test was used to group the fauna. An ANOSIM suggested that significant differences existed between groups c and d (p = 0.3%, R = 0.95), and groups ‘b’ and ‘c’ (p = 1.5%, R = 0.599). Groups ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’ are all exclusively the BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’. There is an average dissimilarity of 68. 19 between groups ‘c’ and ‘d’, with 24% of that dissimilarity resulting from three species (Tellina fabula, Lagis koreni and Spiophanes bombyx). The average dissimilarity between groups ‘b’ and ‘c’ is 54.01, with 27% of the dissimilarity being attributed to four species (Tellina fabula, Spiophanes bombyx, Magelona johnstoni and Mactra stultorum). This suggests that there is variability in species composition within a BSH, which cannot be captured and monitored at the Broadscale Habitat level.

Epifaunal species were observed to be very sparse in the still images acquired from the subtidal sand habitat, with an average of two taxa and six individuals recorded at a station, and predominantly comprised hermit crabs (Paguridae), gastropod molluscs and bivalve siphons. However, many of the still images of clean sand contained no epifauna (Figure 14).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 30

Subtidal sand (SS.SSa)

Figure 14. Example images of fauna observed to be associated with the subtidal sand feature at Beachy Head West MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 31

3.3.3 Subtidal mixed sediments Two of the grab samples collected within the MCZ were classified as ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ BSH. Therefore, statistical analyses were not possible for this feature class. Nineteen percent (31/159) of the taxa encountered within the MCZ were present in association with the ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’.

The ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ feature was not observed in the underwater imagery data collected during the 2015 survey.

3.3.1 Subtidal mud

The BSH ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ designated within the Beachy Head West MCZ was not observed within the MCZ site boundary as part of the 2015 survey

3.4 Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI)

3.4.1 Subtidal chalk

As detailed in section 3.2, the entirety of the rock feature within the Beachy Head West MCZ is considered to be chalk bedrock and boulders (Figure 15). As the extent for both ‘A 3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ has been mapped within the entire MCZ (Figure 15 and Figure 16), the extent of ‘Subtidal Chalk’ is the sum of these two extents (9.84 km2).

Figure 15. Extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ within Beachy Head West MCZ (Beachy Head to Newhaven).

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 32

Figure 16 Extent of the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ within Beachy Head West MCZ (Newhaven to Shoreham).

‘Subtidal Chalk’ was clearly visible in 193 still images across the Beachy Head West MCZ, predominantly within rocky BSH features (Figure 17). Ninety-five of those still images were acquired in the Beachy Head to Newhaven section of the MCZ where a habitat map is available. Further data are required, both acoustic and seabed imagery, to map the full extent of the ‘Subtidal Chalk’ feature within the Beachy Head West MCZ.

The general descriptions of epifaunal communities associated with the ‘A 3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ BSH provided above also apply specifically to this habitat type as they are both considered to be ‘Subtidal Chalk’.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 33

Figure 17. Example images for ‘Subtidal Chalk’ observed within the Beachy Head West MCZ from the 2015 survey.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 34

3.4.2 Other habitat FOCI

The habitat FOCI ‘Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Beds’, protected within the Beachy Head West MCZ, was not observed in any of the samples collected as part of the 2015 survey.

3.5 Species Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI)

The species FOCI ‘Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis)’ and ‘Short Snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus)’, protected within the Beachy Head West MCZ, were not observed in any of the samples collected as part of the 2015 survey.

3.6 Non-indigenous species (NIS)

All taxa identified in grab and video samples collected in 2015 were cross-referenced against a list of 49 non-indigenous target species which have been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2 (Stebbing et al., 2014; Annex 5). One species was identified from a grab sample, the slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata), of which one juvenile individual was found at one station. Crepidula fornicata is a gastropod mollusc first introduced to the UK in association with imported oysters (Crassostrea virginica) between 1887 – 1890 (Eno et al., 1997). Figure 18 shows the location of the grab sample with non-indigenous fauna.

A suspected live Crepidula fornicata stack was also observed from a single still image at an underwater imagery station outside of the MCZ boundary (Figure 18). Empty shells of this species were also observed throughout the survey area.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 35

Figure 18. Location of samples where non-native species were observed.

3.7 Additional monitoring: supporting processes 3.7.1 Hydrodynamics: tidal energy and exposure

The Beachy Head West MCZ is exposed to waves coming of off the Atlantic. The mean current velocity during a spring-neap tidal cycle at the site predominantly falls into the low energy category (<0.5 m s-1). A small portion of the site in the south- east corner falls into the moderate energy category (0.5 - 1.5 m s-1) (Figure 19).

The maximum current velocity observed during this tidal cycle categorises the site as predominantly moderate energy with portions of low energy in the shallower sections. There is a section of high energy (>1.5 m s-1) in the south-east corner of the site.

It should be noted that this model does not include wind and wave energy, and therefore does not provide a complete indication of hydrodynamics. In particular it is acknowledged that wave action at shallower depths will be altering the energy conditions experienced by the communities present and therefore this modelling will not resolve these small scale changes in energy regime.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 36

Man-made structures (i.e., harbours and marinas) appear to reduce the current velocity in portions of this site, particularly when higher current velocities are experienced (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Physical environment at Beachy Head West MCZ. The maps show depth and current conditions (main direction of tidal flow during the flood phase as well as mean and maximum velocity over a spring-neap tidal cycle) in and around the MCZ.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 37

3.7.2 Water quality parameters No water quality parameters were monitored at this site during the surveys reported here.

3.7.3 Sediment quality parameters

No sediment quality parameters were monitored at this site during the surveys reported here.

3.7.4 Marine litter No marine litter assessment was carried out on sediment samples. Incidences of litter present on the seabed were observed in the seabed imagery at six stations; five within the MCZ and one outside (Figure 20). Four of the six items seen were plastic, of which three were plastic bags; the other two observations were less conclusive, with one item classified as rubber and one as unknown miscellaneous due to poor image quality. See Annex 4 for seafloor litter categories.

Figure 20. Locations and categories of marine litter observed in the samples collected as part of the 2015 survey.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 38

4 Discussion

This report aimed to provide an initial characterisation of designated subtidal features within the Beachy Head West MCZ, along with a general characterisation of the subtidal BSH within the site boundary. This evidence will contribute to future sampling designs to enable monitoring and assessment of designated features.

4.1 Broadscale Habitat extent and distribution

Acoustic data of suitable quality were only available for the Beachy Head to Newhaven section of the MCZ; no acoustic data were collected as part of the 2015 subtidal survey. This has meant that the spatial extent of BSHs has only been calculated for half of the site, and therefore calculated BSH extents are likely to significantly increase with the availability of new acoustic data. Also, two designated BSHs, ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’, were not observed in the 2015 survey data from within the MCZ, therefore the spatial extent of these BSH could not be calculated.

Grab samples from the sedimentary habitats within and around the MCZ were, at times, difficult to acquire as large parts of the seabed in this area consist of chalk bedrock with thin veneers of sediment (James et al., 2010). This is the reason that the marine habitat ‘Low energy infralittoral rock and thin sandy sediment’ was considered and specifically included into the designation order for this site.

4.2 Subtidal rock BSH: Physical structure and biological communities

The 2015 survey data provided additional evidence for some of the rock BSH features present within the MCZ, namely ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ (a designated BSH) and ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ (not a designated BSH). The ground truth data acquired, though limited, allowed a general characterisation of these two rock features. Both were observed to have similar associated epifaunal assemblages but with the BSH ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ lacking the presence of red algae. Insufficient data were acquired to allow a robust assessment of condition to be carried out for these features.

The designated BSH ‘A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock’ was not observed in the 2015 survey data. The tidal modelling for the site indicated only one area of high energy in the south-east corner and the site in general being categorised as predominantly moderate, with some areas of low energy. This tidal modelling, and the lack of observations of A4.1 High energy circalittoral rock should not however be

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 39

interpreted as evidence of absence of the designated feature. This modelling does not include wave action which at shallower depths will be altering the energy conditions experienced by the communities present and therefore is not able to resolve these small scale changes in energy regime.

4.3 Subtidal sedimentary BSH: Sediment composition and biological communities

The 2015 survey sufficiently sampled the ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ BSH within the MCZ. However, ‘A 5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ were only successfully sampled twice each and ‘A5.3 Subtidal mud’ was only seen at one station outside the MCZ boundary. Further sampling of these habitats is required to allow a robust assessment of condition to be carried out for these BSH features.

The infaunal assemblages observed in association with the BSH ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ within the Beachy Head West MCZ are considered to be representative of those typically expected to be found in association with sands. Seventy percent of infauna community observed in association with this BSH fall within three taxonomic classes: 36% falls within the class polychaeta, 19% falls within the class Malacostraca and 15% falls within the class Bivalvia. These classes are typically associated with soft sediment, sandy habitats. For example, Sigalion mathildae, Bathyporea elegans and Tellina fabula.

4.4 Habitat Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI)

As stated above, all of the BSH rock features present within this MCZ are considered to comprise the habitat FOCI ‘Subtidal Chalk’ (Figure 15). Therefore, the same estimated spatial extent and epifaunal characterisation described for the rock BSH also apply to this habitat FOCI.

The habitat FOCI ‘Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) Beds’, also designated within this MCZ, was not observed in the 2015 survey data reported on here. This could be because these features are not present within the surveyed area or, more likely, were not successfully captured by the sampling program.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 40

4.5 Species Features of Conservation Importance (FOCI)

No observations were made during the 2015 survey of the species FOCI designated for protection with this site, namely the ‘Native oyster (Ostrea edulis)’ and the ‘Short Snouted Seahorse (Hippocampus hippocampus)’. However, as the surveys reported here were not designed to specifically target species FOCI, this should not be interpreted as evidence of their absence from the site.

4.6 Non-indigenous species (NIS)

One non-indigenous species, Crepidula fornicata, was identified from both the infaunal samples and the underwater imagery from the 2015 Beachy Head West MCZ survey. Crepidula fornicata is a NIS first observed in UK waters in 1887 when they were introduced in association with the imported oyster species Crassostrea virginica) and was observed in one still image and a single juvenile was found within the grab samples taken (Figure 18).

4.7 Supporting processes

The results of hydrodynamic modelling indicated that Beachy Head West MCZ is subject to waves coming off the Atlantic with maximum tidal currents of 1.5 m s-1 in the south-east corner of the site. Water quality and sediment quality parameters were not included as part of the surveys which inform this report. However, six items of marine litter on the seabed were observed in the underwater imagery acquired at the site and these included fragments of plastic and rubber and plastic bags.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 41

4.8 Recommendations for future monitoring

The report highlights the limitations of applying a survey design which is not informed by reliable information relating to the location and distribution of the conservation features of interest within and adjacent to the site (e.g., through use of a sufficiently resolute and accurate seabed habitat map).

• In this instance, the lack of habitat map use in survey planning has resulted in the following limitations relating to subsequent data analyses and statistical testing which, in turn, can lead to misinterpretation of the results:

➢ Insufficient sampling of all features of conservation interest present within and adjacent to the MCZ; and ➢ Imbalance in sampling design between treatments (e.g., habitat features, protected versus unprotected examples of comparable features). Recommendations to mitigate against the limitations identified in the current report during future monitoring include:

• Future monitoring survey designs should be informed using a sufficiently accurate and resolute habitat map, which covers the site and features of interest, along with comparable areas of seabed in the wider environment and adjacent to the site.

➢ The hydrodynamic conditions and sedimentary habitats of the Beachy Head West MCZ mean that seabed imagery data of sufficient quality for the intended purpose is difficult to obtain. For future monitoring surveys this should be taken into account by either: 1) having a longer survey window, thereby increasing the likelihood of achieving good visibility during survey; and/or 2) using a freshwater lens camera which can provide higher quality images compared to conventional camera systems in highly turbid conditions. ➢ Information on the extent of sedimentary habitats within the MCZ could be improved by using a sub-bottom profiler. This could enable the distinction of areas of rock overlain with thin sediment veneers from the surrounding sedimentary habitats. • Designated features within the MCZ should be prioritised for future monitoring using a risk based approach. Where all features within an MCZ are selected for monitoring, and time and budgets are limited, power of detection can be lost where resources are directed at monitoring across the entire site.

➢ Future monitoring should consider a series of ‘sentinel’ monitoring stations for lower risk/lower priority features, with more targeted investigative monitoring for higher risk/higher priority features.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 42

➢ Monitoring should, where possible, be aligned with other monitoring programmes (e.g., relating to WFD Ecological Quality assessment and SAC Favourable Conservation Status monitoring) on a regional basis to optimise synergies and achieve the necessary efficiencies.

• Further studies are required to improve our understanding of the observed variability (spatial and temporal) in biological assemblages found in association with given habitat features. For example, classification of infaunal communities in alignment with the four possible sedimentary BSH is not necessarily ecologically relevant. This is because biological communities do not necessarily align with the same physical thresholds used in the classification of sedimentary BSHs according to EUNIS.

• Specific recommendations for monitoring of supporting processes include:

➢ Make optimal use of wider monitoring data (e.g., acquired as part of existing integrated marine monitoring programmes) to prove the context in relation to wider ecosystem processes operating at a landscape or regional sea scale.

• Future monitoring should also seek to incorporate industry data, where available, which could further inform on MCZ features. This could include for example disposal site monitoring undertaken within the MCZ for Brighton marina.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 43

5 References

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

Balanced Seas (2011). Balanced Seas Final Recommendations Report September 2011[online]. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120502155440/http:/www.balancedseas .org/ [Accessed 20/10/2017].

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

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 30/04/2018].

Colenutt, A., Evans, J., & Mylroie, P. (2016). Seabed Mapping; Dungeness to Selsey. TR64 on behalf of Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority. Channel and Coastal Observatory.

Clarke, K.R. and Gorley, R.N. (2006). PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER- E, Plymouth, 192pp.

Elliott, M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N., Read, S.J., Cutts, N.D. and Hemingway, K.L., (1998). Volume II: Intertidal sand and mudflats and subtidal mobile sandbanks. An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. UK Marine SACs project, Oban, Scotland. English Nature.

Eno, N.C., Clark, R.A. and Sanderson, W.G. (Eds.) (1997). Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Folk, R.L. (1954). The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62, 344-359.

Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. and Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15, 651–674.

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. Published by MALSF.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 44

JNCC (2004). Common standards monitoring guidance for littoral sediment habitats. Peterborough, JNCC.

Long, D. (2006). BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified folk classification.

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, 29:2, 89-111

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

MNCR (1990). SACFOR abundance scale used for both littoral and sublittoral taxa from 1990 onwards. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2684 [Accessed 03/11/2017].

MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter. (2013). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 26113. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC83985 [Accessed 30/04/2018].

R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R- project.org/.

Stebbing, P., Murray, J., Whomersley, P. and Tidbury, H. (2014). Monitoring and surveillance for non-indigenous species in UK marine waters. Defra Report. 57 pp.

Stevens, E. (2017). Beachy Head West MCZ 2015 Survey Report. 103 pp.

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, 30:1-2, 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. [Accessed 03/11/2017].

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 45

Annex 1. Methods for the production of the habitat map.

Data acquisition

Acoustic Data

Bathymetric data were downloaded from the UKHO INSPIRE Portal in three separate layers in order to achieve as close to the maximum coverage of the site that is possible with the available resources (Figure 3). Block one and block two were downloaded from the DAC in tiff format, whereas Block 3 was downloaded as point data in .csv format.

Block 3 was collected in 2013 using a Simrad/Kongsberg EM3002D multibeam echosounder (MBES) by EGS (International) Ltd. – SW Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme on-board MV Wessex Explorer according to IHO S44 Edition 5 and has a 2 m resolution. Backscatter data was available for this block and was requested and delivered to Cefas by the UKHO in raw format. The backscatter data was processed using FMGT and exported as a floating point geotif. The extent of acoustic data can be seen in Figure 3.

Groundtruthing Sample Collection

Groundtruthing data were collected during two surveys in 2015 by the Environment Agency (EA) on-board the survey vessel Solent Guardian in 2015. The first survey collected drop camera samples between the 8th and 11th August 2015 using a Subsea Technology & Rentals (STR) SeaSpyder camera system (Figure 2). The digital still images collected during this survey were reviewed and used to select suitable stations for sediment sampling. The second survey collected sediment samples between the 1st and 2nd September 2015 using a Mini-Hamon Grab.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 46

Production of the updated habitat map

An updated habitat map was produced following analysis and interpretation of the newly acquired acoustic and ground truth data. Acoustic data were converted into raster images for ease of interpretation. The data integration and mapping process involved object-based image analysis and statistical modelling, as described below.

Object-based image analysis (OBIA) is a two-step process of segmentation and classification (Blaschke, 2010), implemented in the software package eCognition v9.1. Objects were created through segmenting the raster data layers. The resulting objects represent sections of the image which possess homogeneous characteristics across all data layers used in the segmentation process.

For each of the identified objects, mean and standard deviation values of primary acoustic data layers and their derivatives were calculated. These values were extracted to PSA point samples and observations of hard substrata in still images for statistical analysis. Rules used to split objects into Broadscale Habitat types in the classification step of OBIA were determined by applying Conditional Inference Tree analysis (CI; Hothorn et al., 2006) to the sample data. CI combines recursive binary partitioning with conditional inference procedures, embedding statistical tests into each classification split. The statistical analyses were carried out in the statistical programming environment R (R Development Core Team, 2012). A step-by-step description of the acoustic data analysis process is given below.

Stage 1. Data preparation Backscatter was only available for the eastern side of the Beachy Head West MCZ, meaning that it was possible to only create a full habitat map for the MCZ between Beachy Head and Newhaven. Prior to analysis the available bathymetry and backscatter datasets were re-sampled onto a common grid. This step results in a spatial grid with a single value for bathymetry (depth) and a single value for backscatter (acoustic reflectance) in each cell and it is these data values that are used in the rest of the process.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 47

Stage 2. Derivatives calculated A range of derivatives were calculated for the MBES bathymetry data layer, as detailed in Error! Reference source not found..

Description of derivatives calculated for bathymetry.

Derivative Description Slope The slope in degrees using the maximum change in elevation of each cell and its 8 neighbours Roughness Calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum value of each cell and its 8 neighbours Curvature (profile and Curvature parallel to the direction of slope (profile) and planar) perpendicular to the direction of slope (planar) BPI Bathymetric position index (Lundblad et al., 2006); radii of 3, 5, 10, 25 cells Aspect Expressed as eastness and northness (Wilson et al., 2007)

Stage 3. Segmentation and classification Based on spectral characteristics, images generated from acoustic data can be segmented into small objects. Each object can be defined by a range of features including its layer statistics (mean, mode, standard deviation, skewness, etc.), geometry (extent, shape, etc.) and texture. The segmentation process was undertaken using multi-resolution segmentation. Multi-resolution segmentation commences with a single pixel and consecutively merges it with neighbouring pixels, based on the relative homogeneity criterion. The homogeneity criterion is based on both colour (standard deviation of spectral colours) and shape (standard deviation of a compact shape) of the pixel. The segmentation process continues until a threshold value for the scale parameter, determined by the analyst, is reached. The scale parameter determines the variability allowed within each object. The ultimate aim of the segmentation process is to create objects which represent areas of homogeneity within the image.

The segmentation and classification of the Beachy Head West MCZ occurred in two stages. Both PSA and still photographs were used in the classification process due to the small number of PSA samples in the area of the site where acoustic data exists.

The aim of the first segmentation was to differentiate between rock and sedimentary habitats. The BPI25, slope, bathymetry and backscatter were used a multi- resolution segmentation process in eCognition with weightings of 3, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The segmentation was undertaken at the pixel level with a scale parameter of 2.5. These weightings and the scale parameter were used as they best defined the sedimentary habitats within this site.

For each object created in this segmentation process, the mean and standard deviation values of the primary acoustic layers (e.g. mean bathymetry value for the

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 48

grid cells lying within the object) and their derivatives outlined in Error! Reference source not found. were calculated. Grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) texture values, entropy and homogeneity, were also calculated for the backscatter. These object features and related values were exported as a GIS shapefile and extracted to each location associated with groundtruthing samples. Groundtruthing samples were either classified as ‘Rock’ or ‘Sediment’ depending on their Broadscale Habitat classification. This provided an analysis dataset for the classification process.

The distribution of values for backscatter, bathymetry and bathymetric derivatives in the Broadscale Habitat classes found in the ground truth data were analysed to find the variables which best defined habitat classes. Conditional Inference (CI) analysis (Hothorn et al., 2006) was used to identify the acoustic variables that most successfully differentiated between the rock and sedimentary habitats in the ground truth datasets, and to establish the best cut-off values.

Objects in eCognition were classified as either rock or sediment using the cut-off values identified in the CI analysis.

The objects defined as Sediment were exported as a GIS shapefile and extracted to each location associated with groundtruthing samples. CI analysis was re done on these samples to further classify the sedimentary habitats. Objects defined as ‘Sediment’ in eCognition were classified as ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’ or ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’.

The objects classified as ‘Rock’ were merged together and the area re-segmented using the multi-resolution segmentation tool in order to determine the difference between the ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’ identified in the ground truth samples. The slope, BPI25, backscatter and bathymetry were used to re-segment the ‘Rock’ with weightings of 3, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The segmentation was undertaken at the image object level with a scale parameter of 10.

For each new object created during this segmentation process, the mean and standard deviation values of the primary acoustic layers and their derivatives were calculated. GLCM texture values were also calculated for the backscatter. These rock related objects and associated values were exported into a GIS shapefile and extracted to each location associated with a groundtruthing sample. CI analysis was undertaken to identify the difference between ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’. The cut-off values identified were used to classify the rock habitats in eCognition.

Finally, the updated Broadscale Habitat map was exported as a GIS shapefile.

Quality of the updated map

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 49

The technical quality of the updated habitat map was assessed using the MESH ‘Confidence Assessment’ Tool9, 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, the tool was used to make an auditable judgement of the confidence that could be placed on a range of existing, local biotope maps that had been developed using different techniques and data inputs, to be used in compiling a full coverage map for northwest Europe. Where two of the original maps overlapped, that with the highest MESH confidence score would take precedence in the compiled map.

Subsequent to the MESH project, the confidence assessment tool has been applied to provide a benchmark score that reflects the technical quality of newly developed habitat/biotope maps. Both physical and biological survey data are required to achieve the top mark of 100 but, as the current MCZ 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 map based purely on physical data 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.

9 http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 30/04/18]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 50

Results

An updated habitat map resulting from the analysis of 2015 survey data is presented in Figure 4. The updated habitat map (using OBIA methodology) was created for 48% of the Beachy Head West MCZ (the “eastern section” of the MCZ).

The remaining 52% of the Beachy Head West MCZ, described in the above report as the “western section”, was mapped by Colenutt et al., (2016), and is displayed in Figure 5.

Updated habitat map based on new survey data

The Broadscale Habitat types observed in grab and video groundtruthing samples included ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’, ‘A4.2 Moderate energy circalittoral rock’, ‘A5.1 Subtidal coarse sediment’, ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’ and ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’. The most widespread habitat types in the mapped area are ‘A3.2 Moderate energy infralittoral rock’ and ‘A5.2 Subtidal sand’, occupying 41.5% and 36.3% of the mapped area respectively.

Rocky habitats cover approximately 47% of the mapped area of the Beachy Head West MCZ and sediment habitats cover approximately 53% of the mapped area and are predominately located around river mouths and around the dredging area for the Newhaven channel.

The BSH ‘A5.4 Subtidal mixed sediments’ was observed in sediment grab samples. However, there were not sufficient observations to extrapolate the extent of this BSH across the area. Therefore, this BSH has been mapped as point observations in Figure 4.

Quality of the updated habitat map

The updated Broadscale Habitat map for the Beachy Head West MCZ (eastern section) attained a score of 78 from the MESH Confidence Assessment Tool which is good given that the maximum possible score for a map based purely on physical data is 88.

The MESH overall confidence score attributed to the map of eastern section (Colenutt et al., 2016) is 82. This result was derived by the authors using the Confidence Assessment’ Tool10.

10 http://emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/confidence/confidenceAssessment.html [Accessed 30/04/18]

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 51

MESH Confidence assessment score

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 52

Annex 3. Infauna data truncation protocol.

Decisions applied during the data truncation process are described here, with the intention that by following such decisions, a greater degree of consistency in truncation exercises across different studies may be achieved. Raw taxon-by-sample matrices can often contain entries that include the same taxa recorded differently, erroneously or differentiated according to unorthodox, subjective criteria, for example: Each row should represent a legitimate taxon to be used in analytical software packages as a unit for the calculation of diversity indices and of similarity amongst groups of samples. An artificially inflated taxon list (i.e., one that has not had spurious entries removed) risks distorting the interpretation of pattern contained within the sampled assemblage. The truncation exercise aims to identify and neutralise such entries to reduce the risk of them supporting an artificial pattern in the assemblage. It is often the case, that to overcome uncertainty and to avoid the introduction of unsupported certainty, some taxa have to be merged to a level in the taxonomic hierarchy that is higher than the level at which they were identified. In such situations, a compromise must be reached between the level of information lost by discarding recorded detail on a taxon’s identity, and the potential for error in analyses, results and interpretation if that detail is retained. Where there are records of one named species together with records of members of the same genus but the latter not identified to species level, the entries are merged and the resulting entry retains only the name of the genus (i.e., species level information is forfeited). In this way, the entries identified only to genus are not assigned to a level that is unsupported by the evidence, and the resulting single entry is representative of both original entries, albeit with a little less information, but a loss that will not affect the pattern in the assemblage as a whole. Additionally, taxa are often assigned as ‘juveniles’ during the identification stage with little evidence for their actual reproductive natural history (with the exception of some well-studied molluscs and commercial species). Many truncation methods involve the removal of all ‘juveniles’. However, a decision must be made on how to avoid the issues discussed above while retaining valuable information within the multivariate data set. The term ‘juvenile’ is often used to refer to individuals which do not exhibit the morphological features to resolve them to species level. In this case, these records were removed from the analysis rather than lowering the taxonomic resolution of other species level identifications. When a species level identification was labelled ‘juvenile’ the record was combined with the associated species level identification, when present or the ‘juvenile’ label removed.

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 53

Annex 4. Seafloor litter monitoring.

Categories and sub-categories of litter items for Sea-Floor from the OSPAR/ICES/IBTS for North East Atlantic and Baltic. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas, a guidance document within the Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter, 2013.

A: Plastic B: Metals C: Rubber D: Glass/ E: Natural F: Miscellaneous Ceramics products/ Clothes A1. Bottle B1. Cans C1. Boots D1. Jar E1. Clothing/ F1. Wood (food) rags (processed) A2. Sheet B2. Cans C2. D2. Bottle E2. Shoes F2. Rope (beverage) Balloons A3. Bag B3. Fishing C3. Bobbins D3. Piece E3. Other F3. Paper/ related (fishing) cardboard A4. Caps/ lids B4. Drums C4. Tyre D4. Other F4. Pallets A5. Fishing line B5. C5. Other F5. Other (monofilament) Appliances A6. Fishing line B6. Car (entangled) parts A7. Synthetic B7. Cables Related size categories rope A: ≤ 5*5 cm = 25 cm2 A8. Fishing net B8. Other B: ≤ 10*10 cm = 100 cm2 A9. Cable ties C: ≤ 20*20 cm = 400 cm2 A10. Strapping D: ≤ 50*50 cm = 2500 cm2 band E: ≤ 100*100 cm = 10000 cm2 A11. Crates and containers F: ≥ 100*100 cm = 10000 cm2 A12. Plastic diapers A13. Sanitary towels/ tampons A14. Other

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 54

Annex 5. Non-indigenous species (NIS).

Taxa listed as non-indigenous species (present and horizon) which have been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2 (Stebbing et al., 2014).

Species name List Species name List Acartia (Acanthacartia) tonsa Present Alexandrium catenella Horizon Amphibalanus amphitrite Present Amphibalanus reticulatus Horizon Asterocarpa humilis Present Asterias amurensis Horizon Bonnemaisonia hamifera Present Caulerpa racemosa Horizon Caprella mutica Present Caulerpa taxifolia Horizon Crassostrea angulata Present Celtodoryx ciocalyptoides Horizon Crassostrea gigas Present Chama sp. Horizon Crepidula fornicata Present Dendostrea frons Horizon Diadumene lineata Present Gracilaria vermiculophylla Horizon Didemnum vexillum Present Hemigrapsus penicillatus Horizon Dyspanopeus sayi Present Hemigrapsus sanguineus Horizon Ensis directus Present Hemigrapsus takanoi Horizon Eriocheir sinensis Present Megabalanus coccopoma Horizon Ficopomatus enigmaticus Present Megabalanus zebra Horizon Grateloupia doryphora Present Mizuhopecten yessoensis Horizon Grateloupia turuturu Present Mnemiopsis leidyi Horizon Hesperibalanus fallax Present Ocenebra inornata Horizon Heterosigma akashiwo Present Paralithodes camtschaticus Horizon Homarus americanus Present Polysiphonia subtilissima Horizon Rapana venosa Present Pseudochattonella verruculosa Horizon Sargassum muticum Present Rhopilema nomadica Horizon Schizoporella japonica Present Telmatogeton japonicus Horizon Spartina townsendii var. anglica Present Styela clava Present Undaria pinnatifida Present Urosalpinx cinerea Present Watersipora subatra Present

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 55

Additional taxa listed as non-indigenous species in the JNCC ‘Non-native marine species in British waters: a review and directory’ report by Eno et al. (1997) which have not been selected for assessment of Good Environmental Status in GB waters under MSFD Descriptor 2.

Species name (1997) Updated name (2017) Thalassiosira punctigera Thalassiosira tealata Coscinodiscus wailesii Odontella sinensis Pleurosigma simonsenii Grateloupia doryphora Grateloupia filicina var. luxurians Grateloupia subpectinata Pikea californica Agardhiella subulata Solieria chordalis Antithamnionella spirographidis Antithamnionella ternifolia Polysiphonia harveyi Neosiphonia harveyi Colpomenia peregrine Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum Codium fragile subsp. tomentosoides Codium fragile subsp. atlanticum Gonionemus vertens Clavopsella navis Pachycordyle navis Anguillicoloides crassus Goniadella gracilis Marenzelleria viridis Clymenella torquata Hydroides dianthus Hydroides ezoensis Janua brasiliensis Pileolaria berkeleyana Ammothea hilgendorfi Elminius modestus Austrominius modestus Eusarsiella zostericola Corophium sextonae Rhithropanopeus harrissii Potamopyrgus antipodarum Tiostrea lutaria Tiostrea chilensis Mercenaria mercenaria Petricola pholadiformis Mya arenaria

Beachy Head West MCZ Characterisation Report 2015 56