# European Red List of Habitats Table

Habitat Type Name:
E7.1 Temperate wooded pasture and meadow

Habitat Description:
These are open wooded landscapes created and maintained through traditional grazing, hay-making and silviculture. The wooded pastures are typical of the lowlands, hills and mountains throughout the nemoral zone, the wooded meadows mostly found in the mountains and riparian areas of Central Europe. Regional variations in climate and terrain, in purpose and origin, land use and disturbance regime make this habitat very diverse and dynamic with structure and species composition strongly influenced by the landowners and farmer/herders. Due to their semi-open character and their landscape scale, they can accommodate numerous species, many of which are rare and endangered. Other types are relatively species-poor with widely distributed components, but here combined in highly distinctive ways. Traditional wooded pastures and meadows characteristically express the locally distinctive social and economic history and are therefore of considerable cultural significance like high nature value farmland.
Deciduous trees are the usual canopy dominants, particularly Quercus robur, Q. petraea and Fagus sylvatica but also commonly A. campestre, A. platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus, Alnus glutinosa, Betula pendula, Carpinus betulus, Castanea sativa, F. angustifolia, Fraxinus excelsior, Populus alba, Populus nigra, Pyrus pyraster, Salix spp., Sorbus torminalis, Tilia cordata, T. tomentosa, and Ulmus glabra. Typical coniferous trees are Pinus spp., Picea abies and Larix decidua. The spatial arrangement of trees may be close to a regular pattern, where the trees were deliberately planted, sparsely distributed under traditional management or, in ornamental parklands, arranged by landscape design. Individual trees may be of very great age and pollarded veterans can be a distinctive feature.
The open canopy can allow the establishment of a diverse understorey but grazing and/or mowing may largely prevent the development of saplings and shrubs. The species and their density depend on site characteristics, local tradition and management regimes but the most typical smaller trees and shrubs are Crataegus laevigata, C. monogyna, Cornus mas, Corylus avellana, Cytisus scoparius, Euonymus europaeus, J. oxycedrus, Juniperus communis, Ligustrum vulgaris, Prunus spinosa, Rosa spp., Rubus canescens with Calluna vulgaris a common sub-shrub. The composition of the herb layer depends on regional climate and terrain conditions as well as on the kinds of grazing and hay-making. The main herbs are grassland generalists such as species of Dactylis, Lolium, Medicago and Trifolium but plants more or less exclusive to silvipastoral habitats are poisonous taxa such as Asphodelus spp., Dictamnus albus, Helleborus spp., Paeonia spp., Pulsatilla spp. and Veratrum nigrum.
Old-growth and scrub- and coppice- wooded pastures, grazed orchards, meadow orchards have many different sub-types in the nemoral region, including the following: nemoral deciduous hudewald or park of lowland to submontane Fagetalia landscapes in western and central Europe; montane to subalpine deciduous, coniferous or mixed pastoral woodland or Weidfeld dominated by Fagus, Picea or Acer in the mountains of central, southern and southeastern Europe; nemoral lowland deciduous hudewald, park; thermophilous deciduous hudewald of colline to montane Quercetalia pubescentis landscapes in southern, south-east and south-central Europe; deciduous riparian and lowland hudewald with flooding regime of the great river basins, chiefly in eastern and south-eastern Europe; montane to subalpine coniferous pastoral woodland dominated by Pinus or Larix in the high mountains of temperate Europe; montane to altimontane coniferous or mixed Pinus and Abies wood-pasture of the mountains of the wider Mediterranean region; Wacholderheide pastures wooded with Juniperus communis of Fagetalia and Quercetalia roboris landscapes in lowland to montane north-western and central Europe; thermophilous deciduous coppice wood-pasture of Quercetalia pubescentis landscapes in southern and south-eastern Europe; subcontinental shibliak distributed in pastures of wood-steppe and Quercetalia pubescentis regions in south-eastern and south-east central Europe; submediterranean shibliak distributed in Quercetalia pubescentis regions of southeastern Europe; rangelands with tall juniper in southern and southern central European mountains, more widely distributed in Anatolia, the Black Sea area and the Middle East; ancient aristocratic parklands and royal hunting forests in England.
Indicators of quality:
Abundance of old-growth, veteran trees

Regeneration of open-growth trees

Regular and deliberate management maintaining high nature and cultural value as well as agricultural value

Little regeneration of the woody element and no scrub encroachment over the grassland

No decrease in grazing pressure or frequency of mowing

No land-use intensification such as removal of the structural elements to extend the grassland, use of fertilizer and artificial seeding, increase of livestock density

No spread of non-native trees from planted stock or naturally invasive sources


Characteristic species:
Canopy vascular plants: A. campestre, A. platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus, Alnus glutinosa, Betula pendula, Carpinus betulus, Castanea sativa, Fagus sylvatica Fraxinus angustifolia, F. excelsior, Larix decidua, Picea abies, Pinus cembra, P, uncinata, Populus alba, Populus nigra, Prunus avium, Pyrus pyraster, Quercus robur, Q. petraea, Salix spp., Sorbus torminalis, Tilia cordata, T. tomentosa, Ulmus glabra. 
Understorey: Crataegus laevigata, C. monogyna, Cornus mas, Corylus avellana, Cytisus scoparius, Euonymus europaeus, J. oxycedrus, Juniperus communis, Ligustrum vulgaris, Prunus spinosa, Rosa spp., Rubus canescens. 
Field layer vascular plants: Asphodelus spp., Calluna vulgaris, Cytisus scoparius, Dactylis spp.,Dictamnus albus, Helleborus spp., Lolium spp., Medicago spp., Paeonia spp., Pteridium aqulinium, Pulsatilla spp., Trifolium spp., Veratrum nigrum.
Epiphytic cryptogams: species of Evernia, Fuscopannaria, Ochrolechia, Parmelia, Pertusaria, Physcia, Physconia, Ramalina, Schistmatomma, Antutrichia curtipendula, Leucodon sciuroides, Neckera complanata, N. crispa.

Classification:
EUNIS:
X09 Pasture woods (with a tree layer overlying pasture)
EuroVegChecklist:
Wood pastures and wooded meadows have rarely been described in relation to phytosociological units. This habitat has floristic afinities to various orders of plant communities including Quercetalia roboris, Fagetalia, Vaccinio-Piceetalia, Quercetalia pubescentis, Salicetalia albae and Pino-Juniperetalia alliances.
Annex 1:
-
Emerald:
E7.1 Atlantic parkland
MAES-2:
-
IUCN:
-

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
It is a widespread type throughout the nemoral zone whose general characteristics relate more to long histories of combinations of grazing and silviculture.

Map Description:
The map is rather good for the EU28, although it may overestimate the distribution in some countries, but it lacks most data for non EU countries. Data sources: AGFOR, NAT, LIT, EXP.

Comment EU28:
But of this, 2000kmÂ² are from the UK where the habitat is taken to include aristocratic and royal parklands and ancient hunting forests.  A third of the countries responding indicate an unknown area..

Trends in Quantity:
There is clear evidence of losses in extent over recent historical time of often over 80% in a majority of the countries, with longer-term losses of the same order recorded from Germany, Austria and Hungary. Where future shifts have been assessed, some countries (Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina) predict a continuing loss, others (Hungary, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia) report initiatives that could increase the extent.

Trends in Quality:
Almost all countries report a recent history of moderate to severe decline in biotic and abiotic quality often over more than 50% of the extent, and a continuing trend in this direction. Where a response has been made about future trends, outside managed areas, this decline is expected to continue.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The reduction in extent is very substantial but widespread so the overall range is probably largely unchanged.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat has a potentially very extensive range as a distinctive cultural replacement for high forest. Also the area in individual sites may be huge.

Pressures and Threats:
This diverse habitat is suffering from changes to the management of either/both of the grassland and tree cover which are both essential elements in its structure and composition. The widespread decline of grazing or mowing and spread of scrub, the abandonment of pollarding, the felling of ancient trees or replacement by inappropriate broadleaves or conifers and the lack of integration of these different interventions is variously affecting the quantity and quality of the habitat in different parts of Europe. Atmospheric pollution has a particularly severe effect on the epiphytic flora that often characterizes ancient trees in this habitat. These pressures are expected to continue.

Conservation and Management:
Conservation of this habitat demands maintenance of integrated management of both grassland and tree cover over an often large scale and, even in those landscapes which have some measure of protection for other reasons (like historic parklands or national parks), this can be difficult to achieve in the changed social and economic conditions prevailing now.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Restoration is more successful where the habitat still retains some measure of structural integrity and floristic diversity but, even where restoration is better, the wider fabric of traditional land-use with its distinctive combination of grazing and silviculture has often disintegrated.

Summary:
This habitat includes a wide variety of landscapes across the nemoral zone of Europe where diverse traditions of grazing, mowing and silviculture have together created distinctive associations of trees growing among pastures and meadows. Unlike most other Red List habitats, this is a landscape-scale mosaic of different kinds of grasslands, scrubs and forests. Such wood-pastures, wooded steppes, park meadows, grazed orchards, parklands and open hunting forests, variously managed for stock rearing, hay production, coppice and timber products, represent highly distinctive social and economic histories and can express great cultural traditions. Species-rich types occur, including contingents of epiphytic plants growing on veteran trees but, even where the components are more commonplace, the combinations of floristic and structural elements are striking. The disintegration of traditional patterns of land use and shifts to other kinds of cropping have led to enormous losses in extent and quality across much of Europe and restoration faces the challenge of again developing forms of integrated management at landscape scale.

References:
Bergmeier, E., Petermann, J., & Schröder, E. (2010). Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2995-3014.
Bergmeier, E., Roellig, M. (2014). Diversity, threats and conservation of European wood-pastures. In: Hartel, T. and Plieninger, T. (Eds.). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York, 19-38.pp.
Garbarino, M., & Bergmeier, E. (2014). Plant and vegetation diversity in European wood-pastures. In: Hartel, T., Plieninger, T. (Eds.) European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York, 113-125.pp.
Hartel, T., Dorresteijn, I., Klein, C., Máthé, O., Moga, C. I., Öllerer, K. and Fischer, J. (2013). Wood-pastures in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe: Characteristics, management and status. Biological Conservation 166: 267-275.
Hartel, T. and Plieninger, T., 2014. European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York. 322 pp.
Plieninger, T., Hartel, T., Martín-Lopez, B., Beaufoy, G., Bergmeier, E., Kirby, K.,Montero, M-J., Moreno, G., Oteros-Rozas, E. & van Uytvanck, J. 2015. Wood-pastures of Europe: Geographic coverage, social-ecological values, conservation management and policy implications. Biological Conservation 190: 70-79.
Rois-Diaz, M., Mosquera-Losoda, M.R. & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. (2006). Biodiversity Indicators on Silvopastoralism across Europe.  EFI Technical Report 21, European Forest Institute.
Rodríguez, A. R., McAdam, J., & Mosquera-Losada, M. R. (Eds.). (2008). Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 450.

Criterion A Text:
The percentage decline in the recent past is based on calculations from those countries (6 out of 13) which have provided at least a present extent and an expert estimate of recent historical trend, sometimes also a past extent figure, plus the UK where the bulk of the remaining extent is found and for which there is a longer term estimate of loss. This results in an assessment of 44% decline, leading to the category Vulnerable. Longer term reductions are estimated for only a few countries taking a datum from 1750 to 1900 and provide a wider range of losses from which it is impossible to calculate an overall average.  This criterion has therefore been categorised as Data Deficient.  Where future shifts have been assessed, some countries (Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina) predict a continuing loss, others (Hungary, Belgium) report initiatives that could increase the extent. The UK is an exceptional case where, though the quality of the habitat is currently declining, a large extent survives in the form of ancient royal hunting forests or aristocratic estates landscaped in a distinctive British tradition.

Criterion B Text:
No detailed information is available but continuing losses in extent (B1/2ai) and both biotic and abiotic quality (B1/2aii & iii) and continuing threats support concern. The AOO and EOO however are estimated to be much larger than the thresholds for criteria B1 and B2 respectively.

Criterion C/D Text:
The calculation of trends in quality is based on data from those countries (6/13 including two EU28+ Switzerland and Bosnia-Herzegovina) providing extent and severity estimates and a current area. The considerably higher figure for severity in EU28+ is based on data from Switzerland. These data point to an assessment of NT approaching VU.

Synthesis:
The habitat qualifies as Vulnerable (VU) on the basis of the losses in the recent past, frequently matched by longer term historical decline in extent.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
There are many regional and local sub-types related to differences in climate and particular grazing and silviculture traditions. These are variously threatened by changes in different patterns of land-use.

Contributors:
Type description:  Z. Molnar, edited J. Rodwell
Territorial data: S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, G. Buffa, A. Carni, R. Delarze, Juvan, K. Kirby, T. Kontula, J. Loidi, J. R. Martin, Zs. Molnar, D. Paelinckx,  D. Paternoster, V. RašomaviÄius, E. Roosaluste, S. Rusina, Škvorc, R. Tzonev, J. van Uytvanck, A. Varga
Working Group Grasslands: I. Biurrun, J. Dengler, D. Gigante, Z. Molnar, D. Paternoster, J. Rodwell, J. Schaminée, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
E7.2 Hemiboreal and boreal wooded pasture and meadow

Habitat Description:
These are open wooded landscapes of lowlands, hills and mountains of northern Europe, created and maintained to a significant degree through traditional grazing, hay-making and woodland (tree) management, mainly by pollarding. Variation in land use and disturbance regime as well as in their abiotic environment make wooded pastures very diverse and dynamic. The species composition and structure are strongly influenced by the conscious management by the owner/herder. Traditional wooded pastures express part of the local social and economic history and are therefore of considerable cultural significance and are considered as high nature value farmland areas. These are threatened by various factors, most of them related to land-use change (abandonment due to lack of grazing or hay-making, and tree cutting because of CAP rules, e.g. trees with higher than 3 meter crone diameter are not regarded as pasture).
The hemi-boreal and boreal wooded pastures and meadows occur in Fennoscandia and in Estonia. They are grazed mainly by cattle and sheep. The type also includes (particularly in Finland) deciduous forests established after slash-and-burn cultivation, that was a characteristic feature of the former land use in Finland. Wooded meadows were once abundant in northern Europe. The most common type of the wooded meadows are Kratt wood and deciduous leaf meadows. Wooded meadows are among the most diverse habitats of Europe. Some of the current wooded meadows in Estonia are amongst ecosystems with the world record in plant species diversity (up to 76 species of vascular plants on a square meter). However, not all occurrences of the habitat type are particularly rich in species.
Characteristic plant species of the canopy layer include Betula spp., Quercus robur, Fagus sylvatica, Tilia cordata, Alnus incana, Corylus avellana and conifers (Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies). The canopy cover typically varies between 10 and 35 %, and in the field layer meadow-like vegetation is more abundant compared to forest vegetation. Old, large oaks also occur in some pastures. Typically the shrub layer is missing or scarce, but Juniperus communis is rather common. Dominant plant species of the herb layer include graminoids like Agrostis capillaris, Deschampsia spp., Festuca ovina, Luzula campestris and Poa pratensis, and herbs like Alchemilla spp., Fragaria vesca, Geranium sylvaticum and Trifolium repens. The species composition is a mixture of meadow and forest species and therefore includes also many fringe species. Typical forest species are among others Vaccinium myrtillus, Anemone nemorosa and Maianthemum bifolium. Epiphytes may form an important added value, especially if there is oak, ash, elm or maple present among the trees.
Indicators of quality:
High presence and abundance of old-growth, veteran trees; Presence and abundance of epiphytes lichens; Forest regrowth, shrub encroachment, forest succession decrease the quality through the loss of the typical physiognomy; No land-use abandonment (e.g. high enough grazing pressure); No land-use intensification (e.g. too high livestock densities or fertilization); No spread of any non-native species  from planted stock or naturally invasive sources.
Characteristic species:
Trees/shrubs: Alnus incana, Betula spp., Corylus avellana, Fagus sylvatica, Fraxinus excelsior, Juniperus communis, Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Quercus petraea, Tilia cordata, Ulmus glabra, U. minor 
Understorey: Ajuga pyramidalis, Antennaria dioica, Campanula rotundifolia, Fragaria vesca, Luzula campestris, Succisa pratensis, Veronica officinalis , V. chamaedrys
Epiphytic bryophytes: Diplotomma alboatrum, Gyalecta ulmi, Homalothecium sericeum,Lobularia pulmonaria, Orthotrichum stramineum, Ramalina spp., Sclerophora spp., Usnea spp.

Classification:
EUNIS:
X09 Pasture woods (with a tree layer overlaying pasture)
EuroVegChecklist:
Wood pastures and wooded meadows have been rarely described as phytosociological units. This habitat is related among others to alliances of the orders Quercetalia roboris, Fagetalia, Vaccinio-Piceetalia, Salicetalia albae and Pino-Juniperetalia
Annex 1:
6530 Fennoscandian wooded meadows
9070 Fennoscandian wooded pastures
Emerald:
X09 Pasture woods (with a tree layer overlying pasture)
MAES:
-
IUCN:
-

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is an outstanding – but disappearing – example of traditionally managed landscapes in the Fennoscandian region.

Map Description:
Map is rather complete for EU28, but misses data for Norway. Data sources: Art17, AGFOR.

Trends in Quantity:
The decrease is very severe, about 93% for EU28. Norway may have a smaller decrease but no reliable data were reported. Sweden provided no data on decrease. Most probably decreasing will continue, but several initiatives have started that could stabilise the area or even restore some area.

Trends in Quality:
Extent of degradation: 90% Severity of degradation: 80%. Most stands that existed 50 years ago lost their good quality. The whole area of this habitat which is not managed is regarded as degraded  plus areas which are managed are also partly degraded. 2015-2020 small part of presently degradated habitat area will be managed and increase in quality, but the most part will further degrade (abandonment), at the moment managed area probably moves toward to Favourable conservation status.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
50-90%. It is unknown how large areas exist in Russia and Belorussia.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Within the hemi-boreal and boreal region, the habitat is widespread.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat may occur in large patches. Even though it has been reduced to small sites and a small amount of sites, this is not due to a restricted potential distribution.

Pressures and Threats:
The biggest threat is abandonment, which causes forest enchroachment and may provoke afforrestations. In some areas urbanisation is an increasing pressure. The conditions of remaining wooded pastures and meadows are deteriorating rapidly, especially for the most valuable wooded grasslands, those maintained by mowing, as only very few such stands are maintained. Wooded grasslands used for livestock grazing are still under active management to some extent, although the management practices have changed and consequently also the effects on associated biodiversity.
In wooded meadows, pollarding is a laborious practise of managing and therefore difficult to organise. In practise only wooded meadows in national parks or in other nature reserves are managed and even there the management is not always traditional. Nowadays the tree stand in wooded pastures is more even-aged, younger and dense, because the areas are managed according to standard instructions which are used in modern silviculture. Especially old trees and decayed tree trunks have declined in wooded pastures. Overgrowing has led to a situation where open meadow patches are small in area and the vegetation and species composition has changed. Stock feeding and grazing in contact with grass fields increases even more overgrowing process.

Conservation and Management:
Wood pastures and wood meadows have a combined exploitation system. Modern agriculture has started to erode these habitats as they are not so productive in the short term. Conservation management should focus on the maintenance of traditional use or on reintroducing new ways of mowing and grazing. Old trees should be protected as they provide habitat for many rare species.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
6530: BOR U2, CON U2
9070: ALP U2, BOR U2, CON U2

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has a high capacity to recover if mowing, grazing and human (tree) management is reintroduced. If abandoned, there is no regeneration as areas turn quickly into forest. For extremely species-rich examples of the habitat it may take a long time to recover, as the diversity is the result of a long-term stable management.

Summary:
These are open wooded landscapes of the lowlands, foothills and mountains of the boreal zone, traditionally managed for grazing, hay-making and woodland products, mainly by pollarding.  Diverse very open canopies of broadleaved and coniferous trees, including veterans, often with few or no associated shrubs, occur scattered over pasture and meadow vegetation. Long traditions of complex interactions and cultural associations made these landscapes both dynamic and distinctive and the biggest threat is dislocation of management of the different elements of the landscape, abandonment which permits encroachment of shrubs and extension of tree cover, afforestation and urbanisation.  Losses in extent and degradation of quality have been enormous and the condition of remaining wooded pastures and meadows are still deteriorating rapidly, especially for the most valuable examples where grasslands are maintained by mowing. Conservation management should focus on the maintenance of traditional use or on reintroducing new ways of mowing and grazing. Old trees should be protected as they provide habitat for many rare epiphytic cryptogams. Less damaged example can have a high capacity to recover if mowing, grazing and tree management is reintroduced but, if untouched, there is no regeneration as areas turn quickly into forest.

References:
Bergmeier, E., Petermann, J. & Schröder, E. (2010). Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2995-3014.
Bergmeier, E., Roellig, M. (2014). Diversity, threats and conservation of European wood-pastures. In: Hartel, T. & Plieninger, T. (Eds.). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York, 19-38. pp.
Garbarino, M., & Bergmeier, E. (2014). Plant and vegetation diversity in European wood-pastures. In: Hartel, T. & Plieninger, T. (Eds.). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York 113-125. pp.
Hartel, T., Dorresteijn, I., Klein, C., Máthé, O., Moga, C. I., Öllerer, K., Roellig, M., von Wehrden, H. & Fischer, J. (2013). Wood-pastures in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe: Characteristics, management and status. Biological Conservation 166: 267-275.
Hartel, T. & Plieninger, T. (2014). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York. 322 pp.
Kaasik, A., Sepp, K., Raet, J. & Kuusemets, V. (2011). Transformation of rural landscapes in Hiiumaa since 1956 and the consequences to open and half-open semi-natural habitats. Ekológia (Bratislava) 30(2): 257-268.
Otsus, M., Kukk, D., Kattai, K., & Sammul, M. (2014). Clonal ability, height and growth form explain species’ response to habitat deterioration in Fennoscandian wooded meadows. Plant Ecology 215: 953-962.
Palo, A., Ivask, M. & Liira, J. (2013). Biodiversity composition reflects the history of ancient semi-natural woodland and forest habitats—Compilation of an indicator complex for restoration practice. Ecological Indicators 34: 336-344.
Rois-Diaz, M., Mosquera-Losoda, M.R. & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. (2006). Biodiversity Indicators on Silvopastoralism across Europe. EFI Technical Report 21, European Forest Institute.
Rodríguez, A. R., McAdam, J. & Mosquera-Losada, M. R. (2008, eds.). Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 450.
Tomson, P., Bunce, R.G.H. & Sepp, K. (2015). The role of slash and burn cultivation in the formation of southern Estonian landscapes and implications for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 137: 54-63.

Criterion A Text:
The habitat decreased more than 90% in area in the last 50/200 years in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, together covering about 14% of the EU-area and less of the EU28+ area. It is expected that the situation in the other, larger part of the range (Sweden, Norway) is similar. This value leads to the category Critically Endangered. The future is uncertain, as it depends on management incentives. Long-term trends are unknown, but a decline of more than 90% is likely.

Criterion B Text:
Even though there are negative trends and threats, the habitat scores Least Concern, because the EOO and AOO are (still) much higher than the thresholds for criteria B1 and B2, and the habitat is present in many locations.

Criterion C/D Text:
Of the remaining stands more than 90% are severily degraded, due to improper or no longer management. This leads to the category Critically Endangered. Again, the data is based upon a small part of the area, but it is expected that the situation in the other, larger part of the range (Sweden, Norway) is similar.

Synthesis:
The habitat is Critically Endangered (CR) as both quantity and quality decreased by >80% over the last 50 years.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat includes a variety of mosaic habitats. A main division would be in wooded meadows versus wooded grasslands, with the former being even more threatened than the latter. Alternative subdivisions are possible, for example based on deciduous or

Contributors:
Habitat description: Zs. Molnár, A. Varga, K. Tytti & M. Aronsson
Territorial experts: E. Framstad, T. Kontula, V. RašomaviÄius, E. Roosaluste, S. Rusina
Working Group Grasslands: I. Biurrun, J. Dengler, D. Gigante, Z. Molnar, D. Paternoster, J. Rodwell, J. Schaminée, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
E7.3 Mediterranean wooded pasture and meadow

Habitat Description:
These are open wooded landscapes created and maintained through traditional grazing, hay-making and woodland (tree) management. Variations in land use and disturbance regime as well as in their abiotic environment make wooded pastures and meadows very diverse and dynamic. Due to their semi-open and patchy character, as well as to their habitat continuity, they accommodate numerous species, many of which are rare and endangered. The species composition and   structure are strongly influenced by the conscious management by the owners/herders. Traditional wooded pastures and wooded meadows express part of the local social and economic history and are therefore of considerable cultural significance. These habitats have a high nature and cultural value and considered as high nature value farmland areas. These are threatened by various factors, most of them related to land-use change.
The Mediterranean wooded pastures and meadows are typical in Spain, Portugal, Greece, South-Italy and South-France, and some parts of the Balkan. These have separated into old-growth wooded pasture; scrub and coppice wooded pasture.  In the western Mediterranean the most extensive wooded pastures are the dehesas (Spain) and montados (Portugal), where scattered evergreen trees coexist with pastures and arable lands. These habitats are dominated by scattered evergreen oaks Quercus ilex, Q. rotundifolia, Q. suber, Q. coccifera, while in other mediterranean wooded pasture are featured by Q.cerris, Q,frainetto, Q. ithaburensis, Q. petraea and Q. pubescens, Castanea sativa, Olea europea, Carpinus orientalis, and Fraxinus ornus.
The shrub layer is characterized by evergreen sclerophyllous bush and scrub (maquis, garrigue, mattoral, phrygana sensu lato) as Retama sphaerocarpa, Cytisus multiflorus, Phillyrea angustifolia, Cistus ladanifer, Cistus creticus, Q. coccifera, Pistacia lentiscus, Lavandula stoechas ssp., Genista hirsuta, Daphne gnidium, Asparagus acutifolius, Fumana sp., Halimium sp., Helianthemum annua, Tuberaria sp.. The herbaceous layer is usually composed of native annual and perennial vegetation (grasses - Lolium, Bromus, Hordeum etc., legumes - clovers, medicagos, serradela [Ornitophus sp.] etc., crucifers) which are used for grazing. Sometimes cultivated cereals (oat, barley, wheat, rye) are grown. Based on the management of the wooded component wooded pastures can be separated into old-growth with or without pollarding or coppice wood and shrub wooded pasture. The old-growth includes Sclerophyllous pastoral woodland, including the dehesa type, of Quercetea ilicis landscapes in Mediterranean Europe and Deciduous pastoral woodland of Quercetea ilicis landscapes in the Mediterranean. Coppice wood and shrub wooded pastures are mainly located in Spain, France, Italy and the Balkans. These types are the following: Grazed macchia/matorral of Quercetea ilicis landscapes in the Mediterranean; Rangeland mosaic with sclerophyllous or mixed scrub of the pseudomacchia type in southern and south-eastern Europe; Low evergreen open scrub-pastures of the garrigue type in Quercetea ilicis landscapes, interspersed with scattered sclerophyllous, coniferous and deciduous shade-giving trees and small groves, in the Mediterranean lowlands and lower mountains; Rangeland mosaic of montane grassland with sclerophyllous broadleaved trees and/or conifers, frequently lopped or pollarded, in the Mediterranean mountains.
Indicators of quality: High presence and abundance of old-growth, veteran trees; Regeneration of tall broad-canopy tree; Regular and deliberate management along with high nature and cultural value farmland guidelines; Forest regrowth, shrub encroachment, wood succession decrease the quality through the loss of the typical physiognomy followed by a decrease in small-scale habitat diversity; No land-use intensification (removal of the structural elements to enlarge the grassland; use of fertilizer and artificial seeding; too high livestock densities); No spread of non-native trees from planted stock or naturally invasive sources.
Characteristic species: Quercus rotundifolia, Q. suber, Q. coccifera s.l., Q. ilex, Castanea sativa, Arbutus unedo, A. andrachne, Erica arborea, Pinus sp., Juniperus oxycedrus, Fraxinus ornus, Carpinus orientalis, Acer sempervirens, Cupressus sempervirens, Pistacia lentiscus, Ceratonia siliqua, Olea europea, Phillyrea latifolia, Pyrus spinosa, Retama sphaerocarpa, Cytisus multiflorus, Cistus ladanifer, C. salviaefolius and C. monspeliensis, C. crispus, Phillyrea angustifolia, Lavandula ssp., Genista hirsuta, Daphne gnidium, Asparagus acutifolius, Sarcopoterium spinosum, Prunus dulcis, Narcissus cantabricus, Ornithogalum ortophyllum subsp. baeticum, Romulea ramiflora, Fritillaria lusitanica, Evax pymaea, Tolpis barbata, etc.

Classification:
EUNIS:
X.09 Pasture woods (with a tree layer overlaying pasture)
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Wood pastures have been rarely described as phytosociological units. This habitat has affinities with alliances from the classes Quercus ilicis, Quercetalia calliprini, Quercetalia calliprini, Quercetalia pubescentis and Pino-Juniperetalia
Annex 1:
6310 Dehesas with evergreen Quercus spp.
Other wooded pasture and wooded meadow types may be partly matching with the following Natura 2000 habitat types, or it may not be represented at all (Bergmeier et al. 2010): 5230 Arborescent matorral with Laurus nobilis, 9240 Quercus faginea and Quercus canariensis Iberian woods, 9260 Castanea sativa woods, 9290 Cupressus forests (Acero-Cupression), 9310 Aegean Quercus brachyphylla forests, 9320 Olea and Ceratonia forests, 9330 Quercus suber forests, 9340 Quercus ilex and Quercus rotundifolia forests, 9350 Quercus macrolepis forests, 9390 Scrub & low forest vegetation with Quercus alnifolia, 93A0 Woodlands with Quercus infectoria (Anagyro foetidae-Quercetum infectoriae), 9540 Mediterranean pine forests with endemic Mesogean pines, 9590 Cedrus brevifolia forests (Cedrosetum brevifoliae).
Emerald:
-
MAES:
Woodland & Forest
Grassland
IUCN:
2. Savanna

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This type of wood-pastures are restricted to the Mediterranean (by definition). Some types are typical examples of the traditionally managed Mediterranean landscape.

Map Description:
Map is based on 'dehesas' and data from the European project AGFORWARD (for wooded pastures), and is likely to be rather complete, except for non-EU countries. Data sources: Art17, NAT, AGFOR.

Trends in Quantity:
The calculated decrease is about 11% for EU28. A decrease in the distribution area has been observed by all territorial experts, however, quantitative past data are rarely available. The assessor estimates a decrease of ca. 30% over the last 50 years. Above 50% decrease is expected in most countries in the upcoming decades as abandonment processes are accelerating.

Trends in Quality:
Extent of degradation: 16%, Severity of degradation: 25%, but both were calculated from data of two countries only. Complete past data are not available, but a decline in quality has been observed by all territorial experts.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably more than 50%. There are extensive stands in Northern Africa and Turkey.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widespread in the Mediterranean region.

Pressures and Threats:
The biggest threats are abandonment, forest enchroachment and afforestations, less severe threats are fire suppression or in some places burning or conversion to arable land.

Conservation and Management:
Wood pastures (and wood meadows) have a combined exploitation system. Modern agriculture has started to erode these habitats as they are not so productive in the short term. Conservation management should focus on the maintenance of traditional use or on reintroducing new ways of sustaining management. Old trees should be protected as they provide habitat for many rare species.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has a high capacity to recover if grazing and human (tree) management is reintroduced. If untouched, there is no regeneration as areas turn slowly or quickly into forest/shrubland.

Summary:
This habitat includes open wooded landscapes created and maintained through combinations of traditional grazing, hay-making and tree management in the Mediterranean region. Variations in the local climate, topography and interventions, and the accumulation of long cultural traditions of use have resulted in a variety of highly distinctive types such as the dehesas of Spain and montados of Portugal. Typically the tree canopy is of evergreen Quercus and/or other broadleaved trees, variously with veterans, pollards or coppice, often with elements of sclerophyllous scrub beneath, and perennial and annual grasses and herbs in the field layer. In some traditions, there can even be small arable areas. The biggest threats are abandonment, forest enchroachment and afforestations, less severe threats are fire suppression or in some places burning or conversion to arable land. Wood pastures and meadows) have a combined exploitation system and modern agriculture has started to dislocate these integrated practices as the habitat is not so productive in the short term. Conservation management should focus on the maintenance of traditional use or on reintroducing new ways of sustaining management. Old trees should be protected as they provide habitat for many rare epiphytic species. Less damaged examples have a high capacity to recover if grazing/mowing and tree management are reintroduced but, if untouched, there is no regeneration as areas turn slowly or quickly into forest and scrub.

References:
Bélair C., Ichikawa K., Wong B.Y. L., and Mulongoy K.J. (Eds.) (2010). Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes. Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of  biodiversity and human well-being.’ Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 52, pp.184.
Bergmeier, E., Petermann, J., & Schröder, E. (2010). Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 2995-3014.
Bergmeier, E., Roellig, M. (2014). Diversity, threats and conservation of European wood-pastures. In: Hartel, T., Plieninger, T. (Eds.). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York, 19-38. pp.
Garbarino, M., & Bergmeier, E. (2014). Plant and vegetation diversity in European wood-pastures. In: Hartel, T., Plieninger, T. (Eds.). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York  113-125. pp.
Joffre, R et al. (1999). The dehesa system of southern Spain and Portugal as a natural ecosystem mimic. Agroforestry Systems 45: 57-79.
Hartel, T., Plieninger, T., (2014). European wood-pastures in transition: A social-ecological approach. Routledge, London and New York. 322 pp.
Rois-Diaz, M., Mosquera-Losoda, M.R. & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. (2006). Biodiversity Indicators on Silvopastoralism across Europe. EFI Technical Report 21, European Forest Institute.
Rodríguez, A. R., McAdam, J., & Mosquera-Losada, M. R. (Eds.). (2008). Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 450.
Díaz & Pulido 2009: xx.
Bagella et al. (2013, 2014a); Rossetti & Bagella (2014); ISPRA, 2013; N2000 Sites Management Plans; http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/art17/envupyjhw; ftp://ftp.dpn.minambiente.it/Natura2000/TrasmissioneCE_2014/; Biondi et al. (2009, 2012); Blasi (2010); Blasi et al. (2014); CLC 2006; Carta Natura (ISPRA, 2009-2014); Genovesi et al. (2014)
 StefanoviÄ‡ et al. (1983): xx.
Stupar et al. (2015): xx.

Criterion A Text:
Only three countries report quantitative figures for decline in area (Italy, Portugal, Bosnia & Herzegovina), and these figures range between 10-15%. It is not clear whether this is also the average European trends, as important data from Spain and Greece is missing. Based on expert knowledge the trend is estimated to be larger (>30% for A1, and >50% for A2a).

Criterion C/D Text:
C/D1 values were calculated from data of two countries only. Complete past data are not available, but a decline in quality has been observed by all territorial experts. It doesn't seem to be extreme large, however.

Synthesis:
The habitat is assessed as Near Threatened (NT), because the estimated decline in area is around 30% in the last 50 years, combined with a decrease in quality, and continuing threatening processes.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Several regional and cultural varieties may be distinguished.

Contributors:
Habitat description: Zs. Molnár & A. Varga
Territorial experts: E. Agrillo, F. Attorre, S. Bagella, J.Capelo, L. Casella, D. Espírito-Santo, J.Loidi, Z. Škvorc, V. Stupar, D. Viciani
Working Group Grasslands: I. Biurrun, J. Dengler, D. Gigante, Z. Molnar, D. Paternoster, J. Rodwell, J. Schaminée, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.1b Mediterranean and Black Sea sand beach

Habitat Description:
The habitat is represented by the lowest level of the supralittoral, just above the mean normal tide limit, where the drift material accumulates and the sand may be enriched with nitrogenous organic matter. It comprises beaches along the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and on the Macaronesian islands. These beaches are sandy, sometimes composed of a mixture of gravel and sand, but pure gravel shores are distinguished as a separate shingle type (habitat B2.1-6b). Typically on these beaches there is very sparse vegetation cover composed mainly of few annuals. The vegetation belongs to the Class Cakiletea maritimae, whose plant communities have a very low cover, sometimes not more than 1%. The species occur on drift lines along the surf line, where the salinity usually is very high. Examples of typical halo-nitrophilous species are Cakile maritima (Cakile maritima subsp. aegyptica is accepted for the Mediterranean and Cakile maritima subsp. euxina is accepted for the Black sea), Salsola kali, Salsola kali subsp. ruthenica and Xanthium strumarium. On sandy beaches rarely visited by people some perennial psammophytes also occur, such as Polygonum maritimum and Euphorbia peplis while Crambe maritima and Polygonum mesembricum could be mentioned for the Black Sea. On Macaronesian islands also Atriplex glauca subsp. ifniensis is characteristic. During storms, the highest parts of the beaches are sporadically inundated by sea water, which sometimes cause drastic changes in the species composition. Sandy beach ridges, which represent the most initial phase of the dune-forming, may also host pioneer species of the Class Ammophiletea consisting mainly of geophytes and hemicryptophytes such as Elymus farctus, Leymus racemosus and Eryngium maritimum. In the Black Sea, the first stages of shifting dunes can be observed at the coastal sand strips at the surf line and up to 30 m inside the beach where the tidal difference is very small. Due to human pressure, beaches may remain without any vegetation even though the habitat could be still suitable for many arthropods. The complete lack of vegetation on the upper beach is a very common phenomenon caused by excessive trampling and, in particular, by the mechanical cleaning of the beach which, together with the litter, removes all living plants. The typical floristic and community structure can be observed mainly in isolated and rarely visited beaches. In good conditions the beaches have vegetation represented mostly by annuals including also some perennials. This habitat is naturally strongly dynamic but when the human impact increases, plant species may disappear completely.
Indicators of good quality:
In good conditions the beaches have vegetation represented mostly by annuals including also some perennials. This habitat is naturally strongly dynamic but when the human impact increases, plant species may disappear completely. Indicators for good quality are:
- presence of characteristic plant species (mainly annuals with few perennials)
- presence of some beach litter (natural beach litter, with few or without anthropogenic litter)
- lack of intense tourist trampling or anthropogenic structures
- lack of alien species, such as Cenchrus incertus.
Characteristic species:
Flora
Vascular plants: Cakile maritima, Salsola kali, Salsola kali subsp. ruthenica, Xanthium strumarium, Euphorbia peplis, Polygonum maritimum, P. mesembricum, Crambe maritima. Other species: Argusia sibirica, Eryngium maritimum, Elymus farctus, Leymus racemosus, Matthiola tricuspidata, Raphanus maritimus.
Fauna
Invertebrates: Orchestia bottae, Cicindela hybrida, Hecamede albicans, Tethina cinerea, Hersodromya curtipennis.
Birds: Charadrius dubius, Ch. alexandrinus.

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.1 Sand beach driftlines
B1.2 Sand beaches above the driftline
EuroVegChecklist:
Atriplicion nudicaulis Golub et al. 2003
Euphorbion peplidis Tx. ex Oberd. 1952
Cakilion euxinae Géhu et al. 1994
Annex I:
1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines
Emerald:
B1.1 Sand beach driftlines
MAES-2:
Coastal
IUCN:
12.2. Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, etc.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is restricted to the Mediterranean and Black Sea region. It is highly dynamic and area, species composition, and structure may vary from year to year in both biogeographic regions.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete, with data gaps in Croatia, Montenegro, Albania. Data sources: EVA, BOHN, ART17.

Trends in Quantity:
The trend in quantity (over the past 50 years) is slightly decreasing (3.3%). However, in Italy, France and Portugal (where occur the 90% of the habitat) the trend is relatively stable, while on the coasts of Black Sea (Bulgaria and Romania) have been observed a slight decrease. Only in Spain the reduction in quantity reaches the 40%. This is mainly due to erosion processes and to the increase of beach tourism, especially in high urbanized areas. This pressures are expected to continue in the future, nevertheless, as this is a pioneer habitat, the estimated future trend in quantity is a very low decline (1.2%). Since 50-250 years ago about 18% of the potential area has been lost, especially in Spain.
The recent, future and historical trends have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.

Trends in Quality:
The most severe damage in quality especially affected countries with small extent of habitat (Bulgaria, Spain), while where the habitat is most widespread, the extent and the severity of degradation is moderate. The average degraded area in the last 50 years is 31% with a severity of 56%, as has been calculated from territorial data of 5 countries, covering large parts of the area. These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Ca 95% of the habitat type is within the EU28. The habitat is least represented out of the EU28 (mostly in Albania)

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is widespread in the Mediterranean and in the Black sea. Outside Europe this habitat is also present in the Mediterranean Nord Africa and Asian countries. Moreover, two of the most typical species of this habitat, Cakile maritima a

Pressures and Threats:
The main pressures and threats affecting the habitat are: urbanization, expansion of infrastructures and disturbance by outdoor activities, trampling by the tourists on the beach and in some cases also the use of motorized vehicles. Moreover, in some areas the habitat could be seriously threatened by coastal erosion. Finally, it should be noted that the mechanical cleaning of the beaches is widespread during spring and summer season and it is related to the intense reduction in extent and decline in quality of this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat is threatened mainly by urbanization and outdoor activities during the summer. Necessary conservation measure are restoration, legal protection of habitat and species and waste management. Special attention should be paid to mechanical cleaning of beaches that not only removes waste (beach litter) but also pioneer plants, particularly important for the stabilization of the sand.

Conservation Status:
Annex I type:
1210: BLS U1, CON U1, MAC U1, MED U2

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As this habitat is mainly composed by pioneer annuals plant species it could recover rapidly naturally, probably in less than 10 years.

Summary:
This habitat is largely unvegetated linear feature of sheltered coastlines around the Mediterranean and Black Seas, with a fragmentary and sporadic vegetation cover developing on the accummulated sands, gravel and decaying plant material. Typically, the vegetation cover comprises scattered annual halophytes although pioneer dune perennials can appear where sand ridges get pushed by storms beyond the normal tidal limit. Although the habitat naturally comes and goes, recovering from fleeting interruptions, more lasting or repeated damage can be done by coastal tourism with beach cleaning, urbanisation and coastal erosion.

References:
Acosta A, Ercole S 2015. Gli habitat delle coste sabbiose italiane: ecologia e problematiche di conservazione. ISPRA Serie Rapporti 215/2015.
Biondi E, Blasi C, Burrascano S, Casavecchia S, Copiz R, Del Vico E, Galdenzi D, Gigante D, Lasen C, Spampinato G, Venanzoni R, Zivkovic L. 2009. Manuale Italiano di interpretazione degli habitat della Direttiva 92/43/CEE (Italian Interpretation Manual of the 92/43/EEC Directive Habitats). Available at: http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/index.jsp.
Costa J, Lousa M, Capelo J, Espirito-Santo M, Sevillano J, Arsenio P. 2000. The coastal vegetation of the Portuguese divisory sector: dunes, cliffs and low scrub communities. Finnistera 35 (69): 69-93.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009. Article 17 - Reporting under Habitats Directive. Available at: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/x_habitat-art17report/library/datasheets/habitats/.
Grechushkina N., Sorokin A, Golub V. 2011. Plant communities of the classes Ammophiletea and Cakiletea maritimae along the Russian coast of the Sea of Azov. Chornomors’k. bot. z, 7(1): 5-14
Malavasi M, Santoro R, Cutini M, Acosta A, Carranza M 2013. What has happened to coastal dunes in the last half century? A multitemporal coastal landscape analysis in Central Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 11: 954-963.
Prisco I., Acosta A.T.R., Ercole S. 2012. An overview of Italian coastal dune EU habitats. Annali di Botanica 2: 39-48.
Santos A 1983. Vegetación y flora de La Palma. Interinsular Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Sýkora K, Babalonas D, Papastergiadou E 2003. Strandline and sand-dune vegetation of coasts of Greece and of some other Aegean countries. Phytocoenologia 33 (2-3): 409-446.
Tzonev R, Dimitrov M, Roussakova V 2005. Dune vegetation of Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Hacquetia 4 (1): 7-32.

Criterion A Text:
The recent, future and historical trends have been  calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided. The calculated trend in the last 50 years is a reduction of 3.3% (Criterion A1). This habitat has suffered historically a much larger reduction in quantity due to human pressure, especially in Spain. The average historical reduction in quantity (since ca. 1750) was estimated of about 18% (Criterion A3). The reduction is expected to be smaller (1.2%) over the next 50 years (Criterion A2a). Thus, the habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
The geographic distribution of this habitat (EOO and AOO) is very large across many countries (>50.000 km2). Criteria B1a and B2a are met due to the continuing decline experienced either in abiotic (ii) or biotic (iii) quality. The number of locations is probably very large. Thus, this habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Data available only for Criterion C/D1. The trends in quality have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2) from 5 countries, covering about 90% of the reported area. These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided. The reduction in quality over the last 50 years is assessed as intermediate with the extent affected to be 31% and the relative severity 56%, so above the threshold of 50%. The current trend regarding the biotic and abiotic quality is decreasing. Wiht these figures, this habitat is assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion C/D1.

Synthesis:
The overall analysis of data leads to the category Lest Concern (LC) based on relatively small negative trends in quantity and quality over the last 50 years. The habitat has experienced a reduction in abiotic and biotic quality over the last 50 years affecting 31% of the extent of the habitat with a 56% of relative severity, but these values are slightly to low to meet the Near Threatened thresholds.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The ecological conditions for habitat are relatively homogeneous within the Mediterranean region and the Black Sea region, but based on different species composition of the plant communities, sub-habitats could be considered for these two regions.

Contributors:
Habitat description: R. Tzonev
Territorial experts: F. Bioret, J.A. Campos, J. Capelo, D. Espírito-Santo, M. Fagaras, I. Prisco, Å½. Škvorc, R. Tzonev
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
G1.7b Mediterranean thermophilous deciduous woodland

Habitat Description:
Quercus ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis (Kotschy) Hedge and Yaltirik (Valonia oak) is a subspecies of the broadly distributed East Mediterranean deciduous oak species Quercus ithaburensis Decne (mount Thabor’s oak), that is confined to continental Greece and some Greek islands (surviving as relict isolated trees or in scattered localities as the dominant species in open woodland), in Southeastern Italy, in Southern Albania (forming important pure and mixed forests up to 800-900 m a.s.l.) and in Turkey. The relict Quercus macrolepis stands in Salento (S Italy), appear to have been derived from planted stock, but are treated here as semi-natural woodlands. Most stands occur on shallow soils, perhaps because of the absence of competition from rival trees but also maybe because of preferential felling of the oak on deeper better soils. It can grow on a variety of terrain types and soils up to 700m and beyond, but growth is better where the local climate is semi-arid with warmer winters. Often the canopy is pure but there can be some other deciduous oaks such as Q. frainetto, Q. coccifera or Q. pubescens, Pinus pinea. In some cases the overall effect is of a phrygana, at higher altitudes a grassland with trees, but a common feature in many stands is the prominence of a variety of therophytes, maybe because of the long history of disturbance of the landscapes. Agroforestry and specifically silvopastoralism is a traditional land use system in parts of continental and insular Greece where livestock breeders use the valonia oak forests (Quercus ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis) for grazing and the collection of acorns. Valonia oak regeneration is affected by livestock grazing and tree canopy cover. Very low regeneration is observed in various distances from the sheep and goat sheds where livestock is intensively grazing in the surrounding area. On the other hand, tree regeneration is strongly related to the tree canopy cover, whereas new seedlings are observed under trees due to the favorable micro-environmental conditions.
Indicators of quality:
No forest exploitations (if applicable, mainly azonal types with high nature value)
Natural composition of canopy
Structural diversity/ complexity with (semi)natural age structure or completeness of layers
Typical flora and fauna composition of the region
Presence of old trees and a variety of dead wood (lying or standing) and the associated flora, fauna and fungi
Presence of natural disturbance such as treefall openings with natural regeneration
Long historical continuity (ancient woodland) with high species diversity
Survival of larger stands of forest without anthropogenic fragmentation and isolation (to support fauna which need large undisturbed forests)
Absence of non-native species in all layers (flora & fauna)
No man-induced very high population levels of grazing animals (sheep, goats, cows)

Characteristic species:
Tree canopy: Q. macrolepis, Q. frainetto, Q. coccifera, Q. pubescens, 
Understorey: Pistacia terebinthus, Cistus creticus, Olea euopaea, Phillyrea latifolia, Prunus spinosa, Pyrus amygdaliformis and Ruscus aculeatus
Field layer: Chrysopogon gryllus, Dactylis glomerata, Asparagus acutifolius, Asphodelus aestivus, Urginea maritima, Cardamine hirsuta, Origanum vulgare, Phlomis frutciosa, Galium aparine.

Classification:
EUNIS:
G1.7 Thermophilous deciduous woodland (a group of broad diversity which is here split into two habitats according to regional distribution: Temperate and submediterraenan thermophilous woodlands are included in G1.7a and the Mediterranean thermophilous deciduous woodlands are included in G1.7b.
EuroVegChecklist:
Quercion macrolepidis Zohary ex Di Pietro, Mucina et al. 2016
Annex I:
9350 Quercus macrolepis forests
Emerald:
-
MAES:
Woodland and forest
IUCN:
1.4 Temperate Forest
EFT:
8.6 Valonia oak forest

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Quercus ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis is native to Southeast Italy, Greece, Turkey and the Balkan Peninsula (Albania), all belonging to the Mediterranean Biogeographical zone.

Map Description:
The distribution area of the Quercus ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis forests in the EU 28 part includes only continental and insular Greece and SE Italy. In the current area of the habitat we have calculated also the Aegean Quercus brachyphylla forests.

Comment EU28:
The map attached below is wrong. The map for Greece should be corrected and corrected (in this EUNIS habitat unit two Annex I habitats should be included: 9310 + 9350) and include all the occurrences

Trends in Quantity:
The area covered by the Quercus itaburensis subsp. macrolepis woodlands has increased the last 40 years (especially to many of the Aegean islands and continental Western Greece) due to the abandonment of the cultivated land either on terraces or on flat productive areas.

Trends in Quality:
The average current trend in quality taking into consideration the surface areas covered by the habitat type is increasing.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Its small natural range is not related to recorded deterioration and destruction of forested areas with Quercus itaburensis subsp. macrolepis woodlands.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The most extensive Valonia oak forests occur in Greece (continental and insular) mainly in lowlands and forested hills as well as in agricultural and urban areas (0m-1100m a.s.l.). Relict forests only (of rather semi-natural origin) occur in SE Italy.<

Pressures and Threats:
Intensive grazing as well as cessation of grazing are both pressures affecting the conservation status of the Quercus ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis woodlands in the Mediterranean. The illegal woodcutting for heating purposes and furniture is still an existing threat.

Conservation and Management:
In most cases the abandonment of grazing in the forests has led to unmanaged, almost not penetrable stands; so regulation of grazing to keep the openings among the woodlands with Q. ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis should support the open landscape characteristics of these woodlands. The abandonment of cultivated fields contribute substantially to the expansion of the area covered by the Valonia oak woodlands. The control of the illegal woodcutting at sites where the Q. ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis woodlands are present would help and would speed up the recovery of these forests.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The natural recovery of the Q. ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis woodlands takes long, depending on the grazing conditions and the factor which led to the deterioration/degradation and/or complete destruction of these forests.

Summary:
This habitat comprises thermophilous deciduous woodlasnds of Quercus ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis in the East Mediterranean, typical of shallow soils on a variety of terrain up to 700m and beyond, though growing better where the local climate is semi-arid with warmer winters. Often the canopy is pure but there can be some other deciduous oaks, and in some cases the overall effect is of a phrygana, at higher altitudes a grassland with trees. A common feature in many stands is the prominence of a variety of therophytes, maybe because of the long history of disturbance of the landscapes. Traditional land use of these forests was for grazing and collection of acorns but regeneration is affected by the intensity of exploitation: abandonment of grazing has led to onward succession of the habitat, and on neglected arable land a spread. Conversion of forests to agricultural land, illegal logging, overgrazing and forest fires less threatening than previously but regulation of grazing and control of illegal wood-cutting are essential for proper conservation.

References:
Bohn, U., Gollub, G. Hettwer, C., Neuhauslova, Z., Rause, T., Schlüter, H. & Weber, H.  (2004) Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
Council of Europe (2010), Interpretation Manual of the Emerald Habitats. Strasbourg:  Council of Europe.
Davies, C.E., Moss, D. & Hill, M.O. (2004), EUNIS Habitat Classification, revised. Report to  the European Topic Centre, European Environment Agency.
European Commission DG Environment (2013), Interpretation Manual of European  Union Habitats. Strasbourg: European Commission DG Environment.
European Environment Agency (2006), European Forest Types, EEA Technical report No  9/2006, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Schamineé, J.H.J., Chytrý, M., Hennekens, S., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Mucina, L. & Rodwell,  J.S. (2013), Review of EUNIS forest habitat classification, Report EEA/NSV/13/005.  Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Pantera, A., Papadopoulos, A., Fotiadis, G. & Papanastasis, V.P. (2008). Distribution and phytogeographical analysis of Quercus ithaburensis ssp. macrolepis in Greece. Ecologia mediterranea 34, 73-82.

Criterion A Text:
Quantitative past data for more than 50 years are not available, but a very slight decrease in the extent of the habitat has been recorded by the territorial experts for Italy. The "present past area" has been calculated by applying the average present-past trend to the current surface.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat is assessed as Least Concern under criterion B because of the too large EOO, AOO and number of locations. Even if these are much smaller than in many other habitats, they do not meet the thresholds for the B criteria.

Criterion C/D Text:
Biotic and abiotic quality of the habitat is currently in the process of improvement, so it is not reduced. Extent of degradation is rather locally increased, but in general it ranges between 1% and 5%, depending on the previous and the current land use and the implemented agro-sylvo-pastoral sytem which differs among the two countries of the EU28 where the habitat is present and in the one country of the EU28+ where it also occurs.

Synthesis:
The habitat is assessed as Least Concern (LC) due to the very small reduction in its quantity in the EU28 countries and the slight decline in biotic and abiotic quality; both the quantity and the quality are currently in the process of improvement and expansion of the valonia oak woodlands after abandonment of agro-pastoral practices within the Q. macrolepis forest zones. Compared to the past, the forests of Q. ithaburensis subsp. macrolepis currently have more ecological than economic importance. No data from outside the EU28+ (Albania) was reported.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The sub-habitat types of the assessed habitat as distributed in Greece and Italy need to be examined for their potentially threatened status.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Rodwell
Territorial data: P. Dimopoulos, G. Giusso del Galdo, C. Marcenò, S. Sciandrello
Working Group Forests: F. Attore, R-J. Bijlsma, M. Chytrý, P. Dimopoulos, B. Renaux, A. Ssymank, T. Tonteri, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Type Name:
B1.1a Atlantic, Baltic and Arctic sand beach

Habitat Description:
The beaches along the west-coast of the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea and the Baltic form a transition between the marine and terrestrial world. The lower parts of the beach (sublittoral/littoral foreshore), which are inundated most of the day, are considered under marine habitats. The higher (supralittoral or – in the Baltic – geolittoral) part, only rarely inundates during extreme high tides, is considered under terrestrial types. Sand beaches are found along sedimentary coasts, where the sediments deposited by waves and currents have a particle size of about 0.1 to 2 mm. Sedimentation of finer coastal particles results in salt marshes(habitat A2.5b and c). Sedimentation of coarser material results in shingle shores (habitat B2.1-3a), while shores with particular large cobbles and boulders (about >100 mm) are considered under rocky shores and cliffs (habitat B3.1_3a).
Sand beaches form a very dynamic habitat under the constant influence of disturbance by sea water, wind and salt spray, causing erosion and accretion, and by amounts of organic matter brought by the tides. The sediment is supplied from erosion of the coasts, carried shoreward from the sea bottom or brought in by rivers. On Iceland and Macaronesian islands sand beaches may be made up of black, volcanic (basaltic) sediments. In the Baltic tidal influence is limited and salinity is relatively low; here beaches are more influenced by freshwater.
Vegetation is scarce in space and time , restricted to the backshore (higher beach) and mainly restricted to litter deposits on the high-tide line. Typical species of such drift-lines are a range of Atriplex species (Atriplex caltheca, Atriplex glabriuscula, Atriplex laciniata, Atriplex littoralis, Atriplex longipes, Atriplex patula, Atriplex prostrata), Cakile maritima (incl. different subspecies) and Salsola kali.  Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima is also frequently present, and grows on shingles as well. These are all annuals, adapted to dynamic, yearly changing conditions. Most of them have deep rooting systems in the freshwater floating on the deeper marine water. Seeds are dispersed by sea or wind and they have adaptations to deal with high salt concentrations. One of the few common perennial species on the Atlantic and North Sea beaches is Honckenya peploides, growing also in primary and white dunes, and often accompanied by primary dune species, like Elytrigia farctus subsp. boreoatlantica, Leymus arenarius, Ammophila arenaria and Calystegia soldanella. On the – less dynamic – Baltic Sea sand beaches perennial species are more common, including species associated with primary and white dunes, as well as helophytic species of wet conditions (Bolboschoenus maritimus, Scirpus tabernaemontani). Other typical species in the wet, lower parts of the Baltic beaches are often associated with pioneer habitat along rivers, like Potentilla anserina, Ranunculus sceleratus, Polygonum hydropiper, Rorippa palustris, Juncus bufonius, Polygonum lapathifoliym, Chenopodium rubrum and Agrostis stolonifera. Potentilla anserina is also common in boreal driftlines, for example in Iceland, Norway and Scotland, where it is accompanied by Mertensia maritima. Helophytic species may be found on Atlantic beaches as well, but only rarely, in places where freshwater leaches out of high dunes and forms streams to the sea. Also Salix shrubs may grow in such conditions. In the bay of Biscaye, Euphorbia peplis can grow on the upper part of sand beaches.
A group of typical invertebrates of beaches is associated with the drift lines and its vegetation, while several other invertebrates live oligophagous on characteristic plants species, like on Cakile maritima. Several bird species breed on beaches (for example ringed plover, little tern), often in places with many shells, but only in those places where there is no disturbance by tourism.  The Sanderling (Calidris alba) is a typical feeder in the surf on the beaches during its migration.
Indicators of good quality:
The following characteristics are considered as indicators of good quality:
·      Presence of drift-line vegetation
·      Forming gradients  and progressive morphologic profile towards primary dunes
·      Presence and success of breeding birds in spring/summer
Characteristic species:
Flora: Atriplex caltheca, Atriplex glabriuscula, Atriplex laciniata, Atriplex littoralis, Atriplex longipes, Atriplex patula, Atriplex prostrata, Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, Cakile maritima , Honckenya peploides, Matricaria maritima, Mertensia maritima, Polygonum maritimum, Polygonum oxyspermum, Polygonum raii, Potentilla anserina, Salsola kali
Fauna, birds: Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), Little tern (Sternula albifrons), Kentish plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.1 Sand beach driftlines
B1.2 Sand beaches above the driftline
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Atriplicion littoralis Nordhagen 1940
Salsolo-Minuartion peploidis Tx. Ex Br.-Bl. et Tx. 1952
Cakilion edentulae Thannheiser 1981
Elymo littorei-Rumicion crispi (Nordhagen 1940) Isermann et Dengler in Iserm. 2004
Annex 1:
1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines
1640 Boreal Baltic sandy beaches with perennial vegetation
Emerald:
B1.1 Sand beach driftlines
MAES-2:
Sparsely vegetated land
IUCN:
12.2.  Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, etc.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Sandy beaches form a characteristic habitat around the Baltic Sea and along the Atlantic coast. In the Baltic Sea it occurs mostly in the Boreal region, but in Poland, Germany and Denmark the Baltic shores are in the Continental region. In the Arctic region it is likely that pebble/shingle beaches are more common than sandy beaches.

Map Description:
Map rather complete, with data gaps in the Baltic region and Iceland. Data sources: EVA, BOHN, ART17.

Comment EU28:
Data missing from Denmark and some uncertancies what the data represent from some countries

Trends in Quantity:
The habitat shows a small recent decline 3-5% in area. This trend is supported by the reports for HD Article 17 on a slow but continous exploitation of the Baltic and Atlantic shores.

Trends in Quality:
In most countries that has reported quantitative trends in quality it is clearly negative, but several countries have reported unknown trends in quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
> 80%, assuming a definition that restricts the habitat to temperate and arctic Europe. Outsde the EU28 the habitat occurs in Norway, Iceland and Russia.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Tha habitat has a lager range than 50,000 km2

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat does not have a limited area. In occurs in long, linear stretches.

Pressures and Threats:
There are many different pressures affecting the sandy beaches. Some relate to all beaches, like marine pollution and different ways of exploitations, while others are more specific, like invasive species (e.g. Rosa rugosa) and intensive use by humans for recreation. Tourism is likely the most important pressure, as it also leads to mechanical replacement of sand on many beaches. The pressure differs a lot between different parts of the range. In northern parts of the Baltic Sea the pressures are low, except in a few places, but in the southern Baltic and parts of the northern Atlanic it is much higher. Very few beaches undergo no or very few pressures and form suitable habitat for animals (breeding birds, seals),

Conservation and Management:
The most important measures are regulation of the use of the sandy beaches, erradication of invasive species (Rosa rugosa) and international regulation of sea pollution.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
1210: ATL U1, BOR U1, CON U1
1640: BOR U2

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The recovery time is very dependent on type of destruction, but in most cases when you built a harbor or an industry in the habitat it will never recover by it self, but if the industry is taken away and the habitat is restored, the species composition can be back in some decades.

Summary:
Atlantic, Baltic and Arctic sandy beach is a linear habitat, occurring along all sandy shores of the Atlantic Ocean, and the North Sea, Arctic Sea and Baltic Sea. It is mainly an unvegetated habitat with low species diversity. Annual halophytes are the typical plant species, appearing temporarily on strandline sediments. On less dynamic beaches, as around the Baltic, perennials including some brackish and freshwater marsh plants are characteristic. Around Icelandic shores volcanic sediments can provide a distinctive character. Distinctive invertebrates characterise beaches and their driftlines, providing food for some wading birds. Seaside tourism, often involving beach cleaning, widely threatens this habitat, especially around sunnier coastlines, and it needs strict protection to allow its features to naturally come and go.

References:
AuniÅ†š, A. (2013, ed.). European Union protected habitats in Latvia. Interpretation Manual. Latvian Fund for Nature, Ministry of Environmental protection and regional development, Riga.
Randall, R.E. & G.A.M. Scott (1997). Communities of sand and shingle beaches. In: E. van der Maarel (ed.). Ecosystems of the world 2C. Dry coastal ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Criterion A Text:
The habitat has declined during the last 50 years and still is expected to decline further in future in some countries, due to building of tourism facilities and erosion. However the declines are very small. No quantitative data are available on future or long term historical trends in area. A problem with the calculation is however the uncertainty in the reported area data. As this is a lineair habitat, area estimates can be very unreliable.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat is a little bitdeclining and will likely continue to decline, but EOO, AOO and number of locations are too large to fulfill the criteria under B. The conclusion is therefore Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been a significant reduction in quality of the habitat, both in extent (68% of the area affected) and severity (73%). The values have been calculated from territorial data of 7 countries out of the 13 that reported on this habitat, covering more than 60% of the area. The result is strongly influenced by a large area reported from France. Data on quality trend in the UK, reporting the second highest amount, are missing. The overall values lead to the category Vulnerable (VU) for C/D1. The degradation in quality includes both abiotic and biotic degradation. No data on long-term historical or future declines in quality are known.

Synthesis:
Atlantic and Baltic sandy beaches are assessed as Vulnerable (NT) because of a large decline in quality (criterion C/D1) over the last 50 years, with values very close to the thresholds for Endangered. Besides, small declines in area have been reported. A problem with the assessment for this type is the uncertainty in the reported area data, which may be very unreliable for this habitat occurring in linear stretches. However, calculations with adapted values for countries reporting extreme high areas, did not affect the overall outcome of the assessment.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat varies between the Atlantic, Arctic and the Baltic Sea and also from north to south in both the Atlantic and the Baltic region, but there is not enough knowledge about the habitat to propose any subdivision at the moment.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Janssen
Territorial data: F. Bioret, J. Capelo, D. Espírito-Santo, P. Finck, T. Haynes, J. Janssen, T. Kontula, J. Loidi, J.R. Martin, B. Nygaard, S. Provoost, V. RašomaviÄius, U. Raths, U. Riecken, E. Roosaluste, I. Rove, A. Ssymank.
Working Group Coastal Habitats: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev.


Habitat Type Name:
B1.4b Mediterranean and Macaronesian coastal dune grassland (grey dune)

Habitat Description:
These stable coastal dunes of the Mediterranean are dominated by herbs, graminoids and chamephytes, with a broad variety of plant communities: a) fixed dunes of the western and central Mediterranean and North Africa, with Crucianella maritima (a steno Mediterranean species) and Pancratium maritimum; b) coastal stabilised dune grassland communities with medium to fine calciumcontaining sand, growing approximately 200 m from the sea on dunes of about 0.15-10 m; c) associations with many small annuals and often abundant ephemeral spring bloom of deep sands in dry interdunal depressions of the coasts: d) dune formations of pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea class; e) meso- and thermo-Mediterranean xerophile, mostly open, short-grass perennial grasslands rich in therophytes, as well as therophyte communities of oligotrophic soils on base-rich, often calcareous substrates. All of these components are established generally landwards of the white dunes. The term "grey dunes" originates from the color of the substratum which comes from the increased proportion of humus and silt in the sand. Here, the amount of windblown sand is much reduced, compared to the white dunes, and also salt spray and erosive processes are highly reduced, with higher plant cover. The number of species in general is higher than in shifting dunes. These communities may be followed in succession by evergreen sclerophyllous coastal scrubs and in some cases by Quercus ilex woodlands, but may form relatively stable grassland in more extreme sites, less suitable for shrubs.
Human pressures reduce coastal landscape heterogeneity and biodiversity and converge to a striking simplification of the natural zonation on highly urbanized coasts. The impoverishment of soils in highly disturbed areas not only reduces the number of typical native species, but also promotes the colonization of alien and ruderal species. Touristic development and recreational activities (trampling, infrastructures) are the most severe threats for dune habitats, together with land clearance for the expansion of cultivated lands, sand extraction and changes due to in sand enrichment. In fact, large parts of the Mediterranean grey dunes are currently influenced by touristic and recreational activities, or have changed to urbanized areas, arable lands or woody plantations.
Indicators of good quality:
The following characteristics may be considered as indicators of good quality, but these indicators differ in different regions:
- High species richness
- Presence of rare and/or threatened species
- Diversity within the type within an area and over the whole range
- High cover of open soil
- Low cover of encroaching tall grasses, tall herbs and shrubs
- No cover of alien species
- No or few indications of disturbance
Characteristic species: 
Flora: Crucianella maritima, Pancratium maritimum, Euphorbia terracina, Ephedra distachya, Silene nicaeensis, Silene subconica, Malcolmia lacera, Malcolmia ramosissima, Evax astericiflora, Evax lusitanica, Anthyllis hamosa, Linaria pedunculata, Brachypodium spp., Ononis variegata, Silene colorata ssp. canescens, Cutandia maritima, Cutandia divaricata, Phleum arenarium, Medicago littoralis, Vulpia membranacea, Alkanna tinctoria.

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)
EuroVegChecklist:
Psammo-Koelerion Pignatti 1953
Diantho catalaunici-Scrophularion humifusae Baudiere et Simonneau 1974
Crucianellion maritimae Rivas Goday et Rivas-Mart. 1958
Euphorbio paraliae-Lotion glauci Jardim et al. 2003 (Macaronesia)
Linarion pedunculatae Díez Garretas et al. in Díez Garretas 1984
Alkanno-Maresion nanae Rivas Goday ex Rivas Goday et Rivas-Mart. 1963 corr. Díez Garretas et al. 2001 (disturbed dunes)
Laguro-Vulpion fasciculatae Géhu et Biondi 1994
Cutandio maritimae-Vulpion membranaceae de Foucault et Géhu in de Foucault 1999
Psammo-Vulpion Pignatti 1953
Vulpio-Lotion Horvatic 1963
Maresion nanae Géhu et al. 1987
Medicagini-Triplachnion nitentis Mayer 1995
Ononidion tournefortii Géhu et al. 1996 (Canary islands)
Anthyllido hamosae-Malcolmion lacerae Rivas Goday 1958
Annex I:
2210 Crucianellion maritimae fixed beach dunes
2220 Dunes with Euphorbia terracina
2230 Malcolmietalia dune grasslands
2240 Brachypodietalia dune grasslands with annuals
Emerald:
B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)
MAES-2:
Terrestrial - Grassland
IUCN:
13.3 Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The type is more or less restricted to the Mediterranean biogeographical region. Some outstanding examples of typical characteristics of this habitat can be found in Montalto di Castro (Lazio region, Italy), the Tróia Peninsula in Portugal and the sand dunes in Kyparissia (Western Peloponnisos, Greece).

Map Description:
The map is rather complete for EU28, but with data gaps in Croatia, Montenegro, Albania. Data sources: ART17, EXP, LIT.

Trends in Quantity:
The average recent past trend in quantity (over the past 50 years) is a decline of 15.87%. The biggest reduction in extent affected countries with a small extent of habitat (Albania, Spain and Portugal), whereas in places where the habitat is most widespread, the reduction is moderate (e.g. France). In the last 50 years this habitat has been replaced by artificial surfaces (infrastructures related to tourism, recreational activities and, in some cases, industries). In other cases, the habitat has been replaced by agriculture or woody plantations. This negative trend is expected to continue in the near future with a predicted average decrease of 5.53%, however, trends have not been indicated for all countries. Since 50-250 years ago about 21% of the potential area has been lost, especially in Italy and Spain.
The recent, future and historical trends have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.

Trends in Quality:
The damage in quality affects important areas of occurrence especially in France and Italy and is showing increasing intensity. The severity of degradation is severe for all countries. This is due to the intense anthropogenic activities in the last 100 years and this is also expected to continue if no measures are undertaken. The average extent of degradation is about 81% with a severity of 79%, as has been calculated from territorial data on a 1-5 scale (from stable-slight to severe).
The trends in quality have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
About 99% of the habitat type is within the EU28. The habitat is less widespread represented out of the EU28.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is widespread in the Mediterranean.

Pressures and Threats:
The habitat is threatened in both Mediterranean and Black Sea biogeographic regions. Human pressure is probably the main threat: tourism and recreational activities, coastal urbanization and arable cultivation. In the last 60 years, the composition and structure of this typical coastal dune habitat have been drastically modified by human pressure with a conspicuous reduction in extent and quality of the habitat with the increase of ruderal and alien species such as Carpobrotus acinaciformis/edulis, Agave americana, Oenothera biennis and Ambrosia coronopifolia. This habitat has been replaced by artificial areas (infra-structures related to tourism, recreational activities and, in some cases, industries). Moreover, the habitat has been replaced by agriculture or woody plantations (eg. Pinus and Eucalyptus afforestation) but in some cases also invasive exotic species have been used such as Acacia cianophylla.

Conservation and Management:
Most important is the restoration from tourism activities (trampling) and the stop or even removal (restoration) of urbanisation.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
If the habitat is dominated by herbaceous annual plants, it could recover without specific actions in a few decades if natural sources of propagules are present in the surroundings. For natural recovery, enclosures are highly recommended. If the habitat is dominated by chamephytes such as Crucianella maritima, special conservation measures are suggested, such as planting C. maritima using regionally collected plant material in order to prevent genetic pollution.

Summary:
These stable (so-called 'grey') dunes of fixed sands along the Mediterranean coast, inland from wind erosion and salt-deposition, have a more or less complete cover of graminoids and herbs, often with a contingent of colourful spring annuals capitalising on early rains. The flora varies according to regional climate and dune topography. The may represent a temporary phase, giving way to evergreen sclrophyll scrub and woodland, or may form more permanent grassland in sites not suitable for shrubland. Through much of the Mediterranean, the habitat has been destroyed, contaminated by invasion of non-native species or is much influenced by tourism, urbanization and infrastructure development, arable cultivation, nitrogen deposition and afforestation.

References:
Acosta, A.T.R. and Ercole, S. (Eds.) 2015. Gli habitat delle coste sabbiose italiane: ecologia e problematiche di conservazione. ISPRA, Serie Rapporti, 215/2015.
Biondi, E., Blasi, C., Burrascano, S., Casavecchia, S., Copiz, R., Del Vico, E., Galdenzi, D., Gigante, D., Lasen, C., Spampinato, G., Venanzoni, R., Zivkovic, L. 2009. Manuale Italiano di interpretazione degli habitat della Direttiva 92/43/CEE (Italian Interpretation Manual of the 92/43/EEC Directive Habitats). Available at: http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/index.jsp.
Dimopoulos, P., Bergmeier, E. and Fischer, P. 2006. - Natura 2000 Habitat Types of Greece evaluated in the light of distribution, threat and responsibility. Biology and Environment 106B (3): 175-187.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009. Article 17 - Reporting under Habitats Directive. Available at: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/x_habitat-art17report/library/datasheets/habitats/.
Gómez-Serrano, M.Á. and Sanjaume, E. 2009. 2210 Dunas fijas del litoral del Crucianellion maritimae. In: VV.AA., Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. 67 pp.
Gracia, F.J. & Muñoz, J.C. 2009. 2130 Dunas costeras fijas con vegetación herbácea (dunas grises). In: VV.AA., Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. 40 pp.
Malavasi, M., Santoro, R., Cutini, M., Acosta, A.T.R., Carranza, M.L. 2013. What has happened to coastal dunes in the last half century? A multitemporal coastal landscape analysis in Central Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 11: 954-63.
Prisco, I., Acosta, A.T.R., Ercole S. 2012. An overview of Italian coastal dune EU habitats. Annali di Botanica 2: 39-48.
Santos, A. 1983. Vegetación y flora de La Palma348 pp. Ed. Interinsular Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Sýkora, K.V., Babalonas, D. and Papastergiadou, E. 2003. Strandline and sand-dune vegetation of coasts of Greece and some other Aegean countries. Phytocoenologia 33(2-3): 409-446.
Tzonev, R., Dimitrov, M. and Roussakova, V. 2005. Dune vegetation of Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Hacquetia 4 (1): 7-32.

Criterion A Text:
The recent, future and historical trends have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.
The percentage of area declining in extent over the past 50 years (Criterion A1) is about 16%. Over longer historic time, this habitat has suffered a much larger reduction in quantity due to human pressure, especially in Albania, Italy, Spain and Portugal. The average historical reduction in quantity was estimated of about 21% (Criterion A3). The estimated future reduction in extent over the next 50 years (Criterion A2a) is about 5.5%. Thus, the habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A.
No data are available for Criterion A2b.

Criterion B Text:
The extent of occurrence (EOO) and the area of occupancy (AOO) are above the thresholds. However, the Criteria B1a/B2a are met because there is an ongoing continuing decline in biotic (ii) and abiotic (iii) quality. It is likely that a threatening event will cause continuing declines within the next 20 years. The number of locations has not been calculated but it is probably very large. Thus, this habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The trends in quality have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.
Based on the territorial data provided, for Criterion C/D1 only, the reduction in quality over the last 50 years affected about 81% of the current extent, with a relative severity of degradation of 79%. The reduction was in both biotic and abiotic quality. Thus, this habitat is assessed as Endangered under Criterion C/D.

Synthesis:
The habitat type is assessed as Endangered under Criterion C/D1 both at the EU28 and the EU28+ levels, as the habitat has experienced a substantial reduction in abiotic and/or biotic quality over the last 50 years, affecting about 81% of the extent of the habitat with a 79% relative severity.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
This habitat includes two different sub-types: a) short grasslands with annual species and b) short grasslands with chamaephytes. It may be relevant to examine both sub-habitats separately.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: M. Panitsa
Territorial data: Z. Barina, F. Bioret, P. Dimopoulos, J. Capelo, D. Espírito-Santo, J. Loidi, I. Prisco, Å½. Škvorc
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.7d Mediterranean coniferous coastal dune woodland

Habitat Description:
Dune woods develop naturally where coastal sands become sufficiently stabilised and remote from the influence of saline ground water or spray to sustain a permanent cover of trees and they bear a strong resemblance to the zonal woodland type(s) of the particular regional climate. Within the Mediterranean zone, on the coasts of Cyprus, Albania, Italy, Spain and the Atlantic coast of Portugal, various pine dominate the vegetation landscape, similar to G3.7 Mediterranean lowland to sub-montane Pinus woodland. The commonest trees in the western Mediterranean are Pinus pinea, Pinus pinaster and Pinus halepensis and in the east Pinus brutia. The first three are also widely planted on stable coastal sands in the Mediterranean and long-established plantations with natural undergrowth (like in the equivalent Annex 1 habitat type 2270 Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster) are included in this habitat type. Associated woody species include Phillyrea angustifolia, Rhamnus oleoides, Pistacia lentiscus, Olea europaea var. sylvestris, Tamarix gallica and Tamarix africana, with Juniperus macrocarpa, Juniperus phoenicea and Juniperus oxycedrus in Spain and Portugal. Where such shrubs exceed the cover of pines, the vegetation is included in B1.6b Mediterranean and Black Sea coastal dune scrub.
Indicators of quality:
Absence of planted native or introduced pines or other forestry trees such as Eucalyptus
Presence of uneven aged pine canopy with subordinate shrub layer
Presence of typical associated flora without weeds
Lack of disturbance from coastal tourism

Characteristic species:
Tree canopy species: Pinus bruti, Pinus halepensis, Pinus pinea, Pinus pinaster. Understorey species: Juniperus macrocarpa, Juniperus phoenicea, Juniperus oxycedrus, Olea europaea var. sylvestris, Phillyrea angustifolia, Pistacia lentiscus, Rhamnus oleoides, Tamarix gallica, Tamarix africana.

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.7 Coastal dune woods
EuroVegChecklist:
Oleo-Ceratonion siliquae Br.-Bl. ex Guinochet et Drouineau 1944
Junipero phoeniceae-Pinion acutisquamae A.V. Pérez et Cabezudo in A.V. Pérez  et al. 1988 corr. Rivas-Mart. et al. 2002 nom. invers. propos.
Pinion pineae Feinbrun 1959
Quercion ilicis Br.-Bl. ex Molinier 1934
Annex 1:
2270 Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster
Emerald:
B1.7 Coastal dune woods
MAES-2:
Woodland and forest
IUCN:
1.4 Temperate Forest

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat type is typical and largely restricted to the coastlines of the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete, but data gaps exist for Albania. Data sources: Art17.

Trends in Quantity:
The average present past trend in quantity (over the past 50 years) is a decline of 5.7%. In Spain and Portugal the habitat experienced a slight decrease (5-10%), while in Italy the trend is relatively stable. Estimated future trend in quantity is a relative stability (0% changes). Since 50-250 years ago only 3% of the potential area has been lost, however, trends have not been provided for all countries.
The recent, future and historical trends have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.

Trends in Quality:
The average degraded area in the last 50 years is 8.8% with a severity of degradation of about 15%, as has been calculated from territorial data in a 1-5 scale (from stable-slight to severe). The trend on quality is based on only 40% of the data, as it is unknown for France, Greece and Spain.
The trends in quality have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Ca 99% of the habitat type is within the EU28. The habitat is least represented out of the EU28.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Both EOO and AOO are above the thresholds. Moreover, it seems that the decline is considerably reduced or will stop as a relative stability is predicted for the future.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Both EOO and AOO are above the thresholds.

Pressures and Threats:
Fires are the main factor threatening this habitat. Frequent fires, especially in summer, reduce forest cover with gradual replacement of pines with the formation of scrublands. Moreover, other pressures could be mentioned: Urban development, and recreational activities (trampling and wastes). In some areas, the introduction of Pinus afforestations on coastal dunes have changed the natural landscape. Predictions for the future pointed out that the habitat extent and quality should maintain rather stable.

Conservation and Management:
Legal protection of habitats and species could be suggested. In particular, a general legislation to prevent construction of new infrastructures and land clearing at expense of this habitat should be shared by all the EU countries. Moreover, restoring degraded coastal pines areas are also important. If pines have been planted, programmed cutting schedules are needed to maintain the quality of the habitat. Preventing from trampling could be also mentioned.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
This habitat could be severely damaged by fire. After fire or clearing, the habitat needs human intervention for recovering. In particular, planting Pinus spp. is suggested.

Summary:
The dune woods develop naturally where coastal sands around the Mediterranean have become sufficiently stabilised and remote from the influence of saline ground water or spray to sustain a permanent cover of trees.  The main colonisers are various Pinus spp., often also widely planted, and the resulting woodlands bear a strong resemblance to the zonal woodland type(s) of the particular regional climate. Fires are the main threat with urban development and recreational activities. After fire or clearance, the habitat needs human intervention for recovery with planting of appropriate pines.

References:
Acosta A.T.R., Ercole S. (Eds.) 2015. Gli habitat delle coste sabbiose italiane: ecologia e problematiche di conservazione. ISPRA, Serie Rapporti, 215/2015.
Biondi E, Blasi C, Burrascano S, Casavecchia S, Copiz R, Del Vico E, Galdenzi D, Gigante D, Lasen C, Spampinato G, Venanzoni R, Zivkovic L. 2009. Manuale Italiano di interpretazione degli habitat della Direttiva 92/43/CEE (Italian Interpretation Manual of the 92/43/EEC Directive Habitats). Available at: http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/index.jsp.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2009. Article 17 - Reporting under Habitats Directive. Available at: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/x_habitat-art17report/library/datasheets/habitats/.
Gómez-Serrano, M.Á., Sanjaume, E. & Gracia Prieto, F.J. 2009. 2270 Dunas con bosques de Pinus pinea y/o Pinus pinaster (*) In: VV.AA., Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. Madrid. 48 pp.
Malavasi M., Santoro R., Cutini M., Acosta A.T.R., Carranza M.L. 2013. What has happened to coastal dunes in the last half century? A multitemporal coastal landscape analysis in Central Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 11: 954-63.
Prisco I., Acosta A.T.R., Ercole S. 2012. An overview of Italian coastal dune EU habitats. Annali di Botanica 2: 39-48.
Santos, A., .1983 Vegetación y flora de La Palma348 pp. Ed. Interinsular Canaria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Schamineé, J.H.J., Chytrý, M., Hennekens, S., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Mucina, L. & Rodwell, J.S. 2013. Review of EUNIS forest habitat classification, Report EEA/NSV/13/005. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

Criterion A Text:
The recent, future and historical trends have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided. The percentage of area declining in extent over the past 50 years (Criterion A1) is 5.7%. The average historical reduction in quantity was estimated of about 3% (Criterion A3). The estimated future reduction in extent over a 50 years period (Criterion A2a) is about 0%. Thus, the habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
Both the extent of occurrence (EOO) and the area of occupancy (AOO) are above the thresholds. Criterion B1a/B2a are not met because the ongoing decline in biotic (ii) and abiotic (iii) quality is relatively low. It is unlikely that a threatening event will cause continuing declines within the next 20 years. The number of locations has not been calculated but it is probably very large. Thus, this habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The trends in quality have been calculated on the basis of the available territorial data (km2). These data are referred to different years, but we assume that the habitat area is the same in the year of reference as in the year where the data was provided. There is only data available for Criterion C/D1. Based on the territorial data provided, the reduction in quality over the last 50 years affected about 8.8% of the current area, with a relative severity of degradation of 15%. The ongoing decline in biotic (ii) and abiotic (iii) quality is relatively low. Thus, this habitat is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion C/D.

Criterion E Text:
No data available for a quantitative analysis to evaluate risk of habitat collapse. Thus, this habitat is assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion E.

Synthesis:
Data are available from 5 countries (only in the EU28). As the habitat experienced a slight decrease and it is relatively stable both in quantity and quality, is assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A1, A2a, A3, B1, B2 and C/D1 for EU 28 and EU 28+. The habitat is Data Deficient under the other Criteria.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
No sub-habitats have to be distinguished within the Mediterranean coniferous coastal woodlands. Evergreen oak forests are very rare along the Mediterranean coast and may be considered as a separate Mediterranean dune woodland type. They have been inclu

Contributors:
Habitat description: J. Rodwell
Territorial experts: O. Argagnon, J.Capelo, P. Dimopoulos, D. Espírito-Santo, J. Loidi, I. Prisco, Å½. Škvorc
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.4c Black Sea coastal dune grassland (grey dune)

Habitat Description:
Stabilized or semi-stabilized dune grasslands (grey dunes) represented by perennial communities, dominated by grasses, herbs, mosses and lichens. The type is distributed along the Black Sea coast, but mostly found in its western and north-western part. This habitat includes dune complexes which differ in size and height (from 2–3 m up to 50 m above sea level). These dunes are better developed on flat shores, where there is a wider contact zone between the Black Sea influence and the adjacent vegetation, mostly forests. The vegetation of the Black Sea dunes is a complex of grasslands, small shrubs and small forests. Perennial species dominate but many annuals occur, principally on the more mobile sands, usually present on high ridges. On northern exposed, moist slopes, many mosses and lichens occur. The most fixed wet sands at the depressions in the dunes are covered by the coenoses mostly dominated by tall grasses, sedges and rushes, forming transitions to humid dune slacks (habitat B1,8b). The vegetation of the Black Sea fixed dunes shows a large diversity in species composition. Along the western coast of the Black Sea it changes gradually from south to north. The main gradient is climatic and also biogeographical. This gradient is associated with a reduction of East-Mediterranean species and an increase of Pontic steppe species. According to this gradient the Western Black Sea grey dunes are divided into two main types: northern and southern grey dunes, with the Balkan Range in Bulgaria as a conditional border between the two sub-types. The northern Black Sea grey dunes have optimal distribution in the region of the Danube Delta in Romania and around the Azov Sea in Ukraine. The southern Black Sea dune grasslands are widely distributed in the Southern Black Sea coast of Bulgaria and European Turkey. Especially the southern Black Sea dunes are rich in some Balkan and Balkan-Anatolian endemics, like Lepidotrichum uechtritzianum, while the northern types are less rich in both annuals and endemic species. These dune grasslands are threatened by direct destruction and degradation from the construction activities in resort areas, both in Bulgaria and Romania. There is also invasion of natural and alien shrub and three species as Paliurus spina-christi, Ailanthus altissima, Amorpha fruticosa, Robinia pseudacacia, Eleagnos angustifolia.
Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Alyssum borzaeanum, Alyssum hirsutum, Artemisia campestris, Astragalus onobrychis, Astragalus varius, Astrodaucus littoralis, Carex ligerica, Centaurea arenaria, Cynanchum acutum, Cionura erecta, Convolvulus persicus, Corispermum nitidum, Dianthus polymorphus, Ephedra distachya, Erysimum diffusum, Euphorbia sequierana, Festuca beckerii, Festuca vaginata, Gypsophila trichotoma, Helichrysum arenarium, Galiliea mucronata, Jasione heldreichii, Jurinea albicaulis, Koeleria glauca, Lepidotrichum uechtritzianum, Linaria genistifolia, Linum tauricum, Marrubium peregrinum, Melica cilliata, Pancratium martimum, Rumex tenuifolius, Scabiosa argentea, Secale sylvestre, Seseli tortuosum, Silene borystenica, Silene euxina, Silene thymifolia, Stipa borysthenica, Syrenia montana, Teucrium polium, Verbascum purpureum.
Mosses: Grimmia sp. pl. Tortella sp. pl., Tortula ruralis.
Lichens: Cladonia sp.pl.
Fauna
Amphibians and reptilians: Pelobates syriacus, Testudo graeca, Eremias arguta, Podarcis taurica, Vipera ursinii.
Birds: Burchinus oedicnemus, Charadrius alexandrinus, Calandrella brachydactylla
Insects: Stibaropus henkei, Byrsinus fossor

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)
EuroVegChecklist:
Sileno thymifoliae-Jurineion kilaeae Géhu et Uslu ex Mucina in Mucina et al. 2012
Cynodonto-Teucrion polii Korzhenevsky et Klyukin 1990
Verbascion pinnatifidii Korzhenevsky et Klyukin 1990
Scabiosion ucranicae Sanda et al. 1980
Melico chrysolepidis-Ephedrion distachyae Umanets et Solomakha 1999
Annex 1:
2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ('grey dunes')
Emerald:
B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)
MAES-2:
Grassland
IUCN:
13.3 Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is an outstanding example for the Black Sea Biogeographic region. The vegetation is rich in many local and regional endemics, which sometimes even are dominant in the psammophytic communities.

Trends in Quantity:
The decrease is about -12% for EU over the last 50 year. After 1960 the habitat has been decreased of more than 20% in Bulgaria, because of the great touristic development and many new resorts along the coast which impacted the dunes. The reduction in Romania has been less, not more than 5% for the same period, caused by the construction of new resort areas south of Cape Midia. Now the habitat is more stable in Romania, as the biggest part is included in some protected areas, mostly in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. The decrease is continuing slightly in Bulgaria due to touristic pressure. The future trend is probably a slight decrease in Bulgaria and a more or less stable condition in Romania.

Trends in Quality:
The extent of degradation is about 43% with a severity of 56%. These trends have been calculated from the reported trends in quality (extent and severity) by Romania (slight, -5%) and Bulgaria (-70%) in the territorial data. The severe decline is mostly because of the great habitat degradation in Bulgaria due to the touristic development after 1960.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably more than 50%. The area of the habitat occurring in other Black Sea countries like Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia is unknown, but sand dunes prevail on the western coasts of the Black Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The EOO is very small and the area is decreasing.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat covers a small area because it can develop only in a narrow stripe along the Black Sea coast, being dependent on the local geomorphological structures and climatic conditions.

Pressures and Threats:
The biggest threats are human intrusion and disturbance (trampling, driving off road), new urbanised areas and human habitations because of the touristic developement, different kinds of pollution, alien species of grass, shrubs and trees, planting of trees (including some invasive species) and ruderalisation because of overgrazing (especially in Romania).

Conservation and Management:
The most important conservation tool is a strict protection of preserved dune systems. Further projects for the restoration of some habitat areas should be carried out, including the removal of non-typical forest plantations, invasive species, waste, etc. Possible positive measure is also the construction of some fences and roads for protection of the dune structure. It will prevent the trampling and off-road driving which destroies significantly the dune systems.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has some capacity to recover naturally but it is dependent on some geological processes which are intrinsically very slow. It could be restored in some areas where artificial forest plantations have been planted or where there is an invasion of non typical plant species.

Summary:
This (so-called 'grey') dune grassland occurs on stabilised or semi-stabilised coastal sands around the Black Sea, mostly on the western and north-western stretches and now only very locally. The dunes are best developed on broader flatter shores and the ridges can vary from just a few metres high to over 50m, with moister depressions between. The flora is variable with a shift from Mediterranean to Pontic moving northwards, with many regional endemic plant species among its grasses and herbs. Perennials predominate but there can be striking contingents of annuals on more mobile stretches of sand on the ridges, and mosses and lichens can be extensive on north-facing, less sunny slopes.  The habitat has drastically decreased in quantity and quality in recent times with touristic development, forest plantations, and invasion of atypical and alien species. Overgrazing can also still be a serious threat. The habitat needs strict protection and some restoration activities, like removal of invasive plants and artificial forests.

References:
Donita N, Popescu A, Pauca-Comanescu M, Mihailescu S & Biris I 2005. Habitatele din România. Edit. TehnicÄƒ SilvicÄƒ, BucureÅŸti, 500 p.
Morariu I 1957. ContribuÅ£ii la conoaÅŸterea vegetaÅ£oiei litoralului MÄ…rii Negre.Bul. Stiintific Acad. R.P.R., BucureÅŸti 9: 361–390.
Tzonev R 2012. Black Sea fixed (gray) dunes. In: Bisserkov V. et al. (eds). Red Data Book of Bulgaria. Vol.3. Natural habitats.
Tzonev R Dimitrov M & Roussakova V, 2005. Dune vegetation along Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Hacquetia 4(1): 7-32.
Vicherek J 1971. Grundriss einer Systematik der Strandgesellscaften des Schwarzen Meers. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 6: 127-147.

Criterion A Text:
The habitat has been decreased about 20% in Bulgaria (now 4.1 km2) and about 5% in Romania (now 5 km2) during the last 40 to 60 years. In total it was reduced from 10 km2 to 9.1 km2,  showing a reduction trend of nearly 12.4%. There is no information on longer historical trends. In future a small further decline is expected, but quantitative data is not available.

Criterion B Text:
Both values (AOO and EOO) are relatively small and they will meet criterion B because of continuing decline in quantity and quality. The ecosystem exists at more than 10 locations.

Criterion C/D Text:
The overall extent and severity are the weighted average calculated from reported data from Bulgaria and Romania. The involved countries could not provide any information on long historical or future trends in quality (CD2, CD3, C2, C3, and D2). The changes in quality are both abiotic (waste, trampling) and biotic (invasive species, changes in species composition), so C/D1 has not been split into C1 and D1.

Synthesis:
The habitat type is assessed as Endangered (EN) under Criterion B1 and B2 both at the EU28 and the EU28+ levels, as the habitat has a small geographical distribution (extent of occurrence (EOO) < 20,000 km2 and area of occupancy (AOO) < 20 km2), and there is a continuing decline in spatial extent of the habitat. Due to touristic development, invading non-native plants and artificial forest plantations, the habitat is likely to experience continuing decline in quantity and/or quality within the next 20 years.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
In general there are two subtypes: a northern one in Romania and northernmost coast of Bulgaria and a southern one in Bulgaria. Both subtypes are rich in endemic vascular plants.

Contributors:
Habitat Definition: R. Tzonev
Territorial data: M. Fagaras, R. Tzonev
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.7b Black Sea broad-leaved coastal dune woodland

Habitat Description:
Natural or semi-natural tree and tree-shrub communities distributed along the Black Sea coast. The habitat has a very limited distribution in Bulgaria, where it is restricted mainly to two sites with the biggest dune systems: the Kamchia Reserve and the mouth of the Ropotamo River. Besides it is known from the Baltata Reserve. In Romania dunes with alluvial forest vegetation and many lianas are found in the maritime part of Danube’s Delta. The habitat was completely destroyed in the places of today’s Sunny Beach resort in Bulgaria. In the South-Western Black Sea coast (Ropotamo River) these woodlands occupy mostly the eastern, steep slopes on the biggest dune in Bulgaria, which is about 50 m high. The woods on the dunes have typical xerothermic features, the trees being small and strongly branched. These coenoses are dominated by Carpinus orientalis, Fraxinus ornus, Quercus cerris, Q. frainetto and Q. pubescens. The shrub layer is well developed and dominated mostly by Ruscus aculeatus, but also Cotinus coggygria, Cornus mas and the liana species Asparagus acutifolius participate in the floristic structure. The species composition of the herbaceous layer is diverse. In other areas covered by wooded dunes in Bulgaria and Romania the dunes are low (1.5-2 m) and partly covered by alluvial forest vegetation. Tree species typical for such forests are Acer campestre, Fraxinus oxycarpa, Quercus robur. Climbing species are common, like Hedera helix, Periploca graeca and Smilax excelsa. In good conditions these woodlands are dominated by native species. They are threatened by erosion and degradation. Other threats are fires, urban development, tourist pressure, and forestation with plantations of coniferous species (mostly Pinus pinaster). A main threat is the invasion of alien species, like Amorpha fruticosa, Robinia pseudacacia and Eleagnus angustifolia.
Indicators of quality:
High species richness

Prevalence of native forest, shrub and herbaceous species
Absence of invasive species
Natural structure (absence of forest plantations and forest regeneration)
Long-term existence of mosaics of woodland, shrubland and psammophytic grasslands on the dune systems

Characteristic species: 
Flora, trees: Carpinus orientalis, Fraxinus ornus, F. oxycarpa, Quercus cerris, Q. frainetto, Q. pubescens, Q. robur.
Flora, shrub & herb layer, climbers: Asparagus acutifolius, Calystegia silvatica, Cotinus coggygria, Cornus mas, Dactylis glomerata,  Hedera helix, Periploca graeca,  Ruscus aculeatus, Smilax excelsa

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.7 Coastal dune woods
EuroVegChecklist:
Carpinion orientalis Horvat 1958
Alno-Quercion roboris Horvat 1950
Annex 1:
2180 Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region 
Emerald:
B1.7 Coastal dune woods
MAES:
Coastal
IUCN ecosystem relationships:
1.4. Temperate Forests
13.3. Coastal Sand Dunes
EFT:
-

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is outstanding example for Black Sea Biogeographic region. These woodlands are rare and with very restricted distribution. Only in Danube Delta they cover larger areas.

Map Description:
Map rather complete, but maybe data gaps Romania and the southernmost point in Bulgaria is maybe incorrect. Data sources: Art17, Exp.

Trends in Quantity:
The decrease is about - 5.2% for EU over about the last 50 years. After 1960 the habitat decreased more than 10% in Bulgaria because of the great touristic development and many new resorts along the coast which impacted the dune systems. The decline in Romania was less - not more than 5%. Now the habitat is more or less stable in Romania because the biggest part is included in large protected areas - mostly in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. The decrease is continuing slightly in Bulgaria because of the touristic pressure and forestry practicies. The future trend is probably a slight decrease in Bulgaria and more or less stable in Romania.

Trends in Quality:
Extent of degradation: - 8%. Severity of degradation: 45%.The biggest part of habitat area in Bulgaria (about 70%) has been degraded because of the touristic overexploitation, forestry activities, invasive plants, etc. The expectation is that the degradation will continue in Bulgaria mostly because of touristic pressure. The degradation in Romania is slight, mostly because the overgrazing in Danube Delta. The future trends in the quality in Romania is stable or slight decrease because of overgrazing especially from horses.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably more than 50%. The area of occupancy of the habitat in other Black Sea countries as Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia is not known. The habitat needs a wide coastal zone bordering with plains. For example, the Turkish coast is mostly unsuitable with mountains and rocky coastline.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat has a small area because is located only in narrow stripe along the Black Sea coast and it is dependent on the local geomorphological structures and climatic conditions.

Pressures and Threats:
The biggest threats are the forestry practicies, including replanting with artifitial forest plantations, touristic development (new urbanised areas), invasive species (mostly trees), fires and ruderalisation because of the overgrazing especially in Danube Delta.

Conservation and Management:
The most important is a strict protection of preserved dune woodlands. Further projects for the restoration of some dune woodlands areas should be carried out, including the removal of non-typical forest plantations, invasive species, etc.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has some capacity to recover naturally but it is dependent and from geoloical processes and from forest restoration. It could be restored in some areas where the artificial forest plantations have been planted or there are invasion of non typical plant species.

Summary:
This habitat comprises natural or semi-natural tree and tree-shrub communities distributed along dunes of the Black Sea coast, very limited in Bulgaria, more extensive in Romania where it includes the alluvial forests in the maritime part of Danube’s Delta. These woods can have typical xerothermic features, the trees being small and strongly branched and the species composition of the herbaceous layer is diverse while in other areas low dunes have vegetation like alluvial forest. They are threatened by erosion and degradation, fires, urban development, tourist pressure, over-grazing and afforestation with conifers species.  The bulk of the surviving habitat is within well-protected areas and the remainder is in need of strict protection and some restoration activities, like the removal of invasive plants and artificial forest plantations.

References:
Donita, N., Popescu, A., Pauca-Comanescu. M., Mihailescu, S. & Biris I. 2005. Habitatele din România. Edit. TehnicÄƒ SilvicÄƒ, BucureÅŸti, 500 p.
Popescu, A., Sanda, V. & Oroian. S. 1997. VegetaÅ£ia Deltei DunÄƒrii, Supliment, Marisia XXV, Muzeul JudeÅ£ean MureÅŸ, Târgu-Mures.
Tzonev, R. & Gussev, Ch. 2012. Black Sea wooded dunes. - In: Bisserkov, V., Gussev, Ch., Popov, V., Hibaum, G., Russakova, V., Pandurski, I., Uzunov, Y., Dimitrov, M., Tzonev, R. & Tzoneva, S. (eds). Red Data Book of Bulgaria. Vol.3. Natural habitats.

Criterion A Text:
The habitat decreased about 10% in Bulgaria (now is 1.15 km2) and about 5% in Romania (now is 25 km2) during the last 50 to 60 years. It means that it was at least 1.3 km2 in Bulgaria and 26.3 km2 in Romania. In total it was reduced from 27.6 km2 to 26.2 km2, nearly 5.2%. There is no information on longer historical trends. In future a small further decline is expected, but quantitative data is not available.

Criterion B Text:
Both values (AOO and EOO) are relatively small and they meet the trhesholds for criteria B1 and B2 because of a continuing decline in quantity and quality. The ecosystem exists at less than 10 locations.

Criterion C/D Text:
The overall extent and severity are the weighted average calculated from reported data from Bulgaria and Romania. The involved countries could not provide any information on long historical or future trends in quality (CD2, CD3, C2, C3, and D2). The changes in quality are both abiotic (fires) and biotic (invasive species, forest plantations, overgrazing), so C/D1 has not been split into C1 and D1.

Synthesis:
The habitat type is assessed as Endangered both at the EU28 and the EU28+ level, as the habitat has a very small range (EOO ≤ 20,000 km2, citerion B1) and area (AOO < 20, criterion B2) in combination with a continuing decline in spatial extent of the habitat. Due to touristic development, invasive plants and artificial forest plantations, the habitat is likely to experience a further decline in quantity and/or quality within the next 20 years.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
No sub-habitats need to be distinguished.

Contributors:
Type description: R. Tzonev
Territorial data: M. Fagaras, R. Tzonev
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
14 Annual algae communities on Baltic infralittoral coarse sediment

Habitat Description:
This benthic habitat is distributed in the photic zone with at least 90% coverage of coarse sediment. Coarse sediment has less than 20% of mud/silt/clay fraction (<63 µm), and the proportion of gravel and pebbles (grain size 2–63 mm) exceeds 30% of the combined gravel and sand fraction according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Annual algae cover at least 10% of the bottom, while all other epibenthic biotic structures like perennial algae, rooted plants or blue mussels cover less than 10%. The habitat is present in the full salinity range of the Baltic Sea and is more common in exposed areas, mainly within the surf zone, in which wave energy prevents the establishment of either perennial vegetation or blue mussels.
One associated biotope has been identified: ‘Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Chorda filum and/or Halosiphon tomentosus’ (AA.I1S2). This is encountered in the Baltic Sea up to the Quark, and is identified by a large representation of Chorda filum and/or Halosiphon tomentosus, at least 50% of the biovolume of annual algae. 
Indicators of quality: 
The ratio of annual to perennial epibenthic components is used in several countries to describe habitat quality. As such the area of the habitat itself or the biomass of the corresponding species is used as an indicator for quality.In this particular case the lowest area or biomass is a sign of high quality as only in very high exposure levels should annual algae dominate. In all other circumstances perennials (Fucus) should dominate except where there is a low salinity (below 3 psu) as perennial algae growth does not generally occur under such conditions.
Characteristic species: 
Chorda filum, Halosiphon tomentosus, ,Ulva spp., Cladophora glomerata.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.11 Infralittoral coarse sediment in low or reduced salinity or A5.52 Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment
 
Annex 1: 
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.3 Subtidal Loose Rock/Pebble/Gravel
9.7 Macroalgal/Kelp
9.10 Estuaries
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AA.I1S Baltic photic coarse sediment characterized by annual algae This habitat has one associated biotope on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Chorda filum and/or Halosiphon tomentosus’(AA.I1S2 ).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Biotopes dominated by annual algae are found in all regional seas, only characteristic species may vary between regions, but annual algae of the Baltic Sea represent more or less only a reduced marine flora.

Map Description:
There aree insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010) supplemented with expert input. This means it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur, not the actual distribution of this EUNIS level 4 habitat.

Comment EU28:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins.

Comment EU28+:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins and is particularly common in areas with reduced salinity and/or high wave exposure. The extent is believed to have reduced by less than 10% in the recent past (50 years) at certain locations. The habitat has also gained area in other locations where perennials like Fucus spp. have lost area (e.g. along the German coastline). No trends have been estimated for the the future.

Trends in Quality:
Moderate reductions in quality have been documented locally (<10% of the region). No trends in quality have been estimated for the the future.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU 28 is therefore less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins therefore does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins therefore does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
No pressures and threats specific to this habitat type have been identified.

Conservation and Management:
No conservation and management measures specific to this habitat have been identified.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1130: MBAL U2
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1130: CR C1
1160: VU C1  
1650: VU C1 
HELCOM has assessed the associated

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As the dominant species of this habitat are annual species, often known as opportunists with short life cycles, recovery can be very fast (1-2 years) even after strong declines.

Summary:
This habitat is found in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins and is especially common in areas with reduced salinity and/or high wave exposure. The extent is believed to have reduced by less than 10% over the past 50 years. No significant change has been predicted for the near future. Moderate reductions in quality have been documented locally (<10% of the region) but no further declines in quality are estimated. Pressures, threats, conservation and management measures have not been identified specifically for this habitat type.

References:
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L. (Ed). Helsinki, Finland.

Criterion A Text:
Some localised losses have been reported for this habitat but expert opinion is that there has been less than a 25% decline over the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the Baltic Sea extending from the Danish coast in the west to the Bothnian Bay in the north-east. The EOO and AOO are estimated  to exceed the threshold for threatened status, but because of lack of information on historical, recent past and possible future trends, this habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available to estimate the probability of collapse of this habitat.

Synthesis:
This habitat is present in all the sub-basins of the Baltic and is particularly common in areas with reduced salinity and/or high wave exposure. Site records and distribution maps are available for some of the characteristic species but there are no quantitative data on extent and area of the habitat. Expert opinion is that the extent is believed to have changed by less than 10% over the past 50 years and that there have been moderate changes in quality in some parts of the Baltic (<10%). No significant changes in extent or quality are envisaged for the near future.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion.HELCOM (2013) assessed the relevant Baltic biotope (AA.I1S2) as Least Concern (A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat, the current expert opinion is an assessment of Least Concern for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Contributors:
HELCOM RED LIST Biotope Expert Team 2013 and Baltic Sea Working Group for the European Red List of Habitats 2014 and 2015.


Habitat Type Name:
15 Submerged rooted plant communities on Baltic infralittoral coarse sediment

Habitat Description:
This benthic habitat occurs  in the photic zone with at least 90% coverage of coarse sediment according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Coarse sediments covered by rooted plants  (which also includes plants with rhizoids,i.e. Charales) are mainly distributed in areas of moderate exposure to wave actioin. The habitat covers the full salinity range of the Baltic Sea and is distributed from the Belt Sea up to the northern part of Bothnian Bay. Depending on the salinity the dominant species (>50% of the biovolume), defining the associated biotope type, varies. They also occupy different depth zones. Five associated biotopes have been identified: ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’ (AA.I1B1); ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Ranunculus spp.’ (AA.I1B6 );  ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Charales’ (AA.I1B4);  ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltei’ (AA.I1B2) and  ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ (AA.I1B7).
The latter differs most strongly from the other biotopes in distribution, occurring mainly at moderate to high exposure and in salinities of 5 psu or higher. It is typically found in deeper waters than the other biotopes (1-6 m) and often marks the lower depth limit distribution of soft bottom vegetation. This biotope is absent from areas with low salinity in the inner part of the Gulf of Bothnia.
Indicators of quality: 
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
The vertical depth limit of submerged rooted plants is used in several countries as a Water Framework Directive parameter for assessing ecological status. The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is, however, largely dependent on the presence of the rooted plant species, which create the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated communities depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of these species is a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage.
Characteristic species: 
Chara baltica, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Ruppia cirrhosa, R. maritima, Stuckenia pectinata, Zannichellia palustris, Zostera marina, and Zostera noltei (formerly known as Z. noltii or Z. nana),

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is to A5.53 Sublittoral seagrass beds and A5.54 Angiosperm communities in reduced salinity
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following habitats: 
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment
 
EUSeaMap: 
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.9 Seagrass
9.10 Estuaries
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
This habitat has five sub-habitats on HUB level 6;
AA.I1B1 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’
AA.I1B2 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltei’
AA.I1B4 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Charales’
AA.I1B6 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Ranunculus spp.’
AA.I1B7 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is common on photic mixed substrate in the entire Baltic Sea. Most of the associated biotopes have a very typical and characteristic species composition for the Baltic Sea with a dominance of species with freshwater origin.

Map Description:
There are  insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010) supplemented with expert input. This means it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur, not the actual distribution of this EUNIS level 4 habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is relatively common in most suitable areas of the Baltic Sea although there are some differences in the distribution of different associated biotopes. For example, AA.I1B7 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ is absent from areas with low salinity in the inner part of the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia. There are area estimates for some of the associated biotopes (100 x 100km grid squares from HELCOM data) however as these only indicate presence the area could range from 1 - 350,000 km2. Reduction in depth distribution for Zostera marina from 10 m to currently 4-6 m resulted in area reduction (since 1930s) to about 25-50 % along the German and Danish coastline but to varying extents in the different Baltic Sea regions. The associated biotope AA.I1B4 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Charales’ has declined by >25% during the last 50 years but to varying extent in different Baltic Sea regions. The strongest decline occurred again in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In some bays and lagoons conditions have changed so intensively that the biotope has disappeared completely. The remaining associated biotopes are believed to have declined by less than 25% during the last 50 years. Detailed historical area daa are only available for some areas/countries. Some of the associated biotopes are considered likely to decline in the future (e.g. by more than 20% for those dominated by Charales)

Trends in Quality:
The quality of the habitat has declined during the past 50 years and historic times, at least in some areas and for some associated biotopes, such as those dominated by charophytes around the Hanko peninsula (Finland) and the German Bodden and Haffe. There are very precise data about Secchi depth reductions along the German and Danish coastline but insufficient data on a large scale to assess any overall trend in quality.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins therefore does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins therefore does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
Wasting disease in the 1930s' has been the most significant threat leading to substantial loss of the biotope AA.I1B7 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’. Eutrophication, bottom trawling, water traffic, construction, sand extraction, dredging, dumping, aquaculture, coastal works and locaslied damage from mooring have all been identified as past and current threats. These are also likely to be threats in the future along with climate change. One predicted effect is a lowering of salinity in the northern parts of the Baltic Sea due to an increase of precipitation, where Zostera marina is already at the northernmost limits of its salinity tolerance.

Conservation and Management:
All actions to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. Conservation measures such as area protection and restrictions on coastal construction and dredging would also benefit this habitat.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1130: MBAL U2
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1130 CR, C1
1160 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The associated biotope AA.I1B7 ’Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ can be slow to recover after strong decline (>20 yrs) although intervention (planting) may speed up the recovery. Tansplantation experiments have had limited success to date. Regeneration from root systems is slow and recovery of entire beds, with characteristic structure and associated species will take long. For the other associated biotopes natural recovery can probably occur within 10 years.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all Baltic sub-basins in the shallow waters of the photic zone.  Distribution of the associated biotopes depends on the dominant species and is influenced mainly by salinity and exposure. Zostera noltei, for example, is not found east of the Darss Sill in the Arkona basin, while Potamogeton perfoliatus occurs mostly in the northern part of the Bothnian Bay, and Chara horrida in the central Baltic and Archipelago Sea.The submerged rooted plant communities (higher plants and Charophytes) provide structure for the benthic environment and associated communities on the underlying sediment. 
 Eutrophication (increasing N, P and organic matter) has both direct and indirect negative impacts, for example by reducing light penetration through the water column and therefore the depth penetration of submerged species, increased sedimentation which can prevent settlement and excess of nutrients which often favours opportunistic species with short life cycles and rapid development over perennial species with lower productivity, causing a shift in the community composition. Climate change may also result in a shift in the dominant species due to predicted associated changes in salinity. All actions to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. Area protection and restrictions on coastal construction and dredging would also be beneficial.

References:
Baden, S.P. and Boström, C. 2001. The leaf canopy of seagrass beds: faunal community structure and function in a salinity gradient along the Swedish coast. In: Reise, K. (ed.). Ecological comparisons of sedimentary shores, Ecological Studies 151, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 213-236.
Baden, S.P., Loo, L.-O., Pihl, L. and Rosenberg, L. 1990. Effects of eutrophication on benthic communities including fish: Swedish west coast. Ambio 19: 113-122.
Berg Ch., Dengler J., Abdank A. and Isermann, M. 2004. Die Pflanzengesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns und ihre Gefährdung – Textband. Weissdorn-Verlag, Jena: 94–98.
Berglund, J., Mattila, J., Rönnberg, O., Heikkilä, J. and Bonsdorff, E. 2003. Seasonal and inter-annual variation in occurrence and biomass of rooted macrophytes and drift algae in shallow bays. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56(5–6): 1667–1175.
Blindow, I. 2000. Distribution of charophytes along the swedish coast in relation to salinity and eutrophication. International Reiew.of Hydrobiology 85 (5–6): 707–717.
Borum, J., Duarte, C.M., Krause-Jensen, D. and Greve T.M. (eds), 2004. European seagrasses: an introduction to monitoring and management. The M&MS project. 95 pp. Available at: http://www.seagrasses.org/handbook/european_seagrasses_low.pdf (Accessed: 18/07/2015).
Boström, C. 2001. Ecology of Seagrass Meadows in the Baltic Sea. Environmental and Marine Biology, Department of Biology, Åbo Akademi University, Åbo, Finland. 47 pp.
Boström, C. and Bonsdorff, E. 1997. Community structure and spatial variation of benthic invertebrates associated with Zostera marina (L) beds in the northern Baltic Sea. Journal Of Sea Research 37(1-2): 153–166.
Boström, C., Baden, S.P. and Krause-Jensen, D. 2003. The seagrasses of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea. In: Green, E. P. & Short, F.T. (eds). World Atlas of Seagrasses. University of California Press. pp. 27-37.
Boström, C., Bondsorff, E., Kangas, P. and Norkko, A. 2002. Long-term changes of a brackish water eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) community indicate effects of coastal eutrophication. Estuarine Coastal Shlef Science 55: 795-804.
Gic-Grusza, C., Kryla-Straszewska, K., UrbaÅ„ski, J., Warzocha, J. and WÄ™stawski, J.M. 2009. Atlas of Polish marine area bottom habitats. Environmental valorization of marine habitats. Gic-Grusza, C., Kryla-Straszewska, K., UrbaÅ„ski, J., Warzocha, J., & WÄ™stawski, J.M. (Eds), Gdynia, Poland.
den Hartog, C. 1970. The seagrasses of the world. Verh K Ned Ak Wet Adf. North-Holland, Amsterdam 59: 1-275.
Hauxwell, J., Cebrian, J., Furlong, C. and Valiela, I. 2000. Macroalgal canopies contribute to eelgrass (Zostera marina) decline in temperate estuarine ecosystems. Ecology 82: 1007-1022.
HELCOM. 2013. Biotope information sheet- Baltic photic muddy or coarse sediment, sand or mixed substrate dominated by Charales. Available at: http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20AA.H1B4,%20AA.I1B4,%20AA.J1B4,%20AA.M1B4.pdf (Accessed: 29/07/2015).
HELCOM. 2013. Biotope information sheet- Baltic photic muddy sediment, coarse sediment, sand or mixed substrate dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina). Available at: http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20AA.H1B7,%20AA.I1B7,%20AA.J1B7,%20AA.M1B7.pdf (Accessed: 29/07/2015).
HELCOM. 2013. Biotope information sheet- Baltic photic muddy sediment or sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina). Available at: http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20AA.H1B5,%20AA.J1B5.pdf (Accessed: 29/07/2015)
HELCOM, 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Zweifel, U.L. and Laamanen, M. (Eds). Helsinki, Finland.
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L. (Ed). Helsinki, Finland.
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Kontula, T and Haldin, J., (Eds). Helsinki, Finland.
HELCOM, 1998. Red List of marine and coastal biotopes and biotopes complexes of the Baltic Sea, Belt Sea and Kattegat. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 75. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. 115pp. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP75.pdf (Accessed: 29/07/2015).
HELCOM Website http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/biodiv/endangered/Algae/en_GB/Chara_horrida/-  LINK BROKEN
HELCOM, 2013. Species In
HELCOM. 2013. Climate change in the Baltic Sea: HELCOM thematic assessment in 2013. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings XXX
Holmen, M. 1987. The aquatic Adephaga (Coleptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. I. Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae and Noteridae. Fauna Ent. Scand. 20:1-168.
Kruk-Dowgiallo, L. 1996. The role of filamentous brown algae in the degradation of the underwater meadows the Gulf of Gdansk. Oceanological Studies XXV (1-2): 125-135.
Lundberg, C. 2005. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea – from area-specific biological effects to interdisciplinary consequences. Environmental and Marine Biology. Department of Biology. Åbo Akademi University, Åbo Finland 166 pp
McGlathery, K.J. 2001. Macroalgal blooms contribute to the decline of seagrass in nutrient-enriched coastal waters. J. Phycol. 37: 453-456.
Mäkinen, A., Tallberg, P., Anttila, S., Boström, C., Boström, M., Bäck, S., Ekebom, J., Flinkman, J., Henricson, C., Koistinen, M., Korpinen, P., Kotilainen, A., Laine, A., Lax, H.-G., Leskinen, E., Munsterhjelm, R., Norkko, A., Nyman, M., O’Brien, K., Oulasvirta, P., Ruuskanen, A., Vahteri, P. and Westerbom, M. 2008. Itämeren vedenalaiset luontotyypit. In: Raunio, A. Schulman, A. & Kontula, T. (eds). 2008. Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus − Osa II: Luontotyyppien kuvaukset. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. Suomen ympäristö 8/2008. 572 p.
Möller, T. 2008. Zostera marina (LINNAEUS 1753), Eelgrass (Angiospermophyta). HELCOM Species Fact Sheet.
Moller and Martin 2007. Distribution of the eelgrass Zostera Marina L. in the coastal waters of Estonia, NE Baltic Sea. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Science, Biology, Ecology 56(4): 270-277.
OSPAR 2008. OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats.
OCEANA 2011. Conservation proposals for ecologically important areas in the Baltic Sea. p. 31. Available at: http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/OCEANA_Baltic_report_2011_ENG.pdf (Accessed: 19/10/2015).
Pihl, L., Isaksson, I., Wennhage, H. and Moksnes, P.-O. 1995. Recent increase of filamentous algae in shallow Swedish bays: effects on the community structure of epibenthic fauna and flora. Neth. J. Aquatic Ecol. 29: 349-358.
Preston, C.D. and Croft, J.M. 1997. Aquatic Plants in Britain and Ireland. Harley Books: 236-237.
Schiewer, U. 2002. Recent changes in northern German lagoons with special reference to eutrophication. In: Schernewski, G. & U. Schiewer (eds.), Baltic coastal ecosystems, structure, function and coastal zone management. Central and Eastern European Development Studies, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 19-30.
Schubert, H. and Blindow, I. (eds.) 2003. Charophytes of the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Marine Biologists Publication, No. 19: 326 S.
Schubert, H.; Blümel, C.; Eggert, A.; Rieling, T.; Schubert, M. and Selig, U. 2003. Entwicklung von leitbildorientierten Bewertungsgrundlagen für innere Küstengewässer der deutschen Ostseeküste nach der EU-WRRL. Forschungsbericht zum BMBF Projekt ELBO. FKZ 0330014: 1-109.
Selig, U., Eggert, A., Schories, M., Schubert, C., Blümel, C. and Schubert, H. 2007a. Ecological classification of macroalgae and angiosperm communities of inner coastal waters in the southern Baltic Sea. Ecological Indicators 7(3): 665–678.
Torn, K., Martin, G., Kukk, H. and Trei, T. 2004. Distribution of charophyte species in Estonian coastal water (NE Baltic Sea). Scientia Marina 68(1): 129-136.
Torn, K., Martin, G., Kotta, J. and Krupp, M. 2010. Effects of different types of mechanical disturbances on a charophyte dominated macrophyte community. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 87(1): 27-32.

Criterion A Text:
Two of the five associated biotopes have reported declines of more than 25% with good quantity data for Zostera marina and Charophytes. As these are the most common biotopes, an overall decline of more than 25% over the last 50 years is considered likely. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criteria A for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the Baltic Sea extending from the Danish coast in the west to the Bothnian Bay in the north-east. EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO >50, and it is not limited to a few locations, however the precise extent of this habitat over the last 50 years is unknown.  It has been  assessed as Least Concern under Criteria B.

Criterion C/D Text:
There have been declines in the quality of some of the associated biotopes in some areas e.g. Charophytes and Zostera marina however experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to make an overall assessment of criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is well established with different submerged rooted plant communities dominating depending on the salinity and exposure. The best studied associated biotopes are those dominated by seagrass, brackish water angiosperms and charophytes and for most of them there have been declines in extent.
There have been significant declines (>25%) in the extent of the seagrass and charophyte dominated communities in the last 50 years and in the quality of some of the associated biotopes. Zostera marina and several species of charophyts are also on the HELCOM Red List of threatened species in the Baltic. The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed AA.I1B1, AA.I1B2 and AA.I1B6 as Least Concern (A1) and AA.I1B4 and AA.I1B7 as Near Threatened (A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat the overall assessment for this habitat type based on expert opinion is Near Threatened fro both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AA.I1B4 Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by Charales
AA.I1B7 Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina).


Habitat Type Name:
26 Stable aggregations of unattached perennial vegetation on Baltic infralittoral sand

Habitat Description:
This benthic Baltic Sea habitat occurs in the photic zone with at least 90% coverage of sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Stable aggregations of unattached perennial vegetation covers at least 10%, while perennial attached erect groups or Mytilus cover less than 10% of the bottom. This habitat is rare, but can be found in most of the Baltic Sea area where the salinity is <10 or 5 psu (depending on the area), the exposure is moderate to sheltered and the seabed is level over wide areas within the photic zone.
Three associated biotopes with different dominant species of vegetation (at least 50% of the biovolume of the unattached perennial vegetation) have been identified (Fucus spp. (typical or dwarf form) and Furcellaria lumbricalis’). ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (typical form)’ (AA.J1Q1) is encountered down to a depth of 5 meters and ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis’ (AA.J1Q3) down to a depth of 10 meters. Unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis may occur in specific, ball-shaped morphology adapted to soft bottom conditions. For the biotope ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ (AA.J1Q2) the single plants can be loosely anchored in the sediment with its lower, dark brownish parts. Under more exposed conditions plants form a ball-shaped form, able to roll over the sea bottom. The Fucus dwarf forms coexist with attached F. vesiculosus, unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis, higher plants like Ruppia spp., Zannichellia palustris, Stukenia pectinatus, Zostera spp. and several charophytes.  The unattached thalli can cover the sediment up to about 10 cm height and thus form a three-dimensional habitat comparable to the interstitial space in coarse sediments. Epifauna is seldom attached to the Fucus dwarf form, but inbetween the loose lying thalli mobile gastropods, amphipods and insects look for shelter and food. However, if abundances of the unattached form are very high, the sediment below becomes deoxygenated and the associated infauna below the Fucus layer may die. Presently this biotope is only known to occur in Sweden and Germany. In Germany it exists only in very few coastal lagoons with low to moderate eutrophication pressures and salinities of around 7–10 psu.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. For this habitat the density of unattached Fucus spp. (typical and dwarf forms), lower limit of Furcellaria belt, amount of epiphytic algae, and density of Furcellaria are potential indicators of quality. 
Characteristic species:
Fucus spp., Furcellaria lumbricalis with morphologically typical forms and specific soft bottom, ball-shaped morphologies.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.21 Sublittoral sand in low or reduced salinity or A5.52 Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral sediment - sand
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.7 Macroalgal/Kelp
9.10 Estuaries
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013).
AA.J1Q Baltic photic sand characterized by stable aggregations of unattached perennial algae
 
This habitat has three sub-habitats on HUB level 6;
‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (typical form)’ (AA.J1Q1)
‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ (AA.J1Q2)
‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis’ (AA.J1Q3)

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The typical species may be found in other regional seas but the unattached forms for soft bottom habitats, especially the ball-shaped morphologies of Fucus and Furcellaria that are characteristic of this habitat, are unique to the Baltic Sea.

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010) supplemented with expert input. This means it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur, not the actual distribution of this EUNIS level 4 habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
The habitat is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins but is rare and the associated biotopes have a more limited distribution. AA.J1Q1 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (typical form)’ can be found in northern Bothnian Sea. AA.J1Q2 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ can only be found in the southern Baltic Proper in the German coast. AA.J1Q3 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis’ can be found in the Belt Sea and the German part of the southern Baltic Proper. AA.J1Q2 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ is estimated to have reduced more than 50% over the past 50 years. The same changes in the environment have an effect on all the other associated biotopes Historical trends are unknown and it can be expected that the potential area of occurrence will be reduced in the future due to eutrophication and climate change.

Trends in Quality:
AA.J1Q2 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ has shown a severe decline in quality in 20% of the area. There is insufficient information on which to determine quality changes in the habitat dominated by other species of unattached perennial vegetation or of past or future trends in quality of this habitat.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Overall this habitat does not have a small range, but one of the associated biotopes (where the dwarf form of Fucus spp. dominates) does have a small range following regression.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins and therefore does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
Past and current threats are eutrophication, contaminant pollution and the introduction of toxic substances. There has also been some commercial exploitation of the unattached macroalgae in Poland and there is still commercial exploitation from the Furcellaria biotope in Estonia. 
Observed declines of the spatial distribution of the unattached Fucus spp. dwarf form biotopes are mainly caused by increased eutrophication and its connected impacts/threats. Decreased light penetration depth, massive growth of filamentous algae and increased sedimentation/siltation cause massive alterations in the habitat conditions of sheltered coastal zones. The enclosed characteristic of bays and lagoons intensify the eutrophication impacts.Coastal construction (ditching, deepening of harbour access channels, leisure facilities and increased tourism has led to a further degradation of the biotope. The threat level is particularly high in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In the future climate change (increasing exposure levels, temperatures) or increasing aquaculture in bays may cause additional threats.

Conservation and Management:
Combatting local sources of eutrophication (mainly agriculture) as well as conservation measures, such as restrictions on coastal constructions and dredging, in shallow coastal lagoons and archipelago areas can prevent further decline of this habitat

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1130: MBAL U2
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1130 CR C1
1150 CR C1
1160 VU C1
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2013) have assessed the associated biot

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The characteristic species Fucus vesiculosus and Furcellaria lumbricalis have a natural reproduction cycle of 1-2 years, but they take several years to reach full size. Given that the environmental conditions are favourable and there is a seed population available, the habitat can recover in the time from few years to a decade.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all the sub-basins of the Baltic but is more typically found in sheltered areas. The unattached forms can coexist with attached forms and the characteristic rooted vegetation of bays, estuaries and lagoons. The algae provide shelter and surface for attachment of invertebrates however, if abundances of the unattached form are very high, the sediment below may become deoxygenated and the associated infauna may die. 
There are distribution records for the characteristic species, some area estimates, but incomplete quantitative data to determine the overall area of the habitat in the Baltic. Eutrophication and its connected impacts/threats associated with decreased light penetration depth, massive growth of filamentous algae and increased sedimentation/siltation is a significant threat. Coastal construction (ditching, deepening of harbour access channels, leisure facilities) and increased tourism has led to a further degradation with the threat level  particularly high in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In the future climate change (increasing exposure levels, temperatures) or increasing aquaculture in bays may by additional threats. Combating local sources of eutrophication (mainly from agriculture) as well as restrictions on aquaculture, coastal construction and dredging in shallow coastal lagoons and archipelago areas can prevent degredation of this habitat.

References:
Bauch, R. 1954. Biologisch-ökologische Studien an der Gattung Fucus. I. Populationsdynamik der Fucusformen von hiddensee. Flora 142, 1-24: 1-24.
HELCOM, 2013. Red List Biotope Informtion sheets. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Background/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20Biotope%20Information%20Sheets%20(BIS).pdf. (Accessed: 16/07/2015).
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Helsinki Commission. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No.138
Martin, G., Kotta, J., Möller, T. and Herkül, K. 2013. Spatial distributiod of marine benthic habitats in the Estonian coastal sea, northeastern Baltic Sea.Estonian Journal of Ecology 62(3): 165-191.
Overbeck, J. 1965. Die Meeresalgen und ihre Gesellschaften an den Küsten der Insel Hiddensee (Ostsee). bot mar. Vol VIII, Fasc. 2-4: 218-233.
 von Oertzen, J.-A. 1968. Untersuchungen über die Besiedlung der Fucusvegetation der Gewässer um Hiddensee. Z. Fischerei NF Bd. 16, 34: 253-277.

Criterion A Text:
Some localised loss has been reported (e.g. Puck Bay, Poland) particularly for the dwarf form of unattached Fucus spp. Although information about the unattached Fucus dwarf form biotopes is rare, comparisons of historical records with the present distribution in German coastal lagoons give hints to a decline of >25% during the last 50 years. On the Swedish coast the decline is considerably larger (>50%). The dwarf Fucus biotope is believed to make up less than 5% of this habitat type, therefore current expert opinion is that overall reduction in quantity is less than 25%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
Comprehensive quantitative data on the extent and area covered by this habitat is not available but there are some relevant records such as quotas and landings from the commercial collection of unattached seaweed in Estonia, and modelling studies e.g. from the Asko area of Sweden. Some localised loss has been reported (e.g. Puck Bay, Poland) particularly for the dwarf form of unattached Fucus spp. Because it is present in all the Baltic sea sub-basins the EOO exceeds 50,000km2. Although some potential trends have been identified, there is also a lack of information on which to base any estimation of future trends in geographical distribution or threatening processes. Experts therefore consider this habitat to be Data Deficient under Criteria B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The biotope AA.J1Q2 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ has shown a severe decline in quality in 20% of the area where it occurs however, as there is insufficient information to determine changes in quality for the habitat overall,  experts considered this habitat to be Data Deficient under criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
The biotope characterised by the 'typical' form of Fucus, which represents most of this habitat, is known to have suffered a decline in extent e.g. 20% over the past 50 years in some areas. The unattached Fucus dwarf form biotope is rare, and comparisons of historical records with the present distribution in German coastal lagoons give hints to a decline of >25% during the last 50 years. On the Swedish coast the decline is considerably larger.The third associated biotope is possibly under recorded but at the present time is thought to cover less than 1km2.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed  the unattached dwarf form of Fucus (AA.J1Q2) as Endangered (A1). The other biotopes (AA.J1Q1 and AA.J1Q3) were assessed as Least Concern (A1). The dwarf form biotope is believed to constitute less than 5% of this habitat consequently the overall assessment based on expert opinion is Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AA.J1Q2 Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form).


Habitat Type Name:
27 Annual algal communities on Baltic infralittoral sand

Habitat Description:
This benthic Baltic Sea habitat occurs in the photic zone with at least 90% coverage of sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Annual algae cover at least 10%, while all other epibenthic biotic structures like rooted plants, unattached perennial algae or blue mussels cover less than 10%. The habitat occurs in the full salinity range of the Baltic Sea and is more common in moderate to sheltered, very shallow areas.
Two associated biotopes with different dominant species of algae (at least 50% of the biovolume of the annual algae) have been identified. ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by Chorda filum and/or Halosiphon tomentosus’ (AA.J1S2) usually down to a depth of 4 meters, in areas moderately exposed to wave action. These species give the appearance of growing on the sand but attach to small fractions of stable substrate like small stones, shell fragments or gravel buried in the sand. It is distributed in the whole Baltic Sea except in the most northern part of the Bothnian Bay.  A second associated biotope, ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by Vaucheria spp.’ (AA.J1S3), is usually present down to a depths of 7 meters, in areas more sheltered areas and in salinities less than 7 psu. It is distributed in the whole Baltic Sea except for the Belt Sea and the Sound.
Indicators of quality: 
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
 
Characteristic species: 
Chorda filum, Halosiphon tomentosus, Vaucheria spp.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.21 Sublittoral sand in low or reduced salinity or A5.52 Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment.
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral sand
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.7 Macroalgal/Kelp
9.10 Estuaries
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AA.J1S Baltic photic sand characterized by annual algae. This habitat has two sub-habitats on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by Chorda filum and/or Halosiphon tomentosus’ (AA.J1S2) ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by Vaucheria spp.’ (AA.J1S3).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Biotopes dominated by annual algae are found in all regional seas, although the characteristic species may vary between regions. For example, mats of Vaucheria spp. are very common in the tidal areas of the Wadden Sea.The annual algae of the Baltic Sea represent more or less only a reduced marine flora.

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010). This means it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur, not the actual distribution of this EUNIS level 4 habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is present all sub-basins of the Baltic Sea. There are no quantitative data on trends in area but it is believed to have been relatively stable over the last 50 years. No estimates have been made of future trends.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determin any trends in quality of this habitat.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins so does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins so does not have a small natural range.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1130: MBAL U2
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1130 CR C1 
1160 VU C1
1650 VU C1 
HELCO

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As the dominant species of this habitat are annuals, often known as opportunists with short life cycles, recovery can be very fast (1-2 years) even after strong declines.

Summary:
This habitat is found throughout the Baltic Sea in sheltered areas on sandy sediments in the photic zone.  Annual algae are characteristic and conspicuous species although other epibenthic biotic structures such a  rooted plants, unattached perennial algae or blue mussels may be present. Pressures, threats, conservation and management measures have not been identified specifically for this habitat type.

References:
HELCOM, 2013. HELCOM Red List Biotope information sheets. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Background/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20Biotope%20Information%20Sheets%20(BIS).pdf. (Accessed: 16/07/2015).
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L. (Ed). Helsinki, Finland.

Criterion A Text:
Expert opinion is that this habitat has been stable over the last 50 years. It has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion  A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the Baltic Sea extending from the Danish coast in the west to the Bothnian Bay in the north-east. EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO >50 and it is not limited to a few locations, although the precise extent of this habitat over the last 50 years is unknown. This habitat has been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria B.

Synthesis:
This habitat is present in all the sub-basins of the Baltic Sea with site records and distribution maps available for some of the characteristic species. There is a lack of quantitative data but expert opinion is that the extent has been stable over the past 50 years. No significant changes in extent or quality are envisaged for the near future.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed the two relevant Baltic biotopes (AA.J1S1 and AA.J1S2) as Least Concern (A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat, the current expert opinion is an assessment of Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
28 Submerged rooted plant communities on Baltic infralittoral sand

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Submerged rooted plants, including plants with rhizoids (i.e. Charales) cover at least 10% of the seabed and more than other perennial attached erect groups. The habitat is present across the full salinity range of the Baltic, in locations that are moderately to very sheltered from wave action and in depths of up to 6m. 
Eight associated biotopes with different dominant (>50% of the biovolume) macrophyte taxa (spiny naiad, spikerush, pondweed, watermilfoil, Ranunculus spp. Charales, and seagrass.) have been described.  They differ in their distribution along gradients in salinity, depth and wave exposure with the biotope dominated by the common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ (AA.J1B7) differing most strongly from the others in distribution. This occurs mainly under conditions of moderate exposure to wave action and in salinities of 5 psu or higher. It is also typically found deeper than the other biotopes (1-6 m) and often marks the lower depth limit distribution of soft bottom vegetation. This biotope is absent from areas with low salinity in the inner part of Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia. 
Indicators of quality: 
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. The vertical depth limit of submerged rooted plants is used in several countries as a Water Framework Directive parameter for assessing ecological status. The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is, however, largely dependent on the presence of the rooted plant communities which create the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated communities depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of these species is a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage.
Characteristic species:
Stuckenia pectinata, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Zostera marina, Z. noltei, Ruppia cirrhosa, R maritima, Zannichellia palustris, Myriophyllum spicatum, Najas marina, Chara aspera Ch. baltica, Ch. canescens, Ranunculus peltatus subsp. baudotii, Eleocharis spp.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.53 Sublittoral seagrass beds, A5.54 Angiosperm communities in reduced salinity and A5.21 Sublittoral sand in low or reduced salinity. 
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral sand
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
 
IUCN: 
9.4 Subtidal Sandy
9.9 Seagrass
9.10  Estuaries
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AA.J1B Baltic photic sand characterised by submerged rooted plants
This habitat has eight biotopes  on HUB level 6; AA.J1B1 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’ AA.J1B2 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltii’ AA.J1B3 Baltic photic sand dominated by watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum and/or Myriophyllum sibiricum)’ AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’ AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ AA.J1B6 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Ranunculus spp.’ AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ AA.J1B8 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.)’

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub basins and most of the associated biotopes are very typical of the Baltic. They have a characteristic species composition for the Baltic Sea, dominated by species of freshwater origin.

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010). This means it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur, not the actual distribution of this EUNIS level 4 habitat. EOO and AOO cannot be calculated at the present time, although the habitat is known to occur in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins.

Comment EU28:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins however there is insufficient information for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO.

Comment EU28+:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins however there is insufficient information for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO.

Trends in Quantity:
The best studied biotopes are those dominated by seagrass, brackish water angiosperms and charophytes and for most of them there have been significant declines in extent. Two examples are in Greifswalder Boden, Germany where dense Z. marina meadows covered the seafloor in the 1930s, but between 1950 and 1980 there was been a decline of up to 90%; a decline of between 75-80% has been recorded in Oresund, Denmark. In Puck Bay, Poland the underwater meadows of vascular plants (including Z. marina) have been also reduced respectively between 1950 and 1980 but increasing since the 1990s. Present cover is very patchy and only a small fraction of its extensive historic distribution in the Bay. Also reductions for the sub-biotope dominated by charophytes are known from German inner bays and lagoons as well as the Polish Puck Bay. 
The associated biotope AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’ has declined by >25% during the last 50 years but to a varying extent in different Baltic Sea regions with the strongest decline in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In some bays and lagoons conditions have changed so intensively that it has disappeared completely. AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ has exhibited a strong decline in the highly eutrophicated areas of the Southern Baltic Sea and it is known to have disappeared from some locations. A comparison of the current with the historical distribution status of Najas marina within the German Bodden areas of Mecklenburg Western Pomerania (Southern Baltic Sea) shows nearly total loss of the biotope. There are no data to indicate similar declines in other Baltic Sea areas but the biotope is largely restricted to lagoons which is an endangered biotope complex. ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ has declined >25% during the last 50 years, with the largest decline recorded in the Southern Baltic Sea. The remaining associated biotopes are believed to have declined by less than 25% over the last 50 years. There have been no estimates of future trends in the quantity of this habitat.

Trends in Quality:
The quality of this habitat is believed to have declined over the past 50 years, in at least some areas, but there are no consistent data to quantify the decline.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU 28 is therefore less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion. This habitat may be present in other European regional seas.

Pressures and Threats:
Observed declines of the spatial distribution of the biotopes AA.J1B4 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by Charales’ and AA.J1B5 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ are mainly caused by increased eutrophication and connected effects. Decreasing light penetration depth, massive growth of ephemeral algae and increased siltation rates cause massive alterations in the biotopes of sheltered coastal areas. The enclosed characteristic of bays and lagoons intensify the eutrophication impacts. Coastal works (e.g. dredging for deepening of harbour access channels, ditching and construction of leisure facilities) and increased tourism has led to a further degradation of the habitat. The threat level is particularly high in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In the future climate change (increasing exposure levels, temperatures) or increasingaquaculture in bays may cause additional threats.
The main causes of the observed declines of the spatial distribution of the biotope AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ are (1) the “wasting disease” that caused about 90% of the North European stock to disappear in the 1930 and also affected the Zostera beds in Danish and German waters and (2) eutrophication of the Baltic Sea that has resulted in significant decline of eelgrass meadows in mainly Danish, German, Swedish and Polish coastal areas. Eutrophication has decreased the depth where Zostera dominated biotopes can receive enough light and may in addition cause a shift from eelgrass meadows to communities dominated by fast-growing macroalgae. Climate change is predicted to lower the salinity level in the northern parts of the Baltic Sea due to an increase of precipitation, which may threaten Zostera marina in the northernmost areas where it currently exists on the limits of its salinity tolerance.

Conservation and Management:
All actions to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. For the associated biotopes that mainly occur in bays with limited water exchange with the open ocean (those dominated by Charales’ and the spiny naiad), combating local sources of eutrophication is essential. Conservation measures are also important, such as area protection and restrictions on coastal works and dredging in shallow coastal lagoons and archipelago areas.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The associated biotope AA.J1B7 ’Baltic photic sand dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ can be slow to recover after strong decline (>20 yrs)> intervention (through transplantation) may speed up the recovery but transplantation experiments have had limited success to date. Regeneration from root systems is slow and recovery of entire beds, with characteristic structure and associated species will take long. In the northern Baltic low salinity means that any expansion takes place vegetatively. Zostera plants are believed to be from the same genotype, estimated to be between 800-1600 years old. Clonal growth and low genetic diversity may reduce the acclimation capacity and survival of the species in rapidly changing environmental conditions. For the other biotopes natural recovery can probably occur within 10 years.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all Baltic sub-basins in the shallow waters of the photic zone with the submerged rooted plant communities providing structure for the benthic environment and associated communities on the underlying sediment. Distribution of the associated biotopes depends on the dominant species and is influenced mainly by salinity and exposure. Zostera noltei, for example, is not found east of the Darss Sill in the Arkona basin, while Potamogeton perfoliatus occurs mostly in the northern part of the Bothnian Bay, and Chara horrida in the central Baltic and Archipelago Sea. 
Eutrophication (increasing N, P and organic matter) has both direct and indirect negative impacts on this habitat.  Reducing light penetration through the water column can reduce the depth penetration of submerged species, increased sedimentation  can prevent settlement, and excess of nutrients often favours opportunistic species with short life cycles and rapid development over perennial species with lower productivity, causing a shift in the community composition. Climate change may also result in a shift in the dominant species due to predicted associated changes in salinity. All actions to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. Spatial measures are also important, such as area protection and restrictions on coastal works and dredging.

References:
Boström, C., Baden, S. Bockelmann, A-C et al, 2014. Distribution, struction and function of Nordic eelgrass (Zostera marina) ecosystems: implications for coastal management and conservation. Aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems 24(3): 410-434.
Boström, C., Baden, S & Krause-Jensen, D., 2003. BerkeleyWorld Adlas of Seagrasses: present status and future conservation. Green, E.P., Short, F.P. & Spalding, M.D., (Eds). London, UK.
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L.
(Ed). Helsinki, Finland.

HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Kontula, T and Haldin, J.,
(Eds). Helsinki, Finland.
 
Martin, G., Kotta, J., Möller, T. & Herkül, K., 2013. Spatial distributiod of marine benthic habitats in the Estonian coastal sea, northeastern Baltic Sea. Estonian Journal of Ecology 62(3): 165-191.
Segestråle, S.G. 1957. Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. Geological Society of America 67(1): 751-800 Memoir.
Torn, K., Martin, G., Kukk, H & Trei, T., 2004. Distribution of charophytes species in Estonian coastal waters (NE Baltic Sea). Scientia Marina 68(1): 129-136.
Wlodarska-Kowalczuk, Weslawski, J.M., Warzocha, J. & Janas, U. 2010. Habitat loss and possible effects on local species richness in a species-poor system: a case study of southern Baltic Sea macrofauna. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(14): 3991-4001.

Criterion A Text:
There are quantiative data for changes in this habitat in some parts of its range in the Baltic Sea and for some of the sub-habitats. Expert opinion is that overall this is probably more than 25% in the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the Baltic Sea extending from the Danish coast in the west to the Bothnian Bay in the north-east. EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO > 50 and it is not limited to a few locations. The habitat is believed to have declined in extent over the last 50 years and there is a likelihood of continuing decline but because it does not have a restricted geographic distribution it has been assessed as Least Concern under criterion B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There have been declines in the quality of some of the associated biotopes in some areas e.g. charophytes and Zostera marina but experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to make an overall assessment of criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is well known with different submerged rooted plant communities dominating depending on the salinity and exposure. There are quantitative data for some of the associated biotopes in some areas (e.g. in Isefjord, Kalundborg fjord and Flensborg Fjord in Denmark and along the entire German coastline) as well as maps indicating presence in 100 x 100 km squares prepared by HELCOM. There have been significant declines (>25%) in the extent of the seagrass and charophyte dominated communities in the last 50 years.  Zostera marina and several species of Charales are on the HELCOM Red List of threatened species in the Baltic. Deeper water eelgrass meadows are at risk of disappearing in the future if there is continued reduction in light levels (e. g. due to eutrophication or sediment disturbance). 
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed biotopes AA.J1B1, AA.J1B2, AA.J1B3, AA.J1B6 and AA.J1B8 as Least Concern (A1). Biotopes AA.J1B4, AA.J1B5 and AA.J1B7 were assessed as Near Threatened (A1). On the basis of these assessments and expert opinion, this habitat is assessed as Near Threatened for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ since there has been a significant decline in the area of some of the biotopes with the overall decline estimated to be between 25-30%.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AA.J1B4 Baltic photic sand sominated by Charales AA.J1B5 Baltic photic sand dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina) AA.J1B7 Baltic photic sand sominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina).


Habitat Type Name:
29 Emergent vegetation communities on Baltic infralittoral sand

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Emergent vegetation covers at least 10% of the seabed and exceeds that of other perennial attached erect groups. The habitat occurs in areas of low to moderate exposure to wave action, typically to depths of about about 3 meters. Two asociated biotopes with different dominant plant species (at least 50% of the biovolume of the emergent vegetation)  have been described. These are ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis)’ (AA.J1A1) which is found in shallow water, down to a depth of 3 m and in moderate exposure, and ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by sedges (Cyperaseae)’ (AA.J1A2) where sedges such as Schoenoplectus spp. and Bolbaschoenus maritimus dominate. The latter is found in shallow water, down to a depth of 1m and in areas of moderate exposure to wave action. Nutrient levels play a part in affecting the balance between the two biotopes with reed dominated areas favoured by conditions of eutrophication.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is, however, largely dependent on the presence of the emergent plant species which create the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated communities depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of these species is a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage. In the case of this habitat the situation is further complicated because the reed dominated biotope is favoured by the deterioration of the sedge dominated biotope under conditions of eutrophication.
Characteristic species:
 Phragmites australis, Schoenoplectus spp., Bolbaschoenus maritimus.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.54 Angiosperm communities in reduced salinity and A5.21 Sublittoral sand in low or reduced salinity.
 
Annex 1: 
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this haitat may appear in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES: 
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral sand
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AA.J1A Baltic photic sand characterised by emergent vegetation This habitat has two biotopes on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis)’ (AA.J1A1) ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by sedges (Cyperaceae)’ (AA.J1A2).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Sedges as a dominant emergent vegetation along seashores are typical and characteristic of the Baltic Sea. Reeds are one of the most commonly widespread plants on the globe, and are commonly found along shorelines in sheltered bays and estuaries in brackish water all over world including the Baltic. The combined habitat is not a typical characteristic for the Baltic.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is present in all sub-basins of the Baltic Sea although less abundant in the higher salinity areas of The Sound. Its extent has increased in the last 50 years due to anthropogenic eutrophication and changes in land use (less coastal pastures, less reed cutting). There also appears to have been a changing balance between the associated biotopes with sedge dominated communities declining and reed dominated communities increasing, most likely in response to eutrophication. There are some exceptions. In Estonia, for example there was expansive reed growth from 1950s to end of 1970s whereas in the last few decades growth rates reduced or even ceased. This is believed to be associated with increased storminess resulting in increase of average sea level which has limited the suitable growth zones for the reed weakened by eutrophication. The quantity of this habitat is expected increase in the future in the whole Baltic Sea.

Trends in Quality:
Overall, the quality of this habitat is not considered to have declined although a decline in quality over the last 50 years has been reported in the Quark and Bothnian Bay over the past 50 years.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU 28 is therefore less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion. Similar habitats may occur in other European regional seas.

Pressures and Threats:
The expansion of reed belts has been accelerated by anthropogenic eutrophication, postglacial land upheaval and the lack of grazing on coastal meadows and attached shallow water areas, while pollution associated with drainage from farming and forestry, and other sources (like traffic and industry) are threats and deterioration factors. Other pressures arise from shipping, and the construction or enlargement of harbours and marinas in sheltered areas. Changes in the water flow due to hydrotechnical constructions, such as dams, cascades and river bank control, may also have adverse effects downstream. Other threats can be caused by introduction of non-indigenous, invasive species, unsustainable fisheries and tourism as well as oil spills and construction of breakwaters.
The environmental conditions in river mouths depend highly on inflows from local point sources as well as from the whole catchment area. They are therefore closely related to human activities on land. The maximum growth depth of Phragmites (limited by oxygen transportation to the roots) is around 2m therefore sea level rise may lead to changes in extent and shifts in distribution. Some of these activities described above may increase the extent of the habitat or change the relatively dominance of reeds or
sedges. For example, dredging of the tributary rivers of the Kasari delta, Estonia, in the 1920s–1930s caused a rapid seaward colonisation of the reed bed along the dredged channels by the dispersal and reburial of fragmented rhizomes at the channel banks and on the shallow sea bottom of Matsalu Bay.

Conservation and Management:
In some areas, there is an active programme of reed removal to encourage re-establishement of the sedge dominated biotopes. Improvements in water quality are also beneficial although it should be noted that whereas increased eutrophication leads to reed replacing sedges, a later decrease in eutrophication does not necessarily facilitate a process where sedges come back.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Phragmites is a pioneer species and a strong competitor therefore there is considered to be a good capacity for recovery at least for the reed dominated biotope.

Summary:
This habitat, which occurs at the land-water interface in sheltered areas of all the Baltic sub-basins, although less common in the more saline Sound, is dominated by reeds or sedges. The habitat can support a high biodiversity, for example by providing nesting areas for birds, and shelter and spawning grounds for fish, but reeds in particular can also out compete and shade other plant species (including sedges) decreasing local biodiversity.
The expansion of reed belts has been accelerated by anthropogenic eutrophication, postglacial land upheaval and the lack of grazing on coastal meadows and attached shallow water areas, while pollution associated with drainage from farming and forestry, and other sources (like traffic and industry) are threats and deterioration factors. Other pressures arise from shipping, and the construction or enlargement of harbours and marinas in sheltered areas. Changes in the water flow due to hydrotechnical constructions, such as dams, cascades and river bank control, may also have adverse effects downstream. The environmental
conditions in river mouths depend highly on inflows from local point sources as well as from the whole catchment area. They are therefore closely related to human activities on land.
In some areas, there is an active programme of reed removal to encourage re-establishement of the sedge dominated biotopes. Improvements in water quality are also beneficial although it should be noted that whereas increased eutrophication leads to reed replacing sedges, a later decrease in eutrophication does not necessarily facilitate a process where sedges come back.

References:
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L. (Ed). Helsinki, Finland.
Martin, G., Kotta, J., Möller, T. & Herkül, K., 2013. Spatial distribution of marine benthic habitats in the Estonian coastal sea, northeastern Baltic Sea. Estonian Journal of Ecology 62(3): 165-191.
Torn, K., Martin, G., Kukk, H & Trei, T., 2004. Distribution of charophytes species in Estonian coastal waters (NE Baltic Sea). Scientia Marina 68(1): 129-136.

Criterion A Text:
There have been different trends in the extent of this habitat depending on which of the associated biotopes is considered. Sedges have declined, quite significantly in some areas, possibly due to the expansion of, and competition with reed. The latter benefits from the nutrient enrichment associated with eutrophication. As a consequence sedges, former considered ecologically typical of sheltered areas in the Baltic are being replaced by another biotope due to a deterioration of the environment (i.e. eutrophication).
Overall this habitat is believed to have been stable or possibly increased in extent over the last 50 years. It has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion  A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
Present in all Baltic Sea bains therefore EOO exceeds 50,000km2 however with no quantitative data on habitat extent or area, accurate calculation of EOO or AOO is not possible at the present time. THis habitat is therefore Data Deficient under criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to assess Criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
Increases in extent have been evident in this habitat in the last 50 years, though this is mainly due to the increase of reed (Phragmites australis) while at the same time sedges have decreased, most likely a response to eutrophication favouring the former. In the case of the sedge dominated biotopes some loss in density/biomass may be occuring but there are no monitoring data to confirm this.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed AA.J1A1 and AA.J1A2 as Least Concern (A1). The overall assessment for this habitat type, based on expert opinion is Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
‘Baltic photic sand dominated by sedges (Cyperaceae)’ (AA.J1A2).


Habitat Type Name:
31 Infaunal communities in Baltic infralittoral sand - bivalves

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification.  There is a lack of macrovegetation or epibenthic macrofauna but infaunal bivalves make up at least 10% of the biomass. The habitat is present in areas of high energy associated with wave action or currents. 
Six associated biotopes with different dominant species (at least 50% of the biomass of macrofauna) have been identified. Some have a restricted distribution in the Baltic. For example AB.J3L10 ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp.’  is only found at high salinities (> 18 psu) as all characteristic bivalves species are eumarine and do not tolerate lower salinities. The characteristic trait of the biotope is high species diversity. and it is encountered in the south-western Baltic Sea, from the Kiel bight to Isle of Fehmarn, and might occasionally occur from Mecklenburg Bight to Darss Sill. Where the substrate is well sorted medium to coarse sand, the large variety of interstitial space, may be inhabited by species of specialised fauna, such as the polychaetes Ophelia limacina, O. rathkei and Travisia forbesii. This fauna is restricted to the Belt Sea (sandbanks) and parts of the ‘submerged belt’ of the Arkona Basin.
 
Indicators of quality:  
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determinedand applied on a location-specific basis. Diversity, abundance and biomass of fauna are potential indicators of quality.
Characteristic species:
Bivalves Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica, Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte spp., Thracia spp, Phaxas pellucidus, and polychaete species such as Ophelia rathkei, Ophelia limacina, Travisia forbesii and Streptosyllis spp.

Classification:
EUNIS: 
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.21 Sublittoral sand in low or reduced salinity. 
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats: 
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered all the time
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral sand
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sands
 
IUCN:
9.4. Subtidal sandy
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.J3L Baltic aphotic sand characterized by infaunal bivalves This habitat has seven associated biotopes in HUB level 6, five of which are included in the Baltic Sea list of the European Red List of Habitats; AB.J3L1 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica); AB.J3L3 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica); AB.J3L4 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by sand gaper (Mya arenaria); AB.J3L9 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte borealis, Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica; AB.J3L10 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp.; and AB.J3L11 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii. One further biotope AB.J3L7 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by strioped venus (Chamelea gallina) is only encountered in the Kattegat and is thus excluded from the Baltic assessment.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Common, widespread and typical of areas of sandy seabed in the Baltic.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is common throughout the Baltic Sea although there are differences in the distribution of associated biotopes. For example, areas dominated by ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) and by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii are restricted to the Belt Sea and the Sound; areas dominated by by multiple bivalve species including Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp. and Spisula spp are common in the Belt Sea, the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Riga.
Different trends in quantity have been estimated for the seven associated biotopes. No signs of a decline were reported for the biotopes dominated by Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica) (AA.J3L1),  by cockles (Cerastoderma spp.) (AA.J3L2) and by the sand gaper (Mya arenaria) (AA.J3L4). The quantity of Baltic photic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (AA.J3L3),  by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp. (AA.J3L10) and by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii (AA.J3L11) are believed to have declined by 25-30% during the past 50 years in major parts of their distributional range. The quantity of Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte borealis, Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica (AA.J3L9) is believed to have declined by 10% during the past 50 years in parts of their distributional range. No estimates of future trends in quantity of this habitat have been made.

Trends in Quality:
Some of the associated biotopes are known to have declined in quality over the last 50 years. The biotope dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species has shown an intermediate decline in quality in 20-25% of major parts of the distributional area. Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp. has shown an intermediate decline in quality in 20% of the area and the biotope dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte borealis, Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica has shown an intermediate decline in quality in 10% of the area.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU 28 is therefore less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion. Similar habitats may occur in other European Regional Seas.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Overall this habitat does not have a small natural range following regression although this is the case for the associated biotopes; Baltic photic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (AA.J3L3), Baltic photic sand dominated

Justification of Restricted Area:
Sandy seabed is common in the photic zone of the Baltic, but the associated biotopes dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (AA.J3L3), by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp<e

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication, bottom trawling, water traffic, construction, sand extraction, dredging, dumping, contaminant pollution and coastal works have all been identified as past and current threats. These are also likely to be threats in the future.

Conservation and Management:
All actions that reduce the level of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea will benefit this habitat.These actions include measures to reduce the diffuse run off of nutrients from agriculture and tackling point source pollution by installation of waste water treatment plants. The photic sandy substrates may increasingly be utilised for mineral extraction. Restricting sand extraction will support the persistence of the habitat and it is recommended that sand extraction should be avoided in areas where biotopes AA.J3L10 (Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp.) or AA.J3L11 (Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii) occur.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1130: MBAL U2
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1130 CR C1 
1160 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
<p

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat forming species of one of the biotopes with the highest threat category (Near Threatened), AA.J3L3 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)’: is the most long-lived species in the world and has a long generation time (>> 50 years). It is difficult to intervene in the re-establishment. The other biotopes classified as Near Threatened  AA.J3L10 Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp. And AA.J3L11 Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii are also dominated by bivalve species with life spans of 20 – 40 years. No information on likely recovery capacity exist for the species which dominate the other associated biotopes.

Summary:
This is a benthic habitat which occurs in the shallow waters of the photic zone where the predominant substrate is sand. It is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins but the distribution of the associated biotopes depends on the dominant species and is influenced by salinity and substrate. For example areas dominated by ocean Quahog (Arctica islandica) and by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp and Travisia forbesii are restricted to the Belt Sea and the Sound. Those dominated by multiple bivalve species including Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp. and Spisula spp. are common in the Belt Sea, the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Riga. There is a lack of macrovegetation or epibenthic macrofauna but infaunal bivalves make up at least 10% of the biomass. 
Eutrophication, benthic trawling, water traffic, construction, sand extraction, dredging, dumping, contaminant pollution and coastal works have all been identified as past and current threats. These are also likely to be threats in the future. All actions that reduce the level of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea will benefit this habitat such as measures to reduce the diffuse run off of nutrients from agriculture and tackling point source pollution by installation of waste water treatment plants. The photic sandy substrates may increasingly be utilised for mineral extraction. Restricting or prohibiting sand extraction from some areas is also likely to benefit this habitat as well as similar actions for other activities which disturb the seabed.

References:
Gic-Grusza, C., Kryla-Straszewska, K., UrbaÅ„ski, J., Warzocha, J., & WÄ™stawski, J.M. (Eds) 2009. Atlas of Polish marine area bottom habitats. Environmental valorization of marine habitats. Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences.
HELCOM 2013
KrzymiÅ„ska, J. 2000. Bivalves in surface deposits of the Southern Baltic. Folia Malacologica 8(1):95-100.
Ojaveer, H. & Andrushaitis, A. 2004. History of ecosystem studies of the Gulf of Riga (Baltic Sea). Proc.Estonian Acad.Sci.Biol.Ecol 53(2): 116-143

Criterion A Text:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic sub-basins. There has been a decline in quantity of some of the associated biotopes such as those dominated by the infaunal bivalve Arctica islandica and by polychaetes such as Ophelia spp and Travisia forbesii. The estimated overall decline over the last 50 years is considered to be greater than 25%. This habitat has therefore  been assessed as Near Threatened under criterion A for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins therefore EOO exceeds 50,000 km2 although with no quantitative data on habitat extent or area, accurate calculation of EOO or AOO is not possible at the present time. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
There have been declines in the quality of some of the associated biotopes in some areas however experts considered there to be insufficient data on which to assess criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is well known but there is a lack of quantitative data on extent and quality. An overall decline in quantity is believed to have occurred over the last 50 years although there are different trends for the various associated biotopes. No signs for a decline were reported in the case of the associated biotope dominated by Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica), by cockles (Cerastoderma spp.) and by the sand gaper (Mya arenaria). In contrast the biotopes dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica), by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp. and by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii are believed to have declined by 25-30% during the past 50 years in major parts of their distributional range. The quantity of Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte borealis, Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica  is believed to have declined by 10% during the past 50 years in parts of their distributional range. There have also been declines in quality of some of these biotopes. 
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed the four associated biotopes AA.J3L1, AA.J3L2, AA.J3L4 and AA.J3L9 as Least Concern (A1) and AA.J3L3, AA.J3L10 and AA.J3L11 as Near Threatened (A1). Current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Near Threatened (A1) for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ because of recent and predicted future declines.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AA.J3L3 Baltic photic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)
AA.J2L10 Baltic photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve speies: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp. Spisula s


Habitat Type Name:
B3.4b Mediterranean and Black Sea soft sea cliff

Habitat Description:
This habitat is formed by coastal soft cliffs and rocks (clays, friable sands, shales and glacial deposits) that are poorly resistant to the natural processes of erosion on the coasts of the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and in the southern Atlantic parts of Europe (northwards up to Porto, Portugal). These cliffs are subject to frequent slumps and land slips caused by erosion (e.g. waves, rain, winter storms, and groundwater percolating through the cliffs). The soft-sea cliffs frequently form borders with hard cliffs, giving rise to more complex habitats. On most soft cliff sites there are a range of micro-habitats formed by the fracture water streaming down the rocks, plus mosaics from open rocks and small patches of grassland and shrubs. In comparison to many coastal cliffs formed by granite, limestone and chalk, soft lithologies often form low, shallow, sloping cliffs which are more easily colonized by vegetation. However, the soft cliffs also erode much quicker than hard cliffs and vegetation is therefore restricted to pioneer stages in many places. Soft cliffs may support scrub similar to that on dunes with species like Hippophae rhamnoides, Juniperus spp. and Crataegus monogyna. On the western Black Sea coast many steppe and halophytic species, like Camphorosma monspeliaca, Matthiola odoratissima and Peganum harmala, may inhabit the chalk deposits over the sea. The single Black Sea locality of Hippophae rhamnoides outside the Danube Delta also occurs on soft sea-cliffs. Soft-sea cliffs are threatened by some natural causes such as slumping and landslips, which are sometimes of a cyclical nature. They can also be damaged through insensitive cliff top management and artificial drainage. Other threats include tourist development of the coastal area, pollution and nitrification of the coastal cliffs, and increase of non-typical ruderal species.
Indicators of quality:
High species and micro-habitat richness
Presence of rare and/or threatened species
Low number of nitrophilous ruderals and alien species
Absence of human infrastructure on the top of coastal cliffs

Characteristic species:
Flora: Camphorosma monspeliaca, Crataegus monogyna, Hippophae rhamnoides, Juniperus spp., Matthiola odoratissima, Peganum harmala 
Fauna: Puffinus yelkouan, Oenanthe pleshanka

Classification:
EUNIS:
B3.4 Soft sea-cliffs
EuroVegCehcklist:
unknown
Annex I:
1240 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts with endemic Limonium spp.
Emerald:
-
MAES:
Coastal
IUCN:
13.1. Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is not an outstanding example for Black Sea and Mediterranean Biogeographic regions as the habitat is very rare throughout its range and does not contain any endemic plant species, as far as is known.

Map Description:
Map with many data gaps. Data sources: Exp, Art17.

Trends in Quantity:
Based on the available data from Portugal and Romania, there has been a 41% decline in the quantity of this habitat in the last 40 to 60 years. However, the habitat is poorly known in all countries where it occurs, and the trends are also not well known. In Romania, there has been a decline or around 20% as a result of natural (erosion) and anthropogenic factors (mostly touristic and industrial development in coastal areas). In Portugal, there has been a decline of 60% as a result of direct disturbance to the habitat. In Bulgaria, France, Spain and Italy the trends in quantity are unknown. At the EU28 level, the trend in quantity is probably decreasing, but the data are too few to give average quantitative figurs. At the EU28+ level the trend in quantity is unknown.

Trends in Quality:
Based on the available data from Portugal and Romania, there has been a slight decline (45% severity) affecting 14% of the extent of the habitat over the last 50 years. The decline in Romania has been mostly caused by anthropogenic changes, and the decline in Portugal has been caused by direct disturbance. The trends in quality for Bulgaria, Spain, France and Italy are unknown. At the EU28 level, the trend in quantity is probably decreasing but the data are too few to provide average European trends, and at the EU 28+ level the trend in quality is unknown.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably more than 50% of the habitat type lies within the EU28. However this is a rough guess as data is lacking from several countries, and also the distribution outside Europe is poorly known.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The range of the habitat is large, covering the whole Mediterranean and Black Sea coast, even if the habitat is rare within this range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The area of the habitat is restricted as relatively soft geological bedrocks forming cliffs at the coasts are relatively rare.

Pressures and Threats:
The major threats are new urbanized areas and human habitation because of touristic development in coastal areas, some natural catastrophic events, and invasive alien or non-typical species.

Conservation and Management:
The most important conservation measure necessary is strict protection of the coastal shores, in order to maintain their natural conditions. Artificial restoration of the habitat is impossible.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has little capacity to recover because it results from natural geological and geomorphological processes.

Summary:
Coastal soft cliffs around the Mediterranean and Black Seas that consist of readily-eroded clays, shales and sands have usually gently sloping and often unstable surfaces with a mixture of open soils, pioneer vegetation and scrub and flushes influenced by percolating waters. This habitat is poorly known and there is little information on its ecological and floristic features or status.  Tourist and industrial development threaten the habitat and allow the invasion alien and non-typical species.  The most important conservation measure necessary is strict protection of the coastal shores, in order to maintain their natural conditions. Artificial restoration of this habitat is impossible.

References:
Biondi, E., Blasi, C., Allegrezza, M., Anzellotti, I., Azzella, M., Carli, E., Casavecchia, S., Copiz, R., Del Vico, E., Facioni, L., Galdenzi, D., Gasparri, R., Lasen, C., Pesaresi, S., Poldini, L., Sburlino, G., Taffetani, F., Vagge, I., Zitti, S. and Zivkovic, L. 2014. Plant communities of Italy: The Vegetation Prodrome. Plant Biosystems, Vol. 148, No. 4, pp. 728–814.
Donita, N., Popescu, A., Pauca-Comanescu, M., Mihailescu, S., Biris, I. 2005. Habitatele din România. Edit. TehnicÄƒ SilvicÄƒ, BucureÅŸti, pp. 500. 
FÄƒgÄƒraÅŸ, M., Skolka, M., Anastasiu, P., CogÄƒlniceanu, D., Negrean, G., BÄƒnicÄƒ, G., Tudor, M. and SamoilÄƒ, C. 2008. Biodiversitatea zonei costiere a Dobrogei dintre Capul Midia ÅŸi Capul Kaliakra. Editura Ex Ponto, ConstanÅ£a. Cap. 6. Herpetofauna zonei costiere Cap Midia-Cap Kaliakra. pp. 323-370.

Criterion A Text:
Available data from Portugal and Romania show there has been a 41% reduction in quantity in the past forty to sixty years in the habitat. However, there is no quantitative data on the reduction in quantity in any other countries. There is also no information on historical or future reductions and this habitat is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
Both the AOO and EOO of this habitat are unknown. The habitat probably occurs at more than 10 locations but this is also unknown. This habitat is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Available data from Portugal and Romania show there has been a slight decline (45% severity) affecting 14% of the extent of the habitat in the past forty to sixty years (calculated through a weighted average). The decline in Romania has been mostly caused by anthropogenic changes, and the decline in Portugal has been caused by direct disturbance. The changes in quality are both abiotic (waste, trampling) and biotic (invasive species, changes in species composition). There is no information from France, Italy, Spain, Greece and Bulgaria. There is also no information on long historical or future trends in quality. The available information is not enough to determine the reduction in abiotic and/or biotic quality at the EU 28 or EU 28+ regions, and this habitat is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion C/D.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available that estimates the probability of collapse of this habitat type, and it is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criterion E.

Synthesis:
This habitat is poorly known, with for example incomplete data on distribution, resulting in unreliable values for area of occupancy (AOO) and extent of occurrence (EOO). The available quantitative data on trends in quality and quantity come from only one Mediterranean country (Portugal) and one Black Sea country (Romania). The available data indicates an assessment of Least Concern, but given the lack of data from several countries with possibly large area (e.g. France, Spain and Italy), this habitat is assessed as Data Deficient.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: R. Tzonev
Territorial data: O. Argagnon, J. Capelo, D. Gigante, M. Fagaras
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Description:
Fens around springs and small rivers in the alpine belt of European mountains (the Alps, Pyrenees, Scandes, Scotland) and in the northernmost (arctic) part of Europe, including Svalbard and Iceland. They are found on open substrates that are constantly flushed by cold and base-rich water. The sites are extreme with respect to soil and microclimate. Cold water is constantly present in the root horizon and restricts ion uptake of plants. Frequent disturbances, a high amount of oxygen in the soil water as well as low productivity due to low temperature during the short vegetation period prevent any remarkable peat accumulation and peat layer is typically lacking or very thin (< 20 cm). If peat accumulation would increase, other fen habitats would develop. Solifluction and cryoturbation lead to disruption of plant roots and soil surface structures.
The vegetation substitutes at high altitudes and latitudes the Caricion davallianae vegetation of type D4.1. The vegetation consists of small sedges, rushes, small herbs and non-sphagnaceous (brown) mosses and includes many arctic-alpine species. Most characteristic are Carex bicolor, Carex microglochin, Carex maritima, C. norvegica, Carex atrofusca, Carex frigida, Carex saxatilis, Carex vaginata, Carex aquatilis ssp. stans, Kobresia simpliciuscula, Scirpus pumilus, Juncus arcticus, Juncus alpinoarticulatus, Juncus castaneus, Juncus triglumis, Juncus biglumis, Saxifraga oppositifolia, Tofieldia pusilla. Vegetation is usually polydominated. Bryophyte layer consist of hepatics (Aneura pinguis) and different brown mosses such as Amblyodon dealbatus, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Calliergon richardsonii, Campylium stellatum, C. polygamum, Catoscopium nigritum, Cinclidiun stygium, Paludella squarrosa, Philonotis calcarea, P. tomentella, Scorpidium cossonii, S. revolvens (locally), Tayloria lingulata, Tomentypnum nitens and Warnstorfia exannulata. Within these sites appear species that can be treated as glacial relicts in the European mountains or surviving species during the Pleistocene glaciation in the boreal and arctic refugial areas. In high mountains outside the Alps, Pyrenees and Scandes, these habitats are depauperate and transitional to spring and small-sedge fen habitats.
These habitats exist in high-mountain or arctic areas and are threatened by direct human activities: tourism, construction of small power station, construction that cause erosion or snow slide, capture of springs, channelling of streams (water supply) etc. Global changes might change the precipitation and temperature regime and can change dramatically the species composition.
Indicators of good quality:
Species richness and presence of diagnostic species
Absence of human intervention
Permanent water flow
Low productivity
Presence of mosses 

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Blysmus compressus, Carex atrofusca, Carex bicolor, Carex capillaris, Carex capitata, Carex davalliana, Carex demissa, Carex dioica, Carex maritima, Carex nigra, Carex norvegica,  Carex panicea, Carex paralella, Carex saxatilis, Carex vaginata, Carex frigida, Carex stans, Eleocharis quinqueflora, Equisetum variegatum, Juncus alpinoarticulatus, Juncus arcticus, Juncus castaneus, Juncus triglumis, Juncus biglumis, Kobresia simpliciuscula, Pinguicula vulgaris, Primula farinosa, Primula nutans, Primula scandinavica, Primula stricta, Scirpus cespitosus, Scirpus pumilus, Tofieldia pusilla, Trichophorum pumilum, Typha lugdunensis, Typha minima, Typha shuttleworthii
Mosses: Fissidens osmundoides, Meesia uliginosa, Oncophorus virens, Tayloria lingulata, Amblyodon dealbatus, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Campylium stellatum, C. polygamum, Catoscopium nigritum, Philonotis calcarea, P. tomentella, Scorpidium cossonii, S. revolvens, Tomentypnum nitens

Classification:
EUNIS: 
D4.2 Basic mountain flushes and streamsides, with a rich arctic-montane flora
 EuroVeg Checklist:
Caricion atrofusco-saxatilis Nordhagen 1943 
Caricion stantis Matveyeva 1994
Annex 1:
7240 Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae
Emerald:
D4.2 Basic mountain flushes and streamside, with a rich arctic-montane flora
MAES-2:
Wetlands (rivers and lakes)
IUCN:
5.11 Alpine Wetlands

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat has a conspicuous, disjunct arctic-alpine distribution.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete for EU28, but with data gaps for the Pyrenees, Norway and Iceland. Data sources: Art17, EVA, LIT.

Trends in Quantity:
The area of the habitat is decreasing because of loss of individual fens by water capturing (snow pistols, drinkable water) and glacier retreat in the Alps; this loss is accelerating recently. In arctic and boreal parts of its distribution range the habitat area is stable or decreasing only slightly.

Trends in Quality:
Trends in quality mirror trends in quantity. The habitat is small and anthropogenic pressure leads to its local disappearance rather than a decline in quality. In some case, loss of specialised organisms has been observed before dissapearance. Quality is decreasing in the Alps, but stable in northern Europe.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a large range, from the Alps to Scandinavia and arctic regions.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is confined to small patches. The habitat requires strongly artic-alpine climate, calcareous bedrock and disturbances. It never occurs in larger areas and in a long term is found only locally. It requires functioning metapopulations of

Pressures and Threats:
The habitat is threatened by climate change (glacier retreat, increasing productivity in cold mountains) and in the Alps also by water capturing for recreational purposes (challets, hotels, snow pistols). Overgrazing may be a problem as well, as it can directly endanger small populations and promote competitors by increasing nutrient availability; on the other hand, disturbances are a part of the habitat's functioning.

Conservation and Management:
No intervention is needed in most cases. However, some artificial disturbances may be needed if succession towards more productive stands takes place. And restoration of hydrological functioning may be needed for drained fens.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Naturally, but only if regional metapopulations of species remain in the vicinity.
Through intervention (removing drainage), when the hydrology is disturbed, but also in this case the characteristic species must survive locally.

Summary:
This habitat includes fens developed on open substrates constantly flushed by icy, base-rich water alongside small rivers, springs or glaciers in the alpine belt of European mountains and in the arctic. Constant disturbance by moving water and freeze-thaw, aeration with turbulent flow and low productivity prevent peat accumulation and mean that its occurrence is typically as small unstable patches colonising bare ground. The vegetation consists of small basiphilous sedges, rushes and herbs, brown mosses and liverworts, and can include endemic species that are perhaps glacial relics. In general, it is threatened less than fen habitats occurring in agricultural landscapes that require management in many cases but water abstraction and pollution, overgrazing and climate change are making this habitat rarer and its naturally sporadic occurrence, representing meta-populations of its characteristic species, makes it especially vulnerable.

References:
Bressoud, B. 1989. Contribution à la connaissance du Caricion atrofuscos-saxatilis dans les Alpes. Phytocoenologia: 145-270.
Coldea, G., FilipaÅŸ, L. and Stoica, I. A. 2008. Contributions to Romanian vegetation studies (IV). Contributii Botanice 43: 45-52.
Dierßen, K. and Dierßen, B. 1985. Corresponding Caricion bicolori-atrofuscae communities in western Greenland, northern Europe and the central European mountains. In Chorological phenomena in plant communities (pp. 151-157). Springer Netherlands.
Essl F., Dullinger S., Moser D., Rabitsch W. & Kleinbauer I. 2012. Vulnerability of mires under climate change: implications for nature conservation and climate change adaptation. Biodiv. Cons. 21: 655–669
Nordhagen, R. 1943. Sikilsdalen og Norges Fjllbeiter. Bergens Museums Skrifter 22.
Steiner, A. J. 2002. Die Vegetation der Gemeinde Zermatt (Vol. 74). vdf Hochschulverlag AG.

Criterion A Text:
A decline of about 15% was calculated based on estimations of territorial experts from 4 out of 9 EU-countries, covering about 95% of the EU area. Data from two additional countries outside the EU (Norway, Switzerland) lead to a decline in the EU28 of 20% over the about last 50 years. In the case of long-term historical trend (A3) the calculations lead to an average loss of -23% for the EU and -20% for EU28. For future trends regional studies suggest that there is a large risk of decline. In alpine fens of Austria (many of them belong to this type), Essl et al. (2012) predict 52-88% decline up to 2051-2060, depending on the climatic scenario used. Other threats such as water capturing and development of ski resorts must be taken into account as well. On the other hand, this model does not incorporate potential spread of this habitat to deglaciated areas in the high Alps and northern Europe. Based on this study, and taking into account some small increase elsewhere, and extrapolated to the whole range, a slightly conservative approach (as other studies indicate other trends) leads to at least 30% decline and therefore the category Vulnerable (VU) for A2a.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat has a large EOO and the AOO is larger than 50 gridcells for the EU28, and much more for EU28+. Criterion B therefore leads to Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
Degradation of ca 34-35% of area by ca 39% severity was calculated based on estimations of territorial experts. The data was from only 4 out of 10 countries, but it included all countries with the largest area for EU. Trend data from Norway, that by far reported the largest area, was missing.

Criterion E Text:
There is no detailed modelling study for this habitat on a European scale, but the regional study mentioned under A (Essl et al. 2012) predict 52-88% decline up to 2051-2060, depending on the climatic scenario used. However, this study dooesn't provide an estimation of the probability of collapse, and therefore criterion E is assessed as Data Deficient (DD).

Synthesis:
Over the last 50 years the habitat has suffered a loss of area and degradation in quality, but not enough to fit any Red List category. However, a severe decline is expected because of climatic change (based on geographical modelling) which argues for (at least) the Vulnerable (VU) category under criterion A2a. This expected decline is supported by ongoing habitat loss in the Alps by development of ski resorts, nutrient enrichment and glacier retreats. The expected decline of the habitat may become reality quickly, if the metapopulation functioning of key species will collapse due to low connectivity of suitable habitats.

Contributors:
Type description: A. ÄŒarni, M. Hájek, T. Tahvanainen
Territorial data: S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, G. Buffa, R. Delarze, P. Finck, P. Jones, T. Kontula, A. Lyngstad, F. Millaku, A. Mikolajczak, A. Moen, D.-I. Øien, D. Paternoster, U. Raths, U. Riecken, D. Spray, A. Ssymank.
Working Group Mires & Bogs: C. Bita-Nicolae, M. Hájek, F. Jansen, T. Tahvanainen
Help with data processing: E. Hettenbergerová


Habitat Type Name:
B1.8a Atlantic and Baltic moist and wet dune slack

Habitat Description:
This is a very broad habitat, comprising all open and closed, low to tall, aquatic, marsh and helophyte vegetation of moist to wet depressions in coastal dunes of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts. It comprises dune lakes and ponds with open water and floating or submerged vegetation, pioneer communities on bare shores, calcareous and acidic fen communities, as well as beds of helophytic reeds and sedges. Within the communities of the hygrosere (the succession series in dune slacks) the late succession stages (scrub, forests) and wet heathlands are considered under other habitats (respectively  B1.6a, B1.7a and B1.5a). Also mesic grasslands in coastal dunes are not included in the dune slack habitat, although they may in some cases grow in mosaic with this habitat. On a higher level EUNIS makes a distinction between coastal and inland habitats, but mesic freshwater grasslands in coastal areas are included under inland types, for example grasslands of the Calthion palustris, Nardo-Juncion squarrosi, Cynosurion cristati or Molinion caeruleae. In coastal areas such grasslands are often associated with old, traditionally managed meadows or pastures, and are less characteristic for dynamic dune slacks. In many cases they are found on the transition from dunes towards the inland, in other situations they are part of old, traditional mosaic landscapes (like machairs, see B1.9).
Dune slacks may develop in two ways. In the first place wind activity may blow out sand, resulting in depressions up to the depth level of groundwater. These depressions are known as secondary dune slacks. Primary dune slacks are the result of new formed fore-dunes, which isolate a beach from the influence of the sea and thus create a depression with groundwater influence within two ridges. In the Wadden Sea area a rare, third situation occurs on so-called green beaches, found on the head or tail of barrier islands. Such beaches are irregularly flooded both from the North Sea and from the Wadden Sea direction, and have complex gradients of dune slack, salt marsh and dry dune communities.
The water table in dune slacks fluctuates strongly during the year, with relatively wet conditions in winter and spring, and sometimes extreme dry conditions in summer. Because of these fluctuations peat layers rarely develop. In the Baltic coast the water table of dune slacks fluctuates less, and here in some cases acidic mire communities or even bogs develop in dune slacks.
In very wet conditions the dune slack communities of this habitat may form azonal climax communities, but in most slacks the pioneer and mire communities, as well as sedge and reed beds show succession towards scrub (Salix) and forest (Salix, Betula, Alnus). Mowing or grazing is practiced to conserve species rich, intermediate and young succession stages, for example communities of the alliances Caricion davallianae and Caricion nigrae. However, although such management may slow down succession, due to other changes in this dynamic landscape species composition changes in time. For example coastal erosion or sedimentation will change the size and place of freshwater lenses, and in this way affect the vegetation of dune slacks. In calcareous dune slacks, due to high precipitation rates, decalcification takes places, leading to changes in species composition. For this reason, the species rich calcareous fen communities of the Caricion davallianae are best preserved in dynamic landscapes, where now and then new primary dune slacks are formed. They may survive in older dune slacks, but only in places with a high rate of seepage of calcareous groundwater.
As many of the vegetation types of dune slacks are also found inland, in similar or other habitats, few plant species are restricted to the Atlantic and Baltic dune slacks. Some coastal species have been described as different ecotypes (Parnassia palustris), others have relatively larger populations in coastal areas (Liparis loeselii, Sagina nodosa, Centaurium littorale, Potamogeton coloratus). Only a few species are mainly restricted to coastal areas, like Carex trinervis.
Along the Atlantic coast these dune slacks are found from Norway to northern Spain, with relatively large areas in the broad dunes of Jutland, the Wadden Sea, mainland Netherlands, northern France and southwestern France. In Ireland, England and the Baltic coasts the dune slacks are relatively rare and more widespread. In Spain their occurrences are marginal, while the dune slacks along the Portuguese Atlantic coast belong to the Mediterranean habitat B1.8b.
Indicators of good quality:
No anthropogenic changes in water table
Species richness
Occurrence of rare and endangered species
Broad diversity in different types of dune slacks and related plant communities
Forming intact landscape mosaics with and transitions towards dry dune habitats

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Agrostis canina, Agrostis stolonifera, Anagallis tenella, Apium inundatum, Baldellia ranunculoides ssp. ranunculoides, Blackstonia perfoliata, Bolboschoenus maritimus, Calamagrostis canescens, Calamagrostis epigejos,Calamagrostis stricta, Carex demissa (= Carex oederi, C. serotina), Carex flacca, Carex hartmanii, Carex nigra, Carex punctata, Carex trinervis, Centaurium erythraea, Centaurium littorale,Centaurium pulchellum,  Centunculus minimus, Chara aspera, Chara baltica, Chara canescens, Cicendia filiformis, Cladium mariscus, Dactylorhiza incarnata, Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. purpurella, Eleocharis palustris, Eleocharis quinqueflora, Eleocharis uniglumis, Epilobium palustre, Epipactis palustris, Equisetum variegatum, Erica tetralix, Gentianella amarella, Herminium monorchis, Hippuris vulgaris, Holoschoenus romanus, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Juncus acutus, Juncus alpinoarticulatus (= J. anceps), Juncus arcticus subsp. arcticus,  Juncus arcticus subsp. balticus, Juncus articulatus, Juncus bufonius, Juncus maritimus, Juncus subnodulosus, Liparis loeselii, Littorella uniflora, Lythrum salicaria, Mentha aquatica, Myrica gale, Oenanthe lachenalii, Ophioglossum vulgatum, Orchis palustris, Oxycoccus macrocarpon (=Vaccinium macrocarpon), Parnassia palustris, Phragmites australis, Pilularia globulifera,Platanthera bifolia, Potamogeton coloratus, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton pectinatus, Potentilla erecta, Pyrola rotundifolia,  Radiola linoides,Ranunculus baudotii, Ranunculus flammula, Sagina nodosa, Salix repens subsp. arenarius, Samolus valerandi, Schoenus nigricans, Teucrium scordium
Mosses: Aneura pinguis, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Calliergonella cuspidata, Campylium stellatum, Drepanocladus aduncus, Moerckia hibernica, Pellia endiviifolia, Preissia quadrata
Amphibians: Bufo calamita

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.8 Moist and wet dune slacks
EuroVegChecklist:
Charion canescentis Krausch 1964
Charion fragilis Krausch 1964
Nymphaeion albae Oberd. 1957
Potamogetion Libbert 1931
Hyperico elodis-Sparganion Br.-Bl. Et Tx. ex Oberd. 1957
Scirpion maritimi Dahl et HadaÄ 1941
Phragmition communis Koch 1926
Caricion fuscae Koch 1926 (= Caricion nigrae)
Caricion davallianae Klika 1934 (incl. Hydrocotylo vulgaris-Schoenion nigricantis)
Nanocyperion Koch 1926
Annex 1:
H2190 Humid dune slacks
Emerald:
B1.8 Moist and wet dune slacks
MAES-2:
Coastal
IUCN:
13.3. Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Most of the area and the largest diversity of the habitat is found in the Atlantic region.

Map Description:
Map rather complete, but habitat maybe also in Norway and Iceland. Data sources: Art17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
On average there is a strong decrease in area over the last 50 years (-46%), but the values differ largely between the different countries. The average value is strongly impacted by Denmark (37% of reported area data; decline -65%) and France (37%; decline -6%). Also Germany reported large declines, while on the other hand in Latvia a slight increase in area took place. Suitable quantitative data cover 90% of the reported area.
Different countries indicate very different future trends (from decrease or stability to increase), but few quantitative data are given.
The countries that reported quantitative data on historical decline cover about 50% of the present area, indicating on average a decline of -67% over several centuries.

Trends in Quality:
Calculated from the territorial data, on average 46% of the extent in Europe has been degraded with a relative severity of 58%. Applying a worst-case scenario (using the highest scores for countries that reported ranges of decline) would lead to an affected extent of 47%, with a severity of the impact of 67%.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
95% Maybe some sites exist in Norway,Russia (Kaliningrad, St Petersburg-area) and Iceland.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widely dispersed over the Atlantic and Baltic sandy coasts.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The extent in many sites is relatively small, due to limited areas with suitable underlying factors. The overall range however, is relatively large.

Pressures and Threats:
The most important pressures and threats are:
(1) natural succession, resulting in development of dune slack shrubland, partly as a result of abandonment of traditional land-use in the dune slacks; succession or encrochment of tall grasses and herbs may be increased by eutrophication, including aerial nitrogen deposition.
(2) changes in the hydrology, like lowering of ground water tables for several reasons (building, drinking water extraction, recreation) or as a result of tree plantations (which have a high evaporation rate).
(3) Overgrazing and overuse by recreational activities.

Conservation and Management:
Management should focus on maintaining or restoring dynamics in hydrology of the dune systems, resulting in yearly fluctuating levels of ground water. Besides, to prevent quick succession towards higher vegetation, mowing or extensive grazing may be applied as a management practice.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
When severely damaged restoration is possible by restoring hydrological functioning, in combination with creating young pioneer stages of dune slacks.

Summary:
Slacks develop in Atlantic and Baltic dune systems as moist-wet depressions between dune ridges, where blow-outs have lowered the sand level to that of ground-water or, unusually in the Wadden Sea, where barrier islands are occasionally flooded by tidal inundation. Usually, the water table fluctuates seasonally, less so around the Baltic, and the mean wetness of slacks can vary so that the range of vegetation is considerable from dwarf rush and moss pioneer vegetation, through wet grasslands, to various kinds of mire and swamp, with persistent areas of open water with aquatics. Destruction of dune landscapes and changes of hydrological functioning of dunes have caused great losses in extent and quality and continuing threats are succession towards tall herb and shrub vegetation, partly due to abandonment of traditional land-use but also through eutrophication. Successful restoration needs recovery of hydrological function and mowing where the vegetation is becoming too dense.

References:
Fremstad, E. (1997). Vegetasjonstyper i Norge. NINA Temahefte 12, Trondheim.
Petersen, J. (2000). Die Dünentalvegetation der Wattenmeer-inseln ind er südlichen Nordsee. Husum Verlag, Husum.
Westhoff, V. & van Oosten, M.F. (1991). Plantengroei van de Waddeneilanden. KNNV Uitgeverij, Utrecht.
Géhu, J-M. & de Foucault, B. (1982). Analyse phytosociologique et essai de chorologie de l’hygrosère des dunes atlantiques françaises. Documents phytosociologiques NS, VII : 387-398.

Criterion A Text:
The average decline in the last 50 years has been calculated from territorial data. A general future trend in area is uncertain, as countries reported very different national trends. The countries that reported quantitative data on historical decline cover about 50% of the present area and on this ground an average historical decline of -67% results. However, these data are relatively uncertain.

Criterion B Text:
EOO and AOO are much higher than the thresholds for applying criterion B. Therefore further subcriteria under B are not relevant.

Criterion C/D Text:
Average values calculated from the territorial data provided by the countries of occurrence in EU results in 46% of the current area being affected by a quantitative decline of 58% severity. Maximum values for C/D1 range up to 47% extent and 67% severity, e.g. those reported by Denmark, Finland and Germany. No data is available for the (few) countries outside the EU28+, like Russia (Kaliningrad), Iceland and Norway.

Synthesis:
Large reductions in quantity over the last 50 years (criterion A1) and over a longer time frame (A3) lead to the Red List category Vulnerable (VU). A large part of the remaining area declined in quality, with values just below the threshold for Vulnerable, resulting in a Near Threatened (NT) status for criterion C/D1.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat covers a broad variety in vegetation types, ranging from calcareous and acidic mire communities towards open water with aquatic plants, reedbeds and other helophyte communities. Most characteristic are the mire communities, of which especia

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Janssen
Territorial data: S. Angus, F. Bioret, A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, P. Finck, T. Haynes, J. Janssen, Z. KÄ…cki, T. Kontula, J. Loidi, J.R. Martin, B. Nygaard, S. Provoost, U. Raths, S. Rees, U. Riecken, E. Roosaluste, I. Rove, C. Scanlan, A. Ssymank, S. Watt.
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B2.1b Mediterranean and Black Sea coastal shingle beach

Habitat Description:
This habitat represents beaches with pebbles or small- to medium-sized cobbles (as opposed to sand beaches of type B1.1b). Typically, the stones’ size ranges from 2 mm to 200 mm diameter. The habitat is mainly formed on abrasive coasts, where sea waves (mostly in winter) weather physically the coastal cliffs.The eroded material forms shingle beaches, where different size of stones are mixed with mollusc shells, algae and sea grasses (Zostera spp., Posidonia oceanica) that are washed ashore. These deposits are normally rich in nitrogen due to the high quantity of decaying plant and animal remnants. In most sites there is no vegetation in this habitat, but in some places communities of annual and even perennial plants may occur, most frequent from the class Cakiletea maritimae. Sometimes semi-ruderal and nitrophilic coenoses can be developed as well. All communities have open structure and usually very low cover. The most typical plants are Argusia sibirica, Crambe maritima, Matthiola sinuata, Glaucium flavum, Euphorbia peplis and Salsola kalii. In the thermo-Mediterranean zone, some large coastal gravel banks may be partially colonised by evergreen woodland or riparian thickets dominated by Quercus ilex, Tamarix africana or Vitex agnus-castus. Such habitats are not included in this habitat type, but are considered under the relevant scrub and forest types.
These shingle beaches are rare along the western Black Sea coasts, but more common along the Mediterranean coasts, although sometimes they cannot be clearly distinguished from sand beaches.
Indicators of quality:
Well conserved shingle beaches host mostly annuals, but also by some perennials. Although this habitat is mobile in nature and thus adapted to natural disturbances, intense human disturbances may cause the complete removal of vegetation cover. Indicators of good quality are:
the persistence of low vegetation cover
diversity and dominance of annual species and presence of some perennials
absence of active tourist pressure or anthropogenic structures on the beaches that prevent the drift accumulation
absence of alien species such as Cenchrus spinifex and C. longispinus.

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Atriplex hastata, A. glabriuscula, A. tatarica, Argusia sibirica, Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, Cakile maritima, Crambe maritima, Elytrigia juncea, Eryngium maritimum, Euphorbia peplis, Glaucium flavum, Lactuca tatarica, Leymus racemosus, Malcolmia maritima, Matthiola sinuata, M. tricuspidata, Medicago marina, Achillea maritima, Polygonum maritimum, P. mesembricum, Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. landra, Salsola kali, Sporobolus pungens, Xanthium orientale subsp. italicum
Invertebrates: Orchestia gammarela, Fucelia maritima, Thoracochaeta brachystoma, Aleochara algarum, Labidura riparia
Birds: Arenaria interpres, Calidiris alba (during migration and wintering)

Classification:
EUNIS:
B2.1 Shingle beach driftlines
B2.2 Unvegetated mobile shingle beaches above the driftline
B2.3 Upper shingle beaches with open vegetation
EuroVegChecklist:
Euphorbion peplidis Tx. ex Oberd. 1952
Cakilion euxinae Géhu et al. 1994
Annex 1:
1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines
1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks
Emerald:
B2.1 Shingle beach driftlines
B2.3 Upper shingle beaches with open vegetation
MAES:
Coastal
IUCN:
12.3 Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is representative of the climatic, geomorphological and biotic conditions of Mediterranean and less of Black Sea regions.

Map Description:
Map is incomplete, especially in Italy and Croatia. Data sources: EVA, GBIF.

Trends in Quantity:
The decrease is about -18% for EU over about the last 50 year. After 1960 the habitat has been decreased about 20% in Greece, 30% in Croatia and 5% in Bulgaria, mostly because of the touristic development along the coastal areas. The percentage of reduction in Italy is not known, while in Slovenia and Cyprus the habitat is almost stable. The slight decrease is expected to continue in Bulgaria, but in Slovenia, Greece and Cyprus it is expected to remain stable. The tendencies in quantity are not known for Romania, Spain, Malta and additional EU28+ countries.

Trends in Quality:
The extent of degradation is about 19%, while the severity of degradation is 36%. These trends have been calculated on the basis of the reported negative trends in quality (extent and severity) by Bulgaria (30%), Greece (20%) and Croatia (50%) in the territorial data. The habitat is also being degraded in Italy and Cyprus, but the extent and severity of degradation are unknown. It is stable in Slovenia. The decline is mostly because of the touristic development and utilization of coastal areas. The trends in quality are not known for Romania, Spain, Malta and additional EU28+ countries.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably more than 50%. The habitat occurs in other Black Sea countries, such as Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia, and also in some other Mediterranean countries like Albania, Montenegro, and those along the African and Asian coasts.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widespread along the Meditteranean and Black Sea shorelines.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Although the habitat has been degraded in many sites, there is no significant decline of its total distribution.

Pressures and Threats:
The most important threats are the urbanisation and human habitation caused by touristic development and the pollution of beaches. Less important threats are caused by invasive species and the modification of coastal areas from the construction of infrastructures etc.

Conservation and Management:
The most important conservation measure is the strict protection of the coastal shingle and the restoration of their natural ecological functions.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has some capacity to recover naturally, but this depends on the slow geological processes. It could be restored in some areas be restabilising a natural contact zone between sea waves and coastal cliffs.

Summary:
This habitat includes shingle and cobble beaches formed on dynamic coasts around the Mediterranean and Black seas where waves, mostly in winter, weather cliffs and redeposit the eroded material. Mixed with shells and decaying alga and sea grass washed ashore, it provides a nitrogen-rich surface for patchy and sporadic colonisation by annuals and some perennials, also sometimes weedy assemblages. Though widespread, its stands are narrow and localised and highly vulnerable to tourist recreation and coastal development.

References:
Biondi, E., Blasi, C., Allegrezza, M., Anzellotti, I., Azzella, M., Carli, E., Casavecchia, S., Copiz, R., Del Vico, E., Facioni, L., Galdenzi, D., Gasparri, R., Lasen, C., Pesaresi, S., Poldini, L., Sburlino, G., Taffetani, F., Vagge, I., Zitti, S. and Zivkovic, L. 2014. Plant communities of Italy: The Vegetation Prodrome. Plant Biosystems, 148(4): 728–814.
Tzonev, R., and Gussev, Ch. 2012. Vegetation on the Black Sea gravel beaches. In: Bisserkov V., Gussev, Ch., Tsoneva, S., Popov, V., Hibaum, G., Roussakova, V., Pandurski, I., Uzunov, J., Dimitrov, M. and Tzonev, R.(eds). Red Data Book of Bulgaria. Vol.3. Natural habitats.MOEW-BAS, Sofia

Criterion A Text:
The habitat has been decreased about 20% in Greece, 5% in Bulgaria and 30% in Croatia during the last 40 to 60 years. In total, it has been reduced from 13 km2 to 11 km2 or nearly 18%. The habitat is also decreasing in Italy but quantitative data do not exist. There is no information on the trends for Romania, Spain, Malta, as well as for countries outside the EU28. Also no data are available on longer historical trends. In future a small further decline is expected, but quantitative data are not available.

Criterion C/D Text:
The overall extent and severity were calculated from reported data from Bulgaria, Slovenia, Italy, Cyprus, Croatia and Greece as weighted average. The above-mentioned countries could not provide enough information on the long historical or future trends in quality (C/D2, C/D3, C2, C3, and D2). The changes in quality are both abiotic (changes in hydraulic conditions, climate changes) and biotic, thus C/D1 has not been split into C1 and D1. Results for EU28 and EU28+ are similar, as the additional EU28+ countries only cover a small part of the area.

Synthesis:
The habitat type is assessed as Least Concern under all criteria for which data were available. The reduction in quantity is relatively small (-18%) and the same goes for the degradation in quality, while the habitat is relatively widespread along the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A main division could be made in Mediterranean and Black Sea shingle beaches, as these sub-habitats have a different species combination.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: R. Tzonev
Territorial data: A. Carni, P. Dimopoulos, M. Fagaras, D. Gigante, N. Juvan, D. Viciani, Z. Scvorc
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.5a Atlantic and Baltic coastal Empetrum heath

Habitat Description:
This habitat comprises decalcified fixed dunes dominated by relatively low Empetrum nigrum heaths along the cooler parts of the northern Atlantic and Baltic coasts, south to the mainland Dutch dunes, north to northern Norway (Finnmark) and Iceland.  It includes both dry dunes as well as moist dune slacks with dominant Empetrum nigrum, both of which are late succession stages in the development of stable dunes and dune slacks, and which may be long maintained under light grazing pressure or other factors (like salt spray) which limit the development of scrub and woodland. In northern Estonia, and possibly also in Iceland, some sites of the habitat are dominated by Empetrum hermaphroditum.
In the dry dune subtype Calluna vulgaris may co-dominate, but Calluna-heath without Empetrum nigrum is considered under B1.5b Atlantic coastal Calluna and Ulex heath. Especially in the Wadden Sea area and the Baltics it may be difficult to distinguish between these two types but the presence of Empetrum may be considered to assign communities to this habitat B1.5a. Within this geographical range Calluna vulgaris-dominated heathlands without Empetrum nigrum occur often more locally on dunes, as in relatively old grey dunes, where cover of Calluna can slowly increase. Empetrum nigrum in general is able to outcompete Calluna on slightly deeper  and better soils and on more moist sites such as north-facing slopes. In dry dunes, mosses and lichens form an important part of the plant diversity.
In the wet dune slack subtype, Erica tetralix may grow as a co-dominant and Empetrum nigrum may actually be absent, but in such cases these heathlands can still be included here, as the complete species composition is not very different.  In some situations, the non-native cranberry Oxycoccus macrocarpus (=Vaccinium macrocarpon) may become dominant, providing an important food source for man and animals. In relatively stable hydrological conditions, Sphagnum spp. may reach high cover. In dune slack heathlands Carex trinervis is a common associate, within the small range of its distribution.
Indicators of good quality:
An optimal state of this habitat type is a low scrub formed by heaths, sedges and grasses, and mosses and lichens, with few open patches and without non-native species, trees or tall shrubs. Indicators of good quality are:
relatively low, closed structure
dominance by heath sub-shrubs
presence of high diversity of mosses and lichens
absence of non-native, invasive species
absence or low abundance of trees and tall shrubs
occurring both in dry dunes and dune slacks

Characteristic species
Vascular plants: Calluna vulgaris, Carex arenaria, Carex trinervis, Empetrum nigrum, Erica tetralix, Genista tinctoria, Hieracium umbellatum, Polypodium vulgare, Pyrola minor, Pyrola rotundifolia, Salix repens, Vaccinium macrocarpon, Vaccinium uliginosum, Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Mosses: Dicranum scoparium, Hypnum jutlandicum, Pleurozium schreberi, Sphagnum spp. and several species of Hepaticae
Lichens: Cladina spp., Cladonia spp.

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.5 Coastal dune heaths
Annex 1:
2140 Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum
Emerald:
B1.5 Coastal dune heaths
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
13.3.  Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is most widespread in coastal dunes along the Baltic Sea (part of the Boreal region), but the largest areas are found along the northern coasts of the North Sea (Atlantic region).

Map Description:
Map complete, but maybe habitat also occurring in Iceland. Data sources: Art17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
Based on quantitative data from 9 of the 13 EU-countries in which the habitat is found, there is an average decline in about the last 50 years of 9% of the area but this average value is completely dominated by data from Denmark, where more than 75% of the present extent is found. The long-term historical trend in quantity is a large reduction, about 57%, again determined largely by a decline in Denmark since about 1850. Presently the trend has stabilised in the countries with the highest proportion of the extent, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany. The EU28+ trend is the same as the EU28 trend.

Trends in Quality:
Over the last 50 years there is a decrease in quality with about half the extent affected, with intermediate severity. The occurrences outside the EU28 are marginal, and therefore the trend in the EU28+ is the same as the EU28 trend.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
>95%. The habitat is almost restricted to the EU28+ with only some marginal occurrences in Norway, Baltic Russia (including Kaliningrad) and possibly in Iceland.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is found from the Netherlands up to the northern regions in the Baltic.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This relatively widespread area is found in large stands in the dune areas of Denmark. In countries with relatively small areas of dunes, also the area of this habitat in many cases is small.

Pressures and Threats:
Natural succession is indicated by most of the countries as an important threat, sometimes as a result of abandonment of low intensity grazing in traditional pastoral land-use, but enhanced by aerial nitrogen input and a lack of natural dynamics. On the other hand disturbance, overuse and erosion are also mentioned as a problem, mainly due to recreation and outdoor sports. In Denmark, the building of houses in dune areas is a pressure. Several countries report encroachment of invasive non-native species. Finally, planting of trees in dune areas is a problem in some countries.

Conservation and Management:
In general little management is needed to sustain coastal dune heath, but in areas where dunes become too stabilised, nitrogen build-up in the soils is high and plantations with non-native trees can be close, some measures may be needed to prevent invesion of shrubs and trees and succession towards forest. The best management seems the traditional extensive grazing, but additional removal of trees or non-native species may be required.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat can spontaneously regenerate after some disturbance in coastal dune landscapes where the sands have become stabilised.

Summary:
Coastal heath dominated by Empetrum nigrum (with or without Calluna vulgaris and with Erica tetralix in dune slacks) is characteristic of stabilised acidic dune sands along the northern cooler coastlines of north-west Europe, including northern Norway, Baltic Russia and possibly Iceland outside the EU. Other sub-shrubs may occur with an associated flora that is often indistinguishable from lowland Empetrum heath inland. The habitat is persistent where wind-exposure and light grazing prevent further succession to scrub and woodland but decline in extent and quality can occur with abandonment of pastoralism, tree planting and tourism

References:
Fremstad, E. 1997. Vegetasjonstyper i Norge. NINA Temahefte 12, Trondheim.
Heykena, A. 1965. Vegetationstypen der Küstendünen an der östlichen und südlichen Nordsee. Mitt. Arb. gem. Florist. Schlesw.-Holst. Hamburg 13: 1-135.
Levin, G. & Normander, B. 2008. Arealanvendelse i Danmark siden slutningen af 1800-tallet. Report NERI 682, University of Aarhus.
Rodwell, J.S. editor 1991. British Plant Communities, Volume 2 Mires and heaths.
Westhoff V. & van Oosten M.F. 1991. Plantengroei van de Waddeneilanden. KNNV Uitgeverij, Utrecht.

Criterion A Text:
Data were reported by all 13 EU-countries in which the habitat is found, and though no data were provided from outside the EU occurrences there are only marginal. The average decline over the last 50 years was about 9% of the area, a value that is strongly dominated by figures from Denmark, where more than 75% of the present extent is found. Also the long-term historical trend was dominated by Denmark, and on average it is about -57%. The Danish data was based on Levin & Normander (2008) and expert knowlegde. Presently the trend has stabilised in the countries with the highest amount of the area - Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are much larger than the thresholds for criterion B, and the habitat occurs in many locations.

Criterion C/D Text:
The decline in quality over the last 50 years affected about 59% of the area with a severity of 50% (based on quantitative data of 8 out of 11 EU-countries). The decline is both in abiotic conditions and biotic quality parameters. No historical or future trends are known. These figures result in the Red List category Vulnerable.

Synthesis:
Based on a large historical decline in area, especially in Denmark where most of the surviving extent occurs, and a serious decline in quality affecting more than 50% of the area in the last 50 years, the habitat is assessed as Vulnerable.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Wet dune slacks dominated by Empetrum nigrum may be considered as a separate habitat type and is likely to be more threatened.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Janssen
Territorial data: S. Angus, A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, F. Devaney, P. Finck, T. Haynes, A. Jacobson, J. Janssen, Z. KÄ…cki, B. Nygaard, T. Kontula, V. RašomaviÄius, U. Raths, S. Rees, U. Riecken, E. Roosaluste, I. Rove, C. Scanlan, A. Ssymank, S. Watt
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.8b Mediterranean and Black Sea moist and wet dune slack

Habitat Description:
This habitat type develops in small permanent or temporary fresh water bodies in the depressions between dune ridges of the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts. These wetlands occur at the lower parts of white and grey dune systems, having a patchy distribution. Coastal dune slacks are more common along the Atlantic coasts as in the warmer Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts .Plant communities in wet dune slacks depend on the groundwater level. This varies spatially and temporally and dune slacks may occur in a range from permanent water bodies to waterlogged or moist sandy depressions.
The communities consist of typical hydro- or hygrophytic species. The permanent or semi-permanent (persisting until summer) water bodies, like small ponds, lakes and pools, are inhabited by aquatic vegetation, with species of the classes Potametea or Charetea. Often a zone of high grasses (reed, sedges, rushes, reed mace) develops at their periphery. Nutrient content also varies, but mostly the water is eutrophic to mesotrophic, sometimes even dystrophic. Temporary water bodies are very diverse in water depth and duration of water retention. Stands of high helophytes, like Phragmites australis, Typha spp., Juncus spp., Carex spp. Cladium mariscus, Holoschoenus spp. and Scirpus spp. develop mostly on the over-wet sands, which desiccate during the summer. In such conditions, a slight salinization is possible, and halophytic species or small therophytes of the class Isoeto-Nanojuncetea may inhabit the bare bottoms. Such dune slacks are species rich and highly specialised habitats, and they are threatened by the lowering of water table. 
Indicators of quality:
The habitat is very sensitive to every human disturbance, resulting from tourism development, physical damage, eutrophication, over growth through lack of grazing, climate change and especially changes in the water regime. The most important indicators of good quality are:
natural water regime
balance between the hygrophytic and hydrophytic vegetation
diversity of plant communities depending on water dynamic
occurrence of a range of different dune slacks within dune systems at a landscape level

Characteristic species:
Blackstonia perfoliata, Bolboschoenus maritimus, Carex distans, Centaurium pulchellum, Ceratophyllum demersum, Cladium mariscus, Cyperus flavescens, Holoschoenus romanus (= Scirpoides holoschoenus), Juncus acutus, Juncus littoralis, Juncus maritimus, Lemna minor, Lemna trisulca, Myriophyllum spicatum, Orchis laxiflora (= Anacamptis palustris), Phragmites australis, Potamogeton spp., Samolus valerandii, Schoenus nigricans, Scirpus (=Schoenoplectus) lacustris, Typha angustifolia, Typha latifolia

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.8 Moist and wet dune slacks
EuroVegChecklist alliances:
Agropyro-Plantaginion maritimi Horvatic 1934
Lolio-Plantaginion commutatae Horvatic 1934
Molinio-Holoschoenion Br.-Bl. ex Tchou 1948
Phragmition communis Koch 1926
Annex 1:
2190 Humid dune slacks
6420 Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion
Emerald:
B1.8 Moist and wet dune slacks
E3.1 Mediterranean tall humid grassland
MAES:
Coastal
IUCN:
13.3. Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat incudes plant communities that depend on the Mediterranean climate and more specifically on the duration of dry season and the fluctuation of water level during the vegetative period.

Map Description:
Map rather complete, with data gaps in Albania. Data sources: Art17.

Trends in Quantity:
The decrease on average is -19% for EU28 over about the last 50 year. After 1960 the habitat has been decreased approximately 10% in Spain and Bulgaria, 17-18% in Italy and 48% in Portugal, because of the intense touristic development and the drainage of wetlands in coastal areas. Its area remains stable in Greece and Romania, while in France the trend is considered negative, although no exact data exist. The trend in Croatia, Albania and Montenegro is unknown.

Trends in Quality:
The trends have been calculated from the reported negative trends in quality (extent and severity) by Portugal (10%) Bulgaria (70%), Italy (35%), Greece (3%) and France in the territorial data. The overall extent of degradation is estimated to be 17% and of the severity 50%. The severe decline is mostly because of the touristic development and changes in hydrologic conditions.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably more than 70%.  The habitat’s area outside EU28, in Mediterranean and Black Sea countries like Albania, Montenegro, Turkey, Ukraine and Russia, is unknown, but it is estimated to be smaller from that of the Mediterranean countries of European Union.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is widespread along Mediterranean and Black Sea coastal areas.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The overall range is not small, but the habitat occurs mainly in small stands within sites.

Pressures and Threats:
The most important threats are urbanisation and habitation because of touristic development, as well as changes in the hydraulic conditions, different kinds of pollution, alien species and ruderalisation caused by overgrazing. Natural processes like erosion and climate change, also threaten the habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Strict protection of preserved dune systems with dune slacks is considered as the most appropriate conservation measure. Restoration of hydraulic conditions of dune wetlands as well as removal of non-typical and invasive species are required in some coastal area.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has some capacity to recover naturally but this dependents on geomorphological processes which are slow. It could be restored in some areas especially by improving hydraulic conditions and the removal of invasive species.

Summary:
The habitat comprises small permanent or temporary fresh water bodies that develop in the depressions between sand ridges in the dune systems along the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts, a local feature with the drier climate typical of these regions. The constituent vegetation depends on the depth and persistence of the water which is very variable, and also on the level of enrichment, which is usually eutrophic to mesotrophic, though locally dystrophic. There can be aquatic communities in the open waters and swamps around the margins and, where the slacks dry out in summer, conditions can become saline with ephemals colonising. This habitat is threatened by touristic development, changes in hydrology, overgrazing and pollution, and it needs strict protection and some restoration activities, like recovery of hydrologic functionality and regulation of touristic activities.

References:
Biondi, E., Blasi, C., Burrascano, S., Casavecchia, S., Copiz, R., Del Vico, E., Gadenz, D., Gigante, D., Lasen, C., Spampinato, G., Venanzoni, R. and Zivkovic, L. 2009. Manuale Italiano di interpretazione degli habitat della Direttiva 92/43/CEE (Italian Interpretation Manual of the 92/43/EEC Directive habitats).–URL: http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/index.jsp
Donita, N., Popescu, A., Pauca-Comanescu, M., Mihailescu, S. and Biris, I. 2005. Habitatele din România. Edit. TehnicÄƒ SilvicÄƒ, BucureÅŸti, 500 p.
Gracia Prieto, F. 2009. 2190 Depresiones intradunares húmedas.En: VV.AA.,Bases ecológicas preliminares para la conservación de los tipos de hábitat de interés comunitario en España.Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino. 50 p.
Houston, J. 2008. Management of Natura 2000 habitats. 2190 Humid dune slacks. European Commission. Technical report 2008 05/24.
Tzonev, R. 2012. Over-wet and flooded dune slacks. In: Bisserkov V., Gussev, Ch., Tsoneva, S., Popov, V., Hibaum, G., Roussakova, V., Pandurski, I., Uzunov, J., Dimitrov, M. and Tzonev, R.(eds). Red Data Book of Bulgaria. Vol.3. Natural habitats.MOEW-BAS, Sofia.

Criterion A Text:
The habitat has been decreased about 10% in Spain, 10% in Bulgaria, 48% in Portugal, 18% in Italy during the last 40 to 60 years. In total, it has been reduced from 228 km2 to 185 km2, nearly 19%. There is no information on longer historical trends. In the future a small further decline is expected, but quantitative data are not available. No additional data were available for the EU28, but along the Mediterranean coast the habitat is rare outside the EU28 countries.

Criterion B Text:
EOO and AOO and number of locations are much higher than the thresholds for criterion B, leading to the conclusion Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
The weighted average extent and severity were calculated from reported data from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania. The involved countries could not provide enough information on the long historical or future trends in quality (CD2, CD3, C2, C3, and D2). The changes in quality are both abiotic (changes in hydarulic conditions, climate change) and biotic, thus C/D1 has not been split into C1 and D1.

Synthesis:
The habitat type is assessed as Least Concern (LC) under all criteria for which data were available. Trends in qaulity and quantity were relatively small, and the habitat is widespread over the coastal regions of the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat type is relatively diverse, including different wetland communities in dunes. Depending on the size, depth and water regime of dune slacks these communities are dominated by helophytic or hydrophytic species or a mixture of them.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: R. Tzonev
Territorial data: O. Aragnon, J. Capelo, P. Dimopoulos, M. Fagaras, C. Marceno, Z. Scvorc
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B3.4a Atlantic and Baltic soft sea cliff

Habitat Description:
The habitat refers to coastal loamy cliffs, with a bedrock of clays, shales or loamy sands, sometimes mixed with layers of pebbles, peat or gravel, which erode much quicker than cliffs with a hard bedrock. Erosion may be caused by storms, rain, waves and seepage from the inland, causing landslides, resulting in many sites in less steep cliffs than hard cliffs. The vegetation cover is low, with pioneer species prevailing, but sometimes with more closed grassland, shrubs and trees on the highest and less eroded parts, and also on parts of the cliff that have shifted downward by landslides. Because of soil movements and water streaming down the rock, many micro-habitats exist. Differences in bedrock layers, sediment size, soil chemistry, water flow and erosion patterns result in a widely varied habitat, with different species composition in different places.
In general, most species on the Atlantic and Baltic soft sea cliffs are common, widely spread ruderal species, that have adaptations to survive the turbulent conditions, for example deep rooting systems, broad spreading rhizomes or stolones, or a short life cycle. Examples of such common pioneers are Tussilago farfara, Calamagrostis epigejos, Petasites spurius, Petasites hybridus, Hieracium umbellatum, Equeisetum arvense and Arabidopsis thaliana. Where grasslands succeed to develop Cynosurus cristatus, Dactylis glomerata, Daucus carota subsp gummifer, Agrostis spp and Festuca spp are found. Several salt-tolerant species may be found, like Plantago coronopus, Armeria maritima and Plantago maritima. A rather characteristic species combination on soft cliffs along the Channel is Brassica oleracea and Silene maritima. Several rare species may be found on Baltic soft cliffs, like Linaria loeselii, Tragopogon heterospermus and Alyssum gmelinii. Scrub communities with Rubus sp., Ulex sp., Prunus spinosa can develop op long-time stable parts of the cliffs. On seepage areas Phragmites australis, Salix ssp and Alnus glutinosa may settle. Rumex rupestris, Apium graveolens, Sonchus maritimus and Sonchus arvensis grow together on soft cliffs of the western most coasts of the UK, France and Spain.
Coastal soft cliffs are a much rarer habitat than hard cliffs along the Atlantic coasts and in the northern and Baltic coast, but are relatively common on the southern and eastern shores of the Baltic Sea, with some large examples in the Wolinski National Park in Poland. More rarely soft cliffs are found in the Wadden Sea (for example the red cliffs of Sylt) and along the Channel coasts.
Indicators of good quality:
diversity in micro-habitats, resulting in rich structural diversity
diversity between cliffs in different localities and along the altitudinal gradient
absence of invasive species

Characteristic species:
Flora: Armeria maritima, Brassica oleracea, Calamagrostis epigejos, Equisetum arvense, Hieracium umbellatum, Plantago coronopus, Petasites hybridus, Petasites spurius, Plantago maritima, Silene vulgaris subsp. maritima, Tussilago farfara

Classification:
EUNIS:
B3.1 Supralittoral rock (lichen or splash zone)
B3.2 Unvegetated rock cliffs, ledges, shores and islets
B3.3 Rock cliffs, ledges and shores, with angiosperms
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Silenion maritimae Malloch 1971
Brassicion oleraceae Rivas-Martinez et al. 99
and many more...
Annex I:
1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts
Emerald:
-
MAES:
Coastal
IUCN:
13.1. Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat occurs localised along the Atlantic and Baltic coasts and seldom harbours endemic plant or animal species.

Trends in Quantity:
On average there is an overall EU28 trend in quantity of -21% based on data from 6 countries, covering about 36% of the area. Especially from the UK (with the largest amount of soft cliffs) quantitative trend data is missing. The EU28+ trend is the same as the EU28, as no data for EU28-countries were available, and the amount of the habitat outside the EU is expected to be relatively low.

Trends in Quality:
There are too limited data to analyse trends in quality. Only Germany and France (out of 9 relevant countries) provided quantitative data on trends in quality. The indication of these two countries are negative trends.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
> 80%, possibly more. However, the geographical range outside the EU28 is not well known.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a large distribution range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is restricted due to limited amounts of soft geological bedrock forming coastal cliffs.

Pressures and Threats:
Most serious threats are related to tourism (walking), urbanisation, building of hard sea defences, natural erosion (increased by sea level rise in future), and invasion of non-native plant species.

Conservation and Management:
Strict protection of coastal sites is the best conservation measure for this habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat has no capacity to recover naturally because it is the result from natural geological and geomorphological processes.

Summary:
Coastal loamy cliffs, with a bedrock of clays, shales or loamy sands, erode much quicker than cliffs with a hard bedrock, and therefore usually have a less steep slope and are often unstable.  Along the Atlantic and Baltic coasts, they harbour relatively common widespread species, even though a range of different micro-habitats may be found with ephemeral plant communities on the bare sediments, rank grasslands and scrub on more stable ground and flush vegetation around seepages . They have rarely been recognised or surveyed in European habitat classifications and therefore relatively few data on the habitat are available. The most serious threats relate to natural erosion, tourism, urbanisation and invasion of non-native plant species.

References:
Bioret F. & Géhu J.-M. (2008). Révision phytosociologique des végétations halophiles des falaises littorales atlantiques françaises. Fitosociologia 45(1) : 75-116.
Géhu J-M. (2009). Signification phytosociologique de Brassica oleracea ssp. Oleracea sur les falaises atlantiques européennes. Fitosociologia 46(1) : 3-10.
May V.J. (1997). Communities of loamy cliffs. In: E. van der Maarel (ed.). Ecosystems of the world 2C. Dry coastal ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pg. 227-231.

Criterion A Text:
The average trend in quantity is -24% for EU28+ and EU28+ based on 6 out of 9 relevant EU28 countries, covering about 37% of the reported area. Important quantitative data from the UK is missing. Not enough data on long term historical or future trends has been provided. The conclusion for criterion A is Least Concern, although the negative trend is very close to the threshold for Near Threatened.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are larger than the thresholds for criterion B, and the habitat occurs in many locations. Presently there are no continuing declines or future threats. The conclusion for criterion B is Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
Very few quantitative data on trends in quality are available. Only Germany and France provided complete data, both indicating negative trends. However, with so limited data, the conclusion on criterion C/D is "Data Deficient".

Synthesis:
There are relatively few data on this habitat available and provided information is only from EU28 countries. Overall there is a negative trend in quantity, but just not severe enough to meet the threshold for Near Threatened. Some negative trends in quality were indicated as well, but here data are deficient for an overall European assessment.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A main division could be made in Atlantic and Baltic sub-habitats, but data are too limited to assess these subtypes independently.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Janssen
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev
Territorial data: S. Angus, S. Barron, F. Bioret, J.Capelo, A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, D. Espírito-Santo, P. Finck, T. Haynes, J. Janssen, Z. KÄ…cki, J. Loidi, A. Ssymank, U. Raths, S. Rees, U. Riecken, I. Rove, C. Scanlan, S. Watt


Habitat Type Name:
B3.1a Atlantic and Baltic rocky sea cliff and shore

Habitat Description:
This is a linear, narrow habitat of rocky cliffs and shores along the coasts of the Arctic Sea, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean (southwards until Oporto, Portugal). In most cases it is related to eroding coasts, where the bedrock is exposed due to the eroding energy of the sea, but in some cases (like in the upheaval area of the Bothnian Gulf) rocky shores are found on sedimentary coasts. The habitat is restricted to hard cliffs, made of granite (crystalline rocks), sandstone, limestone, marble or schists. Soft, quickly eroding cliffs (for example with a loamy soil) are under habitat B3.4a. Pebble beaches are not included here, but considered part of shingles (habitat B2.1-3a). Littoral caves (HD Annex 1-type 8330) are considered under marine types. Anthropogenic rocky shores (dikes, stone walls) may contain several of the same species as sea cliffs, but are not considered part of this natural habitat. The habitat is dominated by exposed bedrock, while vegetation cover is low. The slopes are in many cases steep. Erosion at sea level causes the fall of higher parts of the cliffs, which conserves the steepness of cliffs, but in hard bedrock erosion rates are insignificant. Near the shoreline sometimes a notch is seen, where waves have eroded the bedrock surface. Elevation ranges from a few to several hundreds of meters. Amongst the highest sea cliffs in Europe are Slieve League in County Donegal, Ireland, reaching about 600 meters above the sea, and the cliffs on the West-coast of Iceland (more than 400 meters). The majority of the bedrock sea shores along the Baltic Sea are low with smoothed and rounded slopes, which are products of glacial abrasion. Cliffs are primary habitats on which no or little succession takes place, due to constant disturbance and ecological constraints by waves, wind and salt spray, combined with a lack of available water in the substrate. There is some influence of grazing, especially on cliff tops. But in many cases this habitat is inaccessible and rather undisturbed, the latter being a rarity on the European continent. Exceptions exist however, like in the Baltic Sea area, where summer houses are built also on sea cliffs. Rocky sea cliffs show gradients in species composition along the climatic gradient from south to north; besides three altitudinal zones are distinguished, from the supralittoral belt to the cliff top. The lowest, supralittoral zone is under the influence of waves, wind and sea spray and has a similar species composition as rocky shores, mainly consisting of lichens and algae. Also the middle cliff zone is very exposed, both wind and salt spray, and almost absent of soil development. Here a mixture of halophytic and chasmophytic vascular plant species is found. A species more-or-less restricted to this zone is the fern Asplenium marinum. The upper cliff and cliff top have a deeper soil, a higher vegetation cover and a vegetation which forms transitions towards grassland, heathland, shrub and forest habitats. In contrast to other regions in the world, hardly any shrub or tree species is found on the Atlantic cliffs, as few salt resistant species exist on the continent. The rocky shores of the Baltic Sea make an exception due to the low salinity of the sea. Also the gradient from south to north shows a shift in species composition in Europe. Common species over most of the latitudinal gradient are Armeria maritima, Crithmum maritimum, Plantago coronopus, Plantago maritima, Silene vulgaris subsp maritima, and on the cliff top Agrostis stolonifera and Festuca rubra. Typical northern cliff species are Cochlearia scotica, Ligusticum scoticum, Puccinellia maritima (on relatively wet sites), Saxifraga oppositifolia, Sedum (=Rhodiola) roseum and Silene acaulis. The lower cliff zone and rocky shores in boreal areas (like in the Baltic) contain few vascular plants, but are mainly occupied by filamentous algae and lichens (Caloplaca sp., Ramalina sp.). The arctic cliffs of Svalbard and Jan Mayen island contain Oxyria digyna and Chrysosplenium tetrandum as typical species, while (further) arctic elements are formed by Alopecurus alpinus, Taraxacum arcticum, Cerastium arcticum and several lichens. Cliff species with a relatively southern distribution are Catapodium marinum, Sagina maritima, Daucus carota subsp. gummifer, Euphorbia portlandica, Inula crithmoides, Spergularia rupicola, Plantago crassifolia, Plantago maritima, Frankenia laevis, Dactylis glomerata subsp. oceanica and several species of Limonium. Examples of Limonium species with a restricted range are Limonium binervosum agg., Limonium dodartii, Limonium dufourei, Limonium girardianum, Limonium normannicum, Limonium ovalifolium and Limonium virgatum. Along the coasts of the Channel, the rare Rumex rupestris (a species of the Annex II of the Habitats Directive) may be found in places where freshwater gathers on the lower part of cliffs, together with Apium graveolens, Samolus valerandi and Agrostis stolonifera. Halimione portulacoides and Salicornia ramosissima can grow in the most wind and salt spray exposed cliffs, like those of the Massif Armoricain. Some cliffs have a high diversity of saxicole lichens. Some rare species are characteristic for some biogeographic zones, like Teloschistes flavicans. The coastal cliffs of Europe are important breeding sites for large colonies of sea birds, amongst which puffins, northern gannets, guillemots and razorbills. Different birds nest in different parts of the cliffs, but in general steep cliffs are preferred (safe against predators) in areas where plenty of sea food is available. Bird colonies may harbour several nitrophilous plant species, due to the guano and trampling, like Tripleurospermum maritimum, Stellaria media, Cochlearia danica, Cochlearia officinalis, Atriplex ssp., Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, Sonchus oleraceus and Poa annua. In some cliffs of Brittany, the rare Asplenium obovatum subsp. obovatum is found.
Indicators of good quality:
The following characteristics are considered as indicators of good quality:
·     no disturbance by man
·     presence of sea bird colonies
·     presence of characteristic zonation belts
·     high diversity in lichens
Characteristic species:
Flora
Agrostis stolonifera, Allium schoenoprasum, Anthyllis vulneraria, Armeria maritima, Asplenium marinum, Aster tripolium, Atriplex prostrata, Beta vulgaris subsp maritima, Catapodium marinum, Cochlearia danica, Cochlearia officinalis, Cochlearia scotica, Crithmum maritimum, Dactylis glomerata subsp. hispanica, Dactylis glomerata subsp. oceanica, Daucus carota subsp. gummifer, Euphorbia portlandica, Festuca rubra, Frankenia laevis, Inula crithmoides, Lavatera arborea , Ligusticum scoticum, Limonium binervosum agg., Limonium dodartii, Limonium normannicum, Limonium ovalifolium, Lotus corniculatus, Plantago maritima, Puccinellia maritima, Sagina marítima, Saxifraga oppositifolia, Sedum acre, Sedum (=Rhodiola) roseum, Silene acaulis, Silene vulgaris subsp. maritima, Spergularia rupicola.
Bryophytes: Schistidium maritimum
Lichens (Baltic Sea): Aspicilia leprocescens, Caloplaca spp., Lasallia pustulata, Lecanora actophila, Lichina confinis, Umbilicaria spodochroa, Verrucaria maura
Fauna
Birds: Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica), northern gannet (Sula bassana), black guillemot (Cepphus grylle), Thick-billed murre or Brünnich’s guillemot (Uria lomvia), Common murre (Uria aalge; only on boreal and arctic islands), razorbill (Alca torda), little auk (Plautus alle; arctic), glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus), European herring gull (Larus argentatus), Common gull (Larus canus), Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus), Great black-backed gull gull (Larus marinus), Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)

Classification:
EUNIS :
B3.1 Supralittoral rock (lichen or splash zone)
B3.2 Unvegetated rock cliffs, ledges, shores and islets
B3.3 Rock cliffs, ledges and shores, with angiosperms
Annex I :
1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts
EuroVegChecklist (alliances) :
Asplenion marini Segal 1969
Crithmion maritimi Tx. et Oberd. 1958
Crithmo-Armerion maritimae Géhu 1968
Crithmo-Daucion halophili Rivas-Mart. et al. 1990
Saginion maritimae Westhoff et al. 1962
Silenion maritimae Malloch 1971
Annex I :
1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts
Emerald:
B3.24 Unvegetated Baltic rocky shores and cliffs
B3.3 Rock cliffs, ledges and shores, with angiosperms
MAES-2 :
Coastal
IUCN :
12.1.  Rocky Shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occurs along all the rocky coasts along the Atlantic and Baltic sea shores of the EU28

Map Description:
Map is complete for EU28, but potential for Norway and Iceland. Data sources: Art17.

Trends in Quantity:
At the EU28 scale, the habitat is more or less stable, but it could be locally decreasing in areas submitted to recurrent erosion.

Trends in Quality:
A small, local decline in quality has been reported.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
EOO is larger than 50,000km2. AOO is larger than 50 km2.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The habitat is widespread and occurring in long stretches in 9 countries of EU28 from Denmark and Ireland to Spain, and also along the north-western shores of the Baltic sea.

Pressures and Threats:
Different threats have been reported in touristic areas, urbanisation can lead to the fragmentation of the habitat; frequentation (trampling) and invasive species can cause destructuration and eutrophication of the habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Special attention should be paid to sectors with endemic chasmo-halophytic species and associations and to the steepiest cliffs where frequentation should be canalised in order to prevent trampling and erosion.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Natural restoration of degraded zones can be efficient after controling frequentation

Summary:
This habitat occurs as linear, narrow and often broken stretches of vegetated crevices, ledges and cliff-tops along the coasts of the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean south to mid Portugal. Exposed bedrock dominates the habitat and its very variable composition and structure determines the character of available surfaces, the height and slope of the cliffs influencing the input of salt spray which, on exposed coasts, can be very high close to the sea.  This combination of local climatic and topographic conditions determins the often strong zonation of crevice vegetation, grasslands and heaths found on the cliffs, with regional climate also affecting the flora. Nesting seabirds also add a distinctive nutrient-demanding element to the flora on their guano. Especially towards the cliff tops, grazing has also been of great importance in the character of the vegetation and the widespread decline of pastoral farming has influenced succession in more sheltered situations with transitions to coastal scrub and woodland. The habitat is also locally threatened by natural erosion that can lead to  degeneration and fragmentation and widely by tourism, with trampling and eutrophication affecting the vegetation. No specific conservation measures are recommended, except on frequently visited and eroded areas where restoration can aim to limit damage.

References:
Bensettiti, F, Bioret, F, Géhu, JM, Glémarec, M & Bellan-Santini, D (2004). Habitats côtiers. Cahiers d’habitats Natura 2000, 2, La Documentation française, 399p.
Bioret, F & Géhu, JM  (2008). Révision phytosociologique des végétations halophiles des falaises littorales atlantiques françaises.  Fitosociologica, 45 (1) : 75-116.
Costa, J, Lousa, M, Capelo, J, Espirito-Santo, M, Sevillano, J, Arsenio, P. (2000). The coastal vegetation of the Portuguese divisory sector: dunes, cliffs and low scrub communities. Finnistera 35 (69): 69-93.
Dierssen, K (1996). Vegetation Nordeuropeas. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Doody J.P. 2001. Coastal conservation and management. An ecological perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Géhu, JM (1975). Essai systématique et chorologique sur les principales associations végétales du littoral atlantique français. Annales Real. Acad. Farm. 41(2): 207-227.
Géhu, JM (1978). Les phytocénoses endémiques des côtes françaises occidentales. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France 125: 199-208.
Géhu, JM & Géhu-Franck, J (1984). Vegetatio Littoralis Europaea. Notulae Sparsae II. Sur quelques groupements chasmophytiques littoraux nord-atlantiques et pour un nouveau schéma synsystématique des végétations aérohalines des falaises atlantiques. Doc. Phytosoc. N.S., 8: 127-146.
Goldsmith, F.B. (1997). Herbaceous vegetation of sea cliffs. In: E. van der Maarel (ed.). Ecosystems of the world 2C. Dry coastal ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pg. 207-225.

Criterion A Text:
A negative trend of 9% was calculated based on data provided by 8 countries. The overall conclusion for Criterion A1 is Least Concern (LC).

Criterion B Text:
The habitat is widespread over the 8 countries of EU28 (EOO > 50000 km2 and AOO > than 50 km2), and does not reach any of the thresholds for criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Most of the countries reported slight to moderate trend with 0-30% area affected. Based on these incomplete data, it is estimated that trend in quality over the last 50 years is substantial (58%), but affecting only a small part (4%) of the area. This reduction  leads to Least Concern (LC) status for criterion C/D1.

Synthesis:
All provided data lead to the conclusion that the habitat qualifies as Least Concern (LC) for both trends in quantity and trends in quality. For both indicators there is a slight negative trend, but their scores are relatively far from the thresholds for Vulnerable.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Due to geographical and ecological variations, sub-habitat types may be identified for the different regions (Atlantic versus Baltic), with an additional separate subtype for the Arctic region.

Contributors:
Habitat Definition: J. Janssen
Territorial data : Stewart Angus, S. Barron, F. Bioret, J.Capelo,  A. Church, Paul Corbett, Julie Creer, D. Espírito-Santo, P. Finck, T. Haynes, T. Kontula, J. Loidi ,  B. Nygaard, U. Raths, U. Riecken, E.Roosaluste , Sue Rees, Clare Scanlan, A. Ssymank, Susan Watt
Working group Coastal : A.T.R. Acosta, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.4a Atlantic and Baltic coastal dune grassland (grey dune)

Habitat Description:
Stabilized or semi-stabilized dune grasslands or chamaephytic vegetations (grey dunes) of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts, dominated by grasses, herbs, mosses and/or lichens. This habitat is usually dominated by perennial species, with a certain proportion of therophytes. The type is distributed along the Baltic coast and the Atlantic coast, from southern Norway to halfway Portugal, including the British Islands, Ireland and (marginal) Iceland.
It is a grassland type of dry dune sands that has a broad diversity in species composition. Species composition changes over the climatic north-south and west-east gradients, but differs also within one site on different soils (acid to slightly calcareous sands) and under different microclimates (especially north versus south exposition). Most species of the European temperate coastal grasslands are also found in inland sand grasslands, but several dune chamephytic species have their optimum in the coast. Especially in the south (Southwest-France to Portugal) communities of the order Crucianelletalia contain several coastal dune restricted  and endemic species.
The occupied area of the type depends on the size of the dunes, which is relatively large along shallow, sandy seas with relatively large tidal differences. In stretches of rocky coast dunes and the associated grasslands are limited to small parts in the estuaries of rivers. In dynamic dune landscapes these grasslands may form temporary natural succession stages, which could be overgrown with shrubs, overblown with sand, or washed away during severe storms. Such situations are rare, however. In more stabilized dunes these grasslands are maintained by natural dynamics like wind, salt spray, drought and grazing (rabbits), in combination with semi-natural management by cattle and sheep grazing (decreasing drastically or abandoned in certain areas) or rarely by mowing.
Indicators of good quality:
In good conditions these grasslands are rich in forbs, mosses and lichens. They are threatened by natural succession towards shrubland (a.o. Hippophae rhamnoides, Salix repens subsp. arenaria) and forest (Quercus spp, Pinus spp),  and by encroachment of tall or dense grasses (a.o. Calamagrostis epigejos, Ammophila arenaria, Festuca rubra), herbs and shrubs (incl. non-native species like Prunus serotina) under suboptimal conditions (for instance high atmospheric deposition, low dynamics, no grazing, eutrophication linked to human frequentation). The habitat is also locally threatened by trampling. Also the non-native moss Campylopus introflexus behaves as an invasive species. In cases of overgrowth with grasses, shrubs and trees, more intensive management may help maintenance of species diversity. A patchy pattern of grassland and shrubs on a landscape scale is, on the other hand, of importance for several typical bird species of coastal dune complexes.
The following characteristics may be considered as indicators of good quality, but these indicators differ in different regions:
·     High species richness
·     Presence of rare and/or threatened species (characteristic communities species)
·     Absence or low presence of invasive or nitrophilous species
·     Diversity within the type within an area and over the whole range
·     High cover of lichens (in some varieties)
·     Low vegetation structure
·     Low cover of encroaching tall grasses, tall herbs and shrubs
·     Low cover of alien and ruderal species
·     Presence of typical fauna (birds, lizards, butterflies, other invertebrates)
Characteristic species:
Flora
Vascular plants: Aetheorhiza bulbosa, Agrostis capillaris, Aira praecox, Alyssum loiseleurii, Anacamptis pyramidalis, Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. maritima, Asperula cynanchica, Artemisia crithmifolia, Asparagus officinalis ssp. prostrata, Asterolinum stellatum, Avenula pubescens, Calystegia soldanella, Carex arenaria, Cochlearia danica, Corynephorus canescens, Crucianella maritima, Dianthus arenarius, Dianthus hyssopifolius ssp. gallicus, Ephedra distachya, Erodium glutinosum, Erodium lebelli, Eryngium campestre, Euphorbia portlandica, Festuca polesica, Festuca filiformis (=tenuifolia), Festuca vasconsensis, Festuca rubra, Galium arenarium, Galium verum, Gentiana campestris, Gentiana cruciata, Geranium molle, Geranium sanguineum, Helichrysum arenarium, Helichrysum stoechas, Hieracium umbelatum, Jasione montana, Lagurus ovatus, Lathyrus maritima, Koeleria albescens (=maritima, = cristata ssp. arenaria), Linaria arenaria, Linaria maritima, Luzula campestris, Medicago littoralis, Medicago marina, Mibora minima, Myosotis ramosissima, Omphalodes littoralis, Ononis natrix ssp. ramosissima, Ononis repens, Phleum arenarium, Polygala vulgaris, Rosa pimpinellifolia, Rumex acetosella, Sanguisorba minor, Sedum acre, Silene conica, Silene nutans, Silene otites, Teesdalia nudicaulis, Thesium humifusum, Thymus praecox, Thymus serpyllum, Trifolium scabrum, Tuberaria guttata, Viola canina, Viola curtisii, Viola kitaibeliana, Viola littoralis, Viola rupestris.
Mosses: Brachythecium albicans, Tortula ruraliformis 
Lichens: Cetraria spp., Cladina spp., Cladonia spp., Peltigera spp., ... in the Baltic Sea region: Racomitrium canescens, Ceratodon purpureus, Polytrichum juniperinum, P. piliferum
Fauna
Mammals: rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
Birds: Burhinus oedicnemus, Oenanthe oenanthe, Tadorna tadorna
Reptiles: Lacerta agilis
Insects: many species of Coleoptera (ground beetles), Saltatoria (grass hoppers), Formicidae (ants) and Hymeoptera (bees, wasps), and Lepidoptera (butterflies)
Lepidoptera examples: Argynnis niobe, Issoria lathonia, Mesoacidalia aglaja

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Euphorbio portlandicae-Helichrysion stoechadis Géhu et Tx. ex Sissingh 1974
Koelerion arenariae Tx. 1937 corr. Gutermann et Mucina 1993 (incl. Koelerion albescentis, Galio-Koelerion, Tortulo-Koelerion)
Helichrysion picardii (Rivas-Mart., Costa et Izco in Rivas-Mart. et al. 1990) Rivas-Mart., Fernández-González et Loidi 1999
Polygalo vulgaris-Koelerion macranthae Weeda et al. in Schaminée et al. 1996
Corynephorion canescentis Klika 1931
Thero-Airion Tx. ex Oberd. 1957
Violion caninae Schwickerath 1944 (marginal)
Cynosurion cristati Tx. 1947 (marginal)              
Galio litoralis-Geranion sanguinei Géhu et Géhu-Franck in de Foucault et al. 1983 (marginal)
Armerion elongatae Pötsch 1962 (= Plantagini-Festucion)
Annex 1:
2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ('grey dunes')
(This habitat has been applied a bit broader, for example also for dune communities in the Northern Adriatic Sea and for Black Sea dune grasslands)
Emerald:
B1.4 Coastal stable dune grassland (grey dunes)
MAES-2 :
Grassland
IUCN :
13.3 Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occurs in most of the coastal dunes of the 14 EU28 countries of the Atlantic region, where it has a much larger area than in the Baltic.

Map Description:
Map rather complete, with data gaps in Iceland and Norway. Data sources: EVA, ART17.

Comment EU28:
Based on existing data provided by EU member States

Trends in Quantity:
The general trend is decreasing including in countries where the habitat is well represented (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain). The trend is stable in the Netherlands and increasing in Ireland. The trends are similar for EU28 and EU28+, as the additional part of the habitat outside the EU28 is very small.

Trends in Quality:
The quality is decreasing in most areas due to trampling, urbanisation and eutrophication. The trends are similar for EU28 and EU28+, as the additional part of the habitat outside the EU28 is very small.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
About 90% of this habitat is located in the EU28 countries (estimation).

Justification of Restricted Area:
In most sites the habitat occupies large patches.

Pressures and Threats:
In most of the countries this habitat is threatened by urbanisation including touristic infrastructures and human activities (trampling, eutrophication). In the northern countries nitrogen deposition is a problem, as well as more natural succession towards scrub and forest.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat has a low resilience and needs to be protected against too much trampling as it takes several decades to recover. In the northern regions mowing or grazing is needed to prevent succession towards dune scrubland and forest.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The recevory process of degraded grey dunes is very low and as its structure and functionality have been affected. It requires physical protection to avoid frequentation and especially trampling.

Summary:
This habitat includes the grasslands that develop on the stabilised sands of older (so-called 'grey') dunes along the Atlantic (south to mid-Portugal), North Sea and Baltic coasts. The sandy substrate, thinly enriched with accumulating humus, is well drained and can dry out during summer. Typically with a more or less complete cover of (relatively low) grasses, herbs, mosses and lichens, sometimes with low shrubs, they comprise one of the most species-rich habitats on the temperate European coast. The flora can vary with the regional climate, with the character of the substrate, varying from acid to highly calcareous, and with the local dune topography. Individual dune systems can vary from narrow strips to enormous stretches, though most are not a dynamic stage in succession, but maintained in a more or less stable fixed state. Often grazed or mown in the past, which prevented development of scrub and woodland, the habitat is threatened in most countries by abandonment of traditional farming, by eutrophication through nitrogen deposition,  and overuse and urbanisation, often related to tourism.

References:
AuniÅ†š, A. (2013, ed.). European Union protected habitats in Latvia. Interpretation Manual. Latvian Fund for Nature, Ministry of Environmental protection and regional development, Riga.
Bensettiti, F., Bioret, F., Géhu, J.-M., Glémarec, M. & Bellan-Santini, D. (2004). Habitats côtiers. Cahiers d’habitats Natura 2000, 2. La Documentation française, 399p.
Géhu, J.-M. & Petit, M. (1965). Notes sur la végétation des dunes littorales de Charente et de Vendée. Bulletin de la Société de Botanique du Nord de la France 18(1) : 69-88.
Géhu, J.-M. (1978). Les sigmassociations de la xérosère des dunes atlantiques françaises de Dunkerque à Biarritz. Bericht uÌˆber das Internationale Symposium der Internationalen Vereinigung fuÌˆr Vegetationskunde. Hrsg von R. TuÌˆxen "Assoziationskomplexe (Sigmeten) und ihre praktische Anwendung", Rinteln, 4-7 avril 1977 : 77-82.
Schaminée, J.H.J., Weeda, E.J. & Westhoff, V. (1998). De vegetatie van Nederland, deel 4. Plantengemeenschappen van de kust en van binnenlandse pioniermilieus. Opuluss Press, Uppsala/Leiden.

Criterion A Text:
Values have been calculated from territorial data of 11 EU countries, including the countries with the largest areas. Criteria A1 indicates a strong reduction of quantity over the last 50 years and leads to the Vulnerable status (close to Endangered). The EU28+ value is the same as the EU28 value.

Criterion B Text:
The EOO is larger than 50,000 km2 and the AOO is larger than 50 km2, while the habitat is present in many locations. The conclusion for all B-criteria is Least Concern.

Criterion C/D Text:
Values have been calculated from territorial data of 11 EU countries, including the countries with the largest areas. Almost everywhere a decrease in quality is recorded. The average value for criterion C/D1 leads to the status Vulnerable (VU) for this habitat. Decline in quality relates to both abiotic and biotic changes.

Synthesis:
The habitat is on the Red List as Vulnerable (VU) due to large declines in area (criterion A1) and large remaining areas negatively affected in quality (criterion C/D1). The decline in area is very close to the threshold for the category Endangered (EN).

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
This is a very broadly defined habitat. A northern and southern sub-type can be distinguished, with southern types having affinity with Mediterranean grey dunes and containing relatively many endemic species. Alternatively or additionally a division in

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Janssen
Territorial experts: S. Angus, F. Bioret, J.A. Campos, J. Capelo, A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, D. Espírito-Santo, P. Finck, T. Haynes, J. Janssen, Z. KÄ…cki, T. Kontula, J.R. Martin, B. Nygaard, S. Provoost, V. RašomaviÄius, U. Raths, S. Rees, U. Riecken, E. Roosaluste, I. Rove, C. Scanlan, A. Ssymank, S. Watt
Working Group Coastal: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
B1.5b Atlantic coastal Calluna and Ulex heath

Habitat Description:
Decalcified fixed dunes colonized by relatively low heaths and spiny legumes in the European Atlantic coasts under humid climatic conditions, often with dominance of Calluna vulgaris and/or Erica spp. Soils are coarsely sandy and well drained and under the predomimant hydric regime (high rainfall or ground water) leaching of soluble basic nutrients, particularly calcium, is very active.
Sedges and grasses are common all over the habitat’s range. In the southern sector (southern Portugal) an endemic gorse preferently grows in this habitat (Ulex australis subsp. welwistchianus), while another one is also frequent in North-western Iberia (Ulex europaeus subsp. latebracteatus). Several coastal scrub species occur in the habitat, like Genista triacanthos and Halimium halimifolium. In the northern parts of the Atlantic coast and the Baltics the habitat is replaced by dune heaths dominated by Empetrum nigrum (B1.5a).
This low sized heathland is forming a dense scrub and plays an important role in the dune fixation. Soils are acidic, coarse sandy and have a low water retention capacity.
Indicators of good quality:
An optimal state of this habitat type is a dense scrub formed by heaths, gorses and some herbaceous plants (Carex and grasses) of low size (40 to 80 cm), with no or few open patches and without exotic species, trees or tall shrubs. Indicators of good quality are:
relatively low, closed structure
dominance by heaths and gorses
absence of non-native, invasive species
absence or low abundance of trees and tall shrubs

Characteristic species:
Flora
Vascular plants: Agrostis stolonifera var. pseudopungens, Calluna vulgaris, Carex arenaria, Carex trinervis, Erica ciliaris, Erica cinerea, Erica scoparia, Erica umbellata. Festuca vasconcensis, Genista triacanthos, Halimium halimifolium, Pseudoarrhenatherum longifolium, Ulex australis subsp. welwitschianus, Ulex europaeus subsp. latebracteatus.
Fauna
Birds: Alectoris rufa, Caprimulgus europaeus, Caprimulgus ruficollis, Galerida thekleae, Lanius senator, Lullula arborea, Merops apiaster, Saxicola torquata, Sylvia conspicillata, Sylvia melanocephala, Sylvia undata.
Reptiles and amphibians: Chalcides striatus, Chamaeleo chamaeleon, Hemorrhois hippocrepis, Macroprotodon brevis, Malpolon monspessulanus, Pleurodeles waltl, Podarcis bocagei, Podarcis carbonelli, Psammodromus algirus, Rhinechis scalaris, Testudo graeca.

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.5 Coastal dune heaths
EuroVegChecklist (Alliances) :
Daboecion cantabricae (Ulicetum latebracteato-minoris p.p.)
Ericion cinereae Böcher 1940
Ericion umbellatae Br.-Bl. in Br.-Bl. et al. 1952 (Erico umbellatae-Ulicetum welwitschiani)
Ulicion minoris Malcuit 1929
Annex 1:
2150* Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea)
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
Emerald:
B1.5 Coastal dune heaths
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.4 Temperate shrubland

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is almost restricted to the Atlantic coast. In the Baltic region it occurs fragmented, often in close relation to habitat B1.5a.

Trends in Quantity:
In the two countries where the habitat has the highest area (France and Spain) the general trend is decreasing. The trend is stable in the other countries.

Trends in Quality:
The main trend is decreasing, linked to shrub encroachment and fragmentation of the habitat.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
More than 90% (estimation). Outside the EU28 it may occur in baltic Russia and Norway.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is always present in relatively small areas.

Pressures and Threats:
The main threat is abandonment of traditional grazing, leading to shrub encroachment. This habitat is also threatened by fragmentation due to tourism and urbanisation. In some places, the intensification of the front dune erosion can lead to the alteration of the habitat which disappears under sand deposition. Finally nitrogen deposition (eutrophication) and expansion of non-native species form threats in some countries.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat occurs very localised and is conserved in few protected areas. Traditional management is needed to maintain the habitat for the long term.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
When damaged, the recovering process of this habitat is low and at least about 20 years are needed.

Summary:
This heath, characteristic of stable, dry decalcified sands on coastal dunes along the milder, moister Atlantic coastline, is typically dominated by Calluna vulgaris, Erica cinerea, and/or Ulex spp. and other low spiny legumes, along with a strong contingent of grasses and sedges, often also mosses and lichens. Persistent wind-exposure or light grazing prevent succession to scrub and woodland and the habitat is thus threatened by abandonment of traditional pastoralism, also by tourist pressure and afforestation.

References:
Bioret F. & Géhu J.-M., 2008 - Deux nouvelles associations de landes du Dactylido maritimae-Ulicion maritimi sur le littoral atlantique français. Acta Botanica Gallica, 155(1) : 5-11.
Bridgewater P.B., 1981 – Phytosociological studies in the British heath formation. II. Heaths of the Vacccinio-Genistetalia R. Schubert 1960, and species-poor heaths of the Ulicetalia minoris (P. Duvign. 1944) J.M. Géhu. Phytocoenologia 9 (1-2) : 27-52.
Foucault (de) B. & Géhu J.-M. 1978 Une association de la lande dunaire nouvelle dans le Nord de la France : le Carici trinervis-Callunetum. Doc. Phytosoc. N.S., III : 285-288.
Géhu J.-M., 1975 - Essai pour un système de classification phytosociologique des landes atlantiques françaises. Coll. Phytosoc., II, La végétation des landes d'Europe occidentale, Lille 1973 : 361-377.
Rivas-Martínez, S. et al., 2011. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España [Memoria del mapa de vegetación potencial de España]. Parte II. Itinera Geobotanica 18 (1 and 2): 5-800.

Criterion A Text:
Over the last 50 years, the average European reduction in quantity is -22%. Values for A1 are calculated from territorial sheets from 4 EU countries, including the countries with the largest areas. For A2 and A2b, there is no possibility to evaluate. No data was available for EU28+ countries, but here the habitat is marginally present. The A1 criterion leads to a Least Concern status.

Criterion B Text:
Despite that EOO, AOO and number of locations do not meet the thresholds for criteria under B, this habitat has a scattered distribution in only 8 EU countries, where it occupies small areas.

Criterion C/D Text:
Values have been calculated from territorial data of 8 EU countries, including the countries with largest areas. Almost everywhere a decrease in quality is recorded, but the severity and extend are too low to be evaluated as Near Threatened. C/D1 criterion leads to a Least Concern status.

Synthesis:
Although there has been a decline in quantity and quality over the last 50 years, the negative trends are not severe, and both criteria A1 (trend in quantity) and C/D1 (trend in quality) lead to a Least Concern status for this habitat.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Regarding to latitudinal variations and ecological variations (nature of the substrate), sub-types are certainly existing, but their description would require further investigations and data.

Contributors:
Habitat description: J. Loidi
Territorial data: S. Angus, F. Bioret, J.Capelo,  A. Church, P. Corbett, J. Creer, F. Devaney, D. Espírito-Santo, P. Finck, T. Haynes, John Janssen, J. Loidi, S. Provoost, U. Raths, S. Rees, U. Riecken, C. Scanlan, A. Ssymank, S. Watt
Working Group Coastal Habitats: A. Acosta, F. Bioret, H. Gardfjell, J. Janssen, J. Loidi, R. Tzonev


Habitat Type Name:
1 Kelp communities on Baltic infralittoral rock and mixed substrata (predominantly hard)

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is rock, boulders, stones and mixed (predominantly hard) substrates according to the HELCOM HUB classification. It is most common in wave exposed areas with kelp dominating the perennial algae and covering at least 10% of the seabed. Saccharina latissima and Laminaria digitata consitute at least 50% of the biovolume of such algae.  Two associated biotopes have been identified. ‘‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by kelp’ (AA.A1C4) and ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by kelp’ (AA.M1C4). To identify this habitat mapping should take place during the months when the vegetation is fully developed. 
Indicators of Quality: 
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. The lower depth limit of the kelp is a potential indicator of quality of this habitat.
Characteristic species: 
The main species that creates kelp forests in the Baltic is Laminaria digitata. Other associated algae include Chaetomorpha melagonium and Delesseria sanguinea. Other associated species include hydroids, bryozoans, and molluscs. Kelp forests also provide an important habitat for fish such as Centrolabrus rupestris and Gobisculus flavescens.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A3.4 Baltic exposed infralittoral rock, A3.5 Baltic moderately exposed infralittoral rock and A3.6 Baltic sheltered infralittoral rock 
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however the habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats-
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN ecosystem:
9.7 Macroalgal/kelp
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013):
AA.A1C Baltic photic rock and boulders characterized by perennial algae
AA.M1C Baltic photic mixed substrate characterized by perennial algae
 
This habitat has two sub-habitats on HELCOM HUB level 6;
AA.A1C4 Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by kelp
AA.M1C4 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by kelp

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Kelp forests are a marginal habitat in the Baltic as they are more typically found in fully saline waters.

Map Description:
This map is based on HELCOM mapping of the presence of this habitat in 100 x 100km cells that were converted to 10 x 10 km cells. The calculated EOO and AOO values therefore represent a maximum based on current information as the habitat may not occur in all these 10 x 10 km cells.

Comment EU28:
EOO and AOO are based on HELCOM mapping in 100 x 100km cells that were converted to 10 x 10 km cells. The values therefore represent a maximum as the habitat may not occur in all these 10 x 10 km cell

Trends in Quantity:
The area of this habitat has not been quantified but expert opion is that declines of less than 25% have taken place over the last 50 years. Modelling studies forecast a future decrease in kelp dominated habitats in some areas over the next 100 years particularly where the kelp forest is established in shallow waters. This is because kelp species will not be favoured by any increasing sea water temperatures associated with climate change.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information on which to assess the current quality of this habitat or any historical trends. Modelling studies predict a reduction in extent of the habitat due to climate change effects in the future. An associated reduction in quality in such areas is therefore also likely to occur.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat type does not occur in the Russian Baltic Sea area therefore 100% is hosted by EU28. A similar habitat occurs in the North East Atlantic Regional Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The maximum EOO (based on HELCOM data using 100 x 100 km grid squares) is 78,300 km2. The true EOO is likely to be less as this habitat is not present in the aphotic zone which has not been excluded from the grid squares.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The maximum EOO (based on HELCOM data using 100 x 100 km grid squares) is 78,300 km2. The true EOO is likely to be less as this habitat is not present in the aphotic zone which has not been excluded from the grid squares.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P or organic matter) reduces light penetration and consequently the depths to which kelp habitats can thrive. At the same time the upper distributional limit of this habitat is restricted by the low salinity conditions in much of the Baltic which hinders the establishment of kelp. Increasing siltation caused by eutrophication as well as increased turbidity arising from dumping, marine offshore construction activities, and bottom trawling may also damage existing areas as well as prevent the settlement of kelp and therefore the occurrence of this habitat. Bottom trawling and other activities may also have a direct effect by destroying reefs and dislodging kelp plants.
Climate change is a current and future threat. Low and fluctuating salinity, such as that which is typical for inner Danish waters, may contribute to relatively low production as osmotic stress can exert physiological stress on kelps. Temperature is also known to affect the establishment and growth rate of kelp. Future pressures and threats are therefore likely to reduce the extent of this Baltic habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Current approaches to the conservation and management of this habitat type include the establishment of protected areas, reduction of nutrient inputs to improve water quality and rock placement for reef habitat creation. Similar actions are likely to be continue to be beneficial to this habitat.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1160: MBAL U2
1170: MBAL U1
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1160: VU C1 
1650: VU C1 
1170: VU C1 
Sub habitats AA.A1C4 and AA.M1C4 were assess

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Harvesting experiments have shown that sugar kelp has a relatively quick recolonization response following removal from an area. Improvements in water quality where this is a reason for decline (e.g. through sedimentation/eutrophication) and rock replacement have been used to allow this habitat to become re-established. Timescales vary depending on conditions but recovery could potentially occur naturally within 10 years.

Summary:
This habitat occurs off the coasts of Denmark, Sweden and Germany in the southern Baltic, only extending into the Baltic proper as far as the island of Bornholm. Its geographical extent, the area it occupies and condition is constrained by the extent of rocky substrate in areas where salinity and light levels are high enough to support the establishment and growth of kelp. On the Darss Sill boulder fields for example, the habitat extends from the surface to depths of around 18 m, in the Belt Sea it only occurs below 6 m, and in the Arkona Basin the kelp plants may only be a few centimetres high. The kelp species characteristic of this habitat is Laminaria digitata. The habitat also supports sessile and mobile species which include hydroids, bryozoans, molluscs and crustaceans as well as fish such as Centolabrus rupestris and Gobisculus flavescens. 
There is information on the distribution of Laminaria digitata and the other kelps in the Baltic, but a lack of quantitative data on the extent and quality of the habitat. It is known to be vulnerable to nutrient enrichment and smothering by suspended sediment, as well as to activities such as coastal and offshore development, and fishing gears which disturb the seabed or dislodge kelp plants. Actions to improve water quality and reduce physical disturbance of the substrate are important for the conservation of this habitat. Predicted temperature and salinity changes associated with climate change are likely future threats as this will most likely reduce the spatial distribution of kelps in the Baltic Sea.

References:
Dahl, K., Dromph, K. and Rasmussen, M.B. 2013. Seaweed forests on reefs in the Baltic Sea - expected climate change effects and possible adaptatons. Available at:
http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/55800051/Seaweed_forests_Poster_Karsten_Dahl_et_al_2013.pdf. (Accessed: 16/07/2015).
Dahl, K., Josefson, A.B., Göke, C., et al. 2013. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Biodiversity and Habitats in the Baltic Sea - and Possible Human Adaptations. In: Krarup Leth, O., Dahl, K., Peltonen, H., Krämer, I., Kule, L.(eds.). Sectoral Impact Assessments for the Baltic Sea Region - Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity, Fisheries, Coastal Infrastructure and Tourism. Coastline Reports (21), pp. 1-34. EUCC - The Coastal Union Germany, Rostock, 2013.
Olenin, S. and Daunys, D. 2004. Coastal typology based on benthic biotope and community data: The Lithuanian case study. Coastline Reports: 465-83.
Raybaud, V., Beaugrand, G., Goberville, E., et al. 2013. Decline in Kelp in west Europe and Climate. PLOS One 8(6): 1-10.
Schramm, W. and Nienhuis, P.H. 1996. Marine Benthic Vegetation: Recent Changes and the Effects of Eutrophication. Schramm, W. and Nienhuis, P. (Eds.). Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany.
Segestråle, S.G. 1957. Baltic Sea. Geological Society of America 67(1): 751-800.
Zettler, M.Z. and Gosselck, F. 2006. Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe. Natura 2000 sites in German Offshore Waters. Nordheim, von. H., Boedeker, D. and Krause, J.C. (Eds.). Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany.

Criterion A Text:
This habitat is only present in the EU 28. Precise figures are not available but expert opinion is that there has not been a significant reduction (>25%) in the quantity of this habitat over the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
EOO and AOO calculations are based on the current known distribution of L. digitata which is characteristic of this habitat. These are considered likely to be maximum figures as the habitat is not present in the aphotic zone but such occurrences could not be excluded from the calculations due to limitations with the underlying data. Although some potential trends have been identified, there is also a lack of information on which to base any estimation of future trends in geographical distribution or threatening processes. Experts therefore consider this habitat to be Data Deficient under Criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
Eutrophication and sedimentation have been reported as pressures on the characteristic species (kelps). Such pressures may have had some effect on the quality of the habitat but this has not been quantified. Modelling studies suggest that climate change effects (on sea temperature and salinity) could lead to a reduction in extent of this habitat in the future by affecting the reproductive success of the characteristic kelp species but experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to assess criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
This habitat is only present in the EU 28 as it is only found in the southern  Baltic Sea. There is a lack of quantitative data on extent and quality, therefore this Red List assessment has been based on expert opinion. Threats and pressures on this habitat have been identified but it is not considered to have declined in extent by more than 25% over the last 50 years. Modelling studies suggest that climate change effects (on sea temperature and salinity) could lead to a reduction in extent of this habitat in the future by affecting the reproductive success of the characteristic kelp species but this has not been quantified. 
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed the two relevant Baltic biotopes (AA.A1C4 and AA.M1C4) to be of Least Concern (based on Criterion A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat, current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Least Concern in the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
44 Communities on Baltic circalittoral clay and other hard substrata

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone with at least 90% coverage of hard clay, marlstonerock, ferromanganese concretions and/or peat according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Hard clay substrates are known to occur mostly in high energy environments. Marlstone rock habitats have only been reported in the Baltic proper, Belt Sea and The Sound, and Ferromanganese concretions in the Baltic Proper, Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga.
Sessile/semisessile epibenthic bivalves cover of at least 10% of the seabed and no perennial attached erect group has more than 10% coverage in this habitat. In some cases there may be no macrofauna but two associated biotopes with different dominant species of macrofauna have been identified: ‘Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Mytilidae’ (AB.B1E1) and ‘Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Astarte spp.’ (AB.B1E4). The latter is characterised by species preferring cold and saline water with Astarte spp. often making up between 70–90% of the total biomass.The near bottom water exhibits a salinity range between 10 and 15 psu, a temperature between 3 and 8°C and relatively good oxygen conditions. For ecological purposes, hard clay can be considered to be a hard substrate. Very few macrofauna species have the capacity to burrow into the substrate. 
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly
agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. Diversity, abundance and biomass of the dominant species and associated fauna are potential indicators of quality of this habitat.
species and associated fauna are potential indicators of quality of this habitat
Characteristic species: 
Mytilus spp., Astarte borealis, Astarte elliptica

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A4.4 Baltic exposed circalittoral rock, A4.5 Baltic moderately exposed circalittoral rock and A4.6 Baltic sheltered circalittoral rock.
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock & biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow aphotic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.B1E Baltic aphotic hard clay characterised by epibenthic bivalves This habitat has two biotopes on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Mytilidae’ (AB.B1E1) ‘Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Astarte spp.’ (AB.B1E4) AB.B1V–Baltic aphotic hard clay characterised by mixed epibenthic macrocommunity.
AB.B2T Baltic aphotic hard clay characterised by sparse epibenthic macrocommunity
AB.B4U Baltic aphotic hard clay characterised by no macrocommunity
AB.C Baltic aphotic marl (marlstone rock)
AB.F Baltic aphotic ferromanganese concretion bottoms

Comment EU28+:
The area estimate for this habitat has been derived from a synthesis of EUNIS seabed habitat geospatial information for the European Seas but is recognised as being an underestimate.

Trends in Quantity:
Circalittoral clay is restricted to areas where glacial residual sediments pierce the sediment surface and epibenthic bivalves settle. It is mainly found as small patches throughout the Baltic Sea except for the Gulf of Riga and the Bothnian Sea. Although mostly dominated by Mytilidae, there are areas on the sills of the Slupsk Furrow and Gdansk Deep that are dominated by Astarte spp. There are no quantitative data on past quantity of this habitat in the Baltic nor any estimates of likely future trends. Over the last 50 years there is believed to have been some decline in the area covered by the latter biotope but no evidence for declines in the Mytilid dominated biotope.

Trends in Quality:
The current status and trends in quality of this habitat are mostly unknown although some areas of hard clay dominated by Astarte species have shown a significant decline in abiotic environmental quality due to an increasing exposure to oxygen depletion.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Unknown with  some differences in the distribution of associated biotopes. For example modelling suggests that around 95% of the hard clay is hosted by EU 28, and estimated 100% of the marlstone rock and an unknown percentage where the substrate is ferromanganese concretions.

Justification of Restricted Area:
One of the associated biotopes, AB.B1E4 Baltic hard clay dominated by Astarte spp., is restricted to the sills of the SÅ‚upsk Furrow that connects the Bornholm Deep with the Gotland Deep and GdaÅ„sk Deep. Overall this habitat does not have a s

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication has posed a severe threat to the hard clay habitat dominated by Astarte spp. in the past and is likely to also affect this biotope in the future. Climate change is a potential future threat. In the Baltic Sea region climate change is predicted to increase the amount of rain which in turn may cause the salinity to drop in the Baltic Sea. Also, a predicted warmer mean temperature may adversely affect the Astarte spp. as they require oxygenated and rather cold and saline water. Dredging can cause more direct
damage and the development of an industry for the extraction of ferromanganese concretions from the seabed is a possible future threat.

Conservation and Management:
All actions that reduce the level of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea will benefit this habitat. These include measures to reduce the diffuse run off of nutrients from agriculture and tackling point source pollution by installation of waste water treatment plants. Restoring/improving water quality and establishing protected areas can benefit this habitat as can introducing controls on activities such as bottom trawling, sand, gravel and mineral extraction which cause direct damage to the substrate and the associated communities.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1160: MBAL U2
1170: MBAL U1
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1160 VU C1 
1170 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2013) assessed three of seven relevant

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Where the dominant species is Mytilus edulis recovery may be possible within 5-10 years. Astarte spp. have a life span of 20-40 years and the colonies on hard clay are subject to seasonal oxygen depletion throughout its range. This means that recruitment may fail due to the higher sensitivity of larvae and juveniles against oxygen depletion, or need significantly more time for a fully recovery of associated communities.

Summary:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone with at least 90% coverage of hard clay, marlstonerock, ferromanganese concretions and/or peat. Circalittoral clay is restricted to areas where glacial residual sediments pierce the sediment surface and epibenthic bivalves settle. It is mainly found as small patches throughout the Baltic Sea except for the Gulf of Riga and the Bothnian Sea. Although mostly dominated by Mytilidae, there are areas on the sills of the Slupsk Furrow and Gdansk Deep that are dominated by Astarte spp. Sessile/semisessile epibenthic bivalves colonise some of the seabed. There may be no macrofauna but two associated biotopes with different dominant species of macrofauna have been described.
Eutrophication has posed a severe threat to the hard clay habitat dominated by Astarte spp. in the past and is likely to also affect the biotope in the future. Changes in salinity brought about by climate change is another threat especially where Astarte is the dominant species.

References:
Gogina, M. & Zettler, M.L.2010Diversity and distribution of benthic macrofauna in the Baltic Sea. Data inventory and its use for species distribution modelling and prediction. Journal of Sea Research. 64: 313-321
HELCOM. 1998. Red list of marine and coastal biotopes and biotope complexes of the Baltic Sea, Belt Sea and Kattegat. Balt Sea Environ. Proc. No 75
HELCOM. 2007. HELCOM lists of threatened and/or declining species and biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No 113
HELCOM. 2013. Approaches and methods for eutrophication target setting in the Baltic Sea region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 133
Kocheshkova, O., Ezhova, E., Dorokhov, D & Dorokhova E. 2014. Benthic communities and habitats in the near shore zoe of the Curonian Spit (the south-eastern part of the Baltic Sea) Baltica 27: 45-54
Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology. 2007. Biotope matrix of the Latvian EEZ acording to EUNIS

Criterion A Text:
There has been some decline in the quantity of this habitat over the last 50 years however expert opinion is that this does not reach the threshold for a Near Threatened assessment under criterion A. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat is present in small patches in all Baltic Sea sub-basins. Therefore EOO exceeds 50,000km2 and AOO is assumed to be > 50. However, with no quantitative data on habitat extent or area, accurate calculation of EOO or AOO is not possible at the present time. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Experts considered there to be insufficient data on which to assess criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
Current status and trends in quality of this habitat are mostly unknown although some areas of hard clay dominated by Astarte species have shown a significant decline in abiotic environmental quality due to an increasing exposure to oxygen depletion over the last 50 years.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed three relevant Baltic associated biotopes (AB.B1E1, AB.C and AB.F) as Least Concern (A1), and Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Astarte spp. (AB.B1E4) was assessed as Endangered (B2c(ii)). Three other biotopes were not evaluated.
Due to general rarity of areas dominated by Astarte spp. and no evidence of a significant decrease in quantity over the last 50 years for areas dominated by Mytilidae, this habitat has been assessed as Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AB.B1E4 Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Astarte spp.


Habitat Type Name:
3 Aquatic moss communities on Baltic infralittoral rock and mixed substrata (predominantly hard)

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is rock, boulders or stones according to the HELCOM HUB classification, or mixed (predominantly hard) substrates where the percentage of rock is lower but between 10- 90%. Perennial mosses cover at least 10% of the seabed and more than other perennial attached erect groups. In some places the mosses form extensive underwater meadows which provide shelter and food for benthic animals. The habitat typically occurs where the salinity is <5 psu and usually from depths of 1-7m. Whilst more common in exposed areas, it does occur under other conditions of exposure to wave action and currents. 
Indicators of quality:  
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly
agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.Depth range, biodiversity and the amount of epiphytic ephemeral filamentous algae are potential indicators of quality.
Characteristic species: 
Fontinalis spp. Fissidens fontanus, Platyhypnidium riparioides

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A3.4 Baltic exposed infralittoral rock,A3.5 Baltic moderately exposed infralittoral rock and A3.6 Baltic sheltered infralittoral rock.
 
Annex 1:  
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock & biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock and biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs
 
Other relationships: 
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013).
AA.A1D Baltic photic rock and boulders characterized by aquatic moss
AA.M1D Baltic photic mixed substrate characterized by aquatic moss.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Aquatic moss habitats typically occur in freshwater but the low salinity conditions in the northern Baltic have enabled them to become established in coastal waters.

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010). This means it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur, not the actual distribution of this EUNIS level 4 habitat. EOO and AOO cannot be calculated at the present time.

Comment EU28:
There is insufficient quantitative data to make an accurate estimate of EOO and AOO.

Comment EU28+:
There is insufficient quantitative data to make an accurate estimate of EOO and AOO.

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to make an assessment of the current quantity of this habitat or any historical trends in quality. No future trends have been estimated.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to make an assessment of the current quality of this habitat or any historical trends. No future trends have been estimated.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
It is unkown whether this habitat has a small natural range following regression.

Justification of Restricted Area:
It is unkown whether this habitat has a small natural range by reason on its intrinsically restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
There is limited information on pressures and threats specifically relating to this habitat but they could be expected to include poor water quality including nutrient enrichment (N, P and organic matter) and sedimentation which would reduce light levels, encourage the growth of epiphytes and potential smother the aquatic mosses which are the characteristic species of this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
There is limited information on conservation and management measures specifically relating to this habitat but they could be expected to include those which reduce the risks of eutrophication and increase water clarity.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1160: MBAL U2
1170: MBAL U1
1650: MBAL U2.
 
Status of Annex 1 types in Baltic as assessed by HELCOM (2013):
1160 VU C1 
1170 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM has assessed

Summary:
Aquatic moss communities on Baltic infralittoral rock and mixed substrates may form extensive underwater meadows in sheltered waters. Fontinalis spp. penetrate into the southernmost part of the Gulf of Bothnia (Oregrund Archipelago) and are common in the Tvarminne area while Drepanocladus spp. are reported from the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland.  The habitat has not been extensively studied in the Baltic (compared to freshwater equivalents) but is believed to provide shelter and food for benthic animals as well as suitable spawning locations for some fish. The pressures and threats to this habitat are likely to be associated with decline in water quality, sedimentation, and physical damage and therefore any conservation measures which reduce such threats would be beneficial.

References:
HELCOM, 2013. Checklist of Baltic Sea Baltic Sea Macro-species. Kontula, T. and Haldin, J. (Eds), Helsinki, Finland. 
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L. (Ed). Helsinki, Finland.
Kautsky, H., Plantman, P. & Borgiel, M., 1999. Quantitative distribution of aquatic plant and animal communities in the Forsmark-area. Stockholm, Sweden.
Segestråle, S.G., 1957. Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology. Geological Society of America 67(1): 751-800 Memoir.

Criterion A Text:
There are no quantitative data on trends in the area covered by this habitat type in the Baltic. Expert opinion is that there has been less than a 25% decline over the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
Experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to calculated EOO or AOO. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat is limited to areas of low salinity in the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland but there are no quantitative data on its geographical extent or on any changes in quality in recent or historic periods of time.  Expert opinion is that there has been less than a 25% decline in extent over the last 50 years.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged acrossthe relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed the two relevant Baltic biotopes (AA.A1D and AA.M1D) to be of Least Concern (based on criterion A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat the current expert opinion is an assessment of Least Concern in both the EU 28 and EU 28+


Habitat Type Name:
10 Kelp communities on Baltic infralittoral coarse sediment/shell gravel

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs in the photic zone in areas where the more than 90% of the seabed is comprised of coarse sediments, including shell gravel and mixed substrates according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Kelp covers at least 10% of the seabed and more than other perennial attached erect groups.  It is more common in areas exposed to wave action than sheltered locations and present in depths from around 0.5-10 m.  Three associated biotopes have been identified. ‘Baltic photic shell gravel dominated by kelp’ (AA.E1C4), ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by kelp’ (AA.M1C4) and Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by kelp’ (AA.I1C4) where perennial attached kelp species such as Saccharina latissima and Laminaria digitata constitute at least 50% of the biovolume of such algae. 
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed
indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. The lower depth limit of the kelp is a potential indicator of quality of this habitat.
Characteristic species: 
Saccharina latissima, Laminaria digitata

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest corresponsence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.11 Infralittoral coarse sediment in low or reduced salinity
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered by seawater
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.3 Subtidal loose rock/pebble/gravel
 
Other relationships:
This habitat has three sub-habitats on HUB level 6;
AA.E1C4 Baltic photic shell gravel dominated by kelp
AA.M1C4 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by kelp
AA.I1C4 Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by kelp

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Kelp forests are more typically found in fully saline waters making this a marginal habitat in the Baltic.

Map Description:
This map is based on HELCOM mapping of the presence of this habitat in 100 x 100 km cells that were converted to 10 x 10 km cells. The calculated EOO and AOO values therefore represent a maximum based on current information as the habitat may not occur in all these 10 x 10 km cells.

Comment EU28+:
EOO and AOO are based on HELCOM mapping in 100 x 100km cells that were converted to 10 x 10 km cells. The values therefore represent a maximum as the habitat may not occur in all these 10 x 10 km cell

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is only present in the western and south-western Baltic Sea. HELCOM (2013) have indicated that it occurs in six 100 x 100 km grid squares therefore it may cover a maximum of 60,000 km2, but exact figures are lacking. Further mapping is required to provide an accurate figure for the extent of this habitat and this needs to take place during the months when the vegetation is fully developed.
The quantity of the habitat is believed to have declined over the last 50 years in response to eutrophication. Climate change modelling forecasts a decrease in algal cover in the southern Baltic over the next 100 years therefore a continuing decline is expected.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information on which to assess the current quality of this habitat or any historical trends. No estimates have been made of future trends.Nevertheless as quantity is considered likely to decline an associated decline in quality seems likely.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat type does not occur in the Russian Baltic Sea area therefore 100% is hosted by EU 28. A similar habitat occurs in the North East Atlantic Regional Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat only occurs in the southern Baltic and has a small natural range. It has declined during the last 50 years as a result of reduced water quality, primarily eutrophication. This decline is predicted to continue and to be exacerbated by clima

Justification of Restricted Area:
The necessary environmental conditions (specific bottom morphology and currents) to enable shell gravel bottoms exist only within very few spatially restricted localities in the Baltic. The conditions to enable kelp species to grow on the shells, such

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication as a result of nutrient enrichment (N, P or organic matter) reduces light penetration and consequently the depths to which kelp dominated habitats can thrive. At the same time the upper distributional limit of this habitat is restricted by the low salinity conditions in much of the Baltic which hinders the establishment of kelp. Increasing siltation caused by eutrophication as well as increased turbidity arising from dumping, marine offshore construction activities, and bottom trawling may also damage existing areas as well as prevent the settlement of kelp and therefore the occurrence of this habitat. Bottom trawling and other activities may also have a direct effect by destroying reefs and dislodging kelp plants.
Climate change is a current and future threat to this habitat. Low and fluctuating salinity, as is typical for inner Danish waters, may contribute to relatively low production as osmotic stress can exert physiological stress on kelps. Temperature is also known to affect the establishment and growth rate of kelp and considered to be a plausible reason for S. latissima productivity being inhibited in Aarhus Bay (Kattegat, Denmark) after a period of decline. Increasing sea temperature could create suitable conditions for kelp habitats to extend further into the Baltic (in areas of suitable substrate), but this is considered unlikely as salinity is predicted to decline as well. Future pressures and threats are therefore likely to reduce the extent of this Baltic habitat.

Conservation and Management:
All actions to reduce physical disturbance of shell gravel/mixed substrate bottoms and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. The areas where it occurs should be protected for example by limiting or prohibiting bottom trawling, or the exploitation of oil, gas, sand or gravel.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1170: MBAL U1
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110: VU C1 
1170: VU C1 
1650: VU C1 
One biotope ‘Baltic photic shell

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Harvesting experiments have shown that sugar kelp has a relatively quick recolonization response following removal from an area but there are circumstances where this may not happen. For example, the very high sea temperatures in 1994 may have prevented recolonization in a 15 year period in the Flensburg Fjord Denmark. Timescale for recolonization after severe damage will also depend on whether the causes of decline such as eutrophication, have been addressed, whether the shell gravel substrate is still present and whether it remains suitable for recolonization.

Summary:
This habitat occurs off the coasts of Denmark, Sweden and Germany in the western Baltic, only extending into the Baltic proper as far as the island of Bornholm. Its geographical extent and the area it occupies is constrained by the extent of the shell gravel and coarse sediment substrate in areas where the salinity and light levels are high enough to support the establishment and growth of kelp.  The habitat is known to be vulnerable to nutrient enrichment, reduced light levels and smothering by suspended sediment. These pressures are believed to have led to a decline in extent of the habitat over the last 50 years. Eutrophication, coastal and offshore developments, fishing activities which disturb the seabed or dislodge kelp plants and overturn the substrate, dredging and sand and gravel extraction are other known threats.
All actions to reduce physical disturbance of shell gravel/mixed substrate bottoms and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. Proposed actions include limiting or prohibiting bottom trawling , exploitation of marine soil resources like oil, gas, sand or gravel in areas where it occurs. Reduction in salinity, especially in the Baltic proper is expected in the future as a response to climate change. This will most likely reduce the spatial distribution of most species of marine origin in the Baltic, such as the kelps which characterise this habitat, limiting their distribution to the Danish Straits.

References:
Dahl, K., Josefson, A.B., Göke, C., et al. 2013. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Biodiversity and Habitats in the Baltic Sea - and Possible Human Adaptations. In: Krarup Leth, O., Dahl, K., Peltonen, H., Krämer, I., Kule, L. (Eds.). Sectoral Impact Assessments for the Baltic Sea Region - Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity, Fisheries, Coastal Infrastructure and Tourism. Coastline Reports (21), pp. 1-34. EUCC - The Coastal Union Germany, Rostock, 2013.
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Avellan, L. (Ed). Helsinki, Finland.
Nielsen, M.M., Drause-Jensen, D., Olesen, B., et al. 2014. Growth dynamics of Saccharina latissima (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae) in Aarhus Bay, Denmark, and along the species' distribution range. Marine Biology 161(9): 2011-2022.
Schaffelke, B., Peters, A.F. and Reusch, T.B.H., 1996. Factors influencing depth distribution of soft bottom inhabiting laminaria saccharina (L) Lamour. In Kiel Bay, western Baltic. Hydrobiologia 326(7): 117-123.
Schramm, W. 1996. Marine Benthic Vegetation: Recent Changes and the Effects of Eutrophication. Springer. Schramm, W. and Nienhuis, P.H. (Eds). Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany.

Criterion A Text:
This habitat is only present in the EU 28. There has been a decrease in area covered by the kelp biotope associated with shell gravel over the last 50 years but no quantitative data on trends in the overall area covered by this habitat type in the Baltic. Expert opinion is that there is the potential for more than a 25% decline in the next 50 years associated with climate change (temperature and salinity in particular). This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criteria A.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is only present in the EU 28. EOO and AOO calculations are based on reported presence of this habitat in 100 x 100 km grid squares. These are considered likely to be maximum figures as the habitat is not present in the aphotic zone but such occurrences could not be excluded from the calculations due to limitations with the underlying data. A continuing decline in extent and quality of this habitat is considered likely but cannot be quantified at the present time. The habitat is capable of becoming Critically Endangered or Collapsed within a very short period of time because of threats associated with climate change (temperature and salinity in particular) that could cover the full range of this habitat in the Baltic. It has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criteria B.

Synthesis:
This habitat is only present in the EU 28 in the Baltic Sea. The necessary environmental conditions (specific bottom morphology and currents) to enable shell gravel bottoms exist only within very few spatially restricted localities in the Baltic. Whilst these are known in general terms there is a lack of quantitative data on the extent and quality of this habitat. The current Red List assessment has therefore been based on expert opinion.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. HELCOM (2013) assessed one of the associated biotopes (kelp on shell gravel) to be Near Threatened (based on criterion B1a (ii)). Kelp on coarse sediment and kelp on mixed substrate was assessed as Least Concern. Given the scarcity of kelp habitats on shell gravel and coarse sediment in the Baltic region, continuation of known threats, and the predicted increase in pressure on this habitat associated with climate change (temperature and salinity in particular), expert opinion has been used to assess this habitat as Near Threatened for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AA.E1C4 Baltic photic shell gravel dominated by kelp.


Habitat Type Name:
2 Perennial algal communities (excluding kelp) on Baltic infralittoral rock and mixed substrata (predominantly hard)

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is rock, boulders or stones and mixed (predominantly hard) substrates according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Perennial attached algae such as Fucus spp., or perennial red algae cover at least 10% of the seabed and more than other perennial attached erect groups. It is most common in areas exposed to wave action and typically occurs to depths of around 0.5 m.
Eight associated biotopes with different dominant species of algae have been described by HELCOM. ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders/mixed substrata dominated by Fucus spp.’ (AA.A1C1/AAM1C1) such as Fucus radicans, F. serratus or F. vesiculosus, is found in depths of 0.5–5m and in salinities over 4 psu. ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders/mixed substrata dominated by perennial non-filamentous corticated red algae’ (AA.A1C2/AA.M1C2) such as Furcellaria lumbricalis occurs at a depths of 2–10 m in similar salinities. These four biotopes are present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins and are widely distributed, although not Bothnian Bay nor the most eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders/mixed substrata dominated by perennial foliose red algae’ (AA.A1C3/AA.M1C3) such as Coccotylus spp., Phyllophora spp. and Delesseria spp. is typically found in depths of 2–10 m and in salinities over 4 psu. They are present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins and are also widely distributed although also not in the Bothnian Bay nor the eastern half of the Gulf of Finland. ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders/mixed substrata dominated by perennial filamentous algae’ (AA.A1C5/AA.M1C5) such as Polysiphonia spp, Aegagrophila linnaei, Cladophora rupestris is found at depths of 0.5–10 m, in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins.
Indicators of quality: 
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis
The lower depth limit of algae, especially Fucus spp. where applicable, and the amount of epiphytic algae are potential indicators of quality of this habitat. 
Characteristic species: 
Fucus spp., Furcellaria lumbricalis, Coccotylus truncatus, Phyllophora spp., Delesseria sanguinea, Polysiphonia spp., Cladophora rupestris, Sphacelaria spp.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest corresponsence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A3.4 Baltic exposed infralittoral rock, A3.5 Baltic moderately exposed infralittoral rock and A3.6 Baltic sheltered infralittoral rock
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
 
Other relationships
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013).
This habitat has eight biotopes on HUB level 6;
AA.A1C1 Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by Fucus spp
AA.A1C2 Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial non-filamentous corticated red algae
AA.A1C3 Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial foliose red algae
AA.A1C5 Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial filamentous algae 
A further 4 biotopes described by HELCOM but on mixed substrata (predominantly hard) are also part of this habitat type (AA.M1C1, AA.M1C2, AA.M1C3, AA.M1C5).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occupies the major part of photic hard substrate in the entire Baltic Sea. The species composition is very characteristic of the shallower waters of the Baltic. Fucus spp. and Furcellaria lumbricalis are typically the dominating species, although where salinity decreases they are replaced by perennial green algae. The permanently submerged nature of the Fucus and Furcellaria is unusual (in other regional seas these are typical of an intertidal zone), and the gradation to domination by perennial green algae is unique to the Baltic Sea. The low species diversity of macroalgae, with the communities typically made up of a small number of species is also unique to the Baltic Sea.

Map Description:
There is insufficient data to provide a comprehensive accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has therefore been generated using the modelled data available on EMODnet for EUNIS level 3 habitats in the Baltic Sea (EMODnet, 2010). As such it indicates potential areas in which this habitat may occur according to the model, not its actual distribution.

Trends in Quantity:
Significant changes in extent of this habitat, most particularly in its depth distribution, have been reported over the last 60 years. Fucus vesiculosus dominated areas in the Bothnian Sea, for example were six times more common and grew deeper and denser in the 1970s'. In the Gulf of Finland, bladder wrack belts in some areas are now growing to depths of 5-7 m whereas before the 1970s', single plants were even reported from 10 m. There has been some recovery since then. Macroalgae dominated habitats in many parts of the Baltic are now in good condition although inhabiting a narrower depth band but in some areas, such as Puck Bay and the Gulf of Riga, the Fucus dominated habitat is no longer present. Similar changes took place in F. lumbricalis beds between the 1940s and 1960s with declines in the maximum depth of the species and an increase in abundance of filamentous annual macroalgae.
The decrease in extent of this habitat throughout the Baltic over the last 50 years. has been attributed to reduction in water clarity. The consequences have been changes in depth distribution, reduction in the occupied depth band, and disappearance of the associated Fucus from some locations (e.g. Gulf of Riga). In some areas the habitat is believed to have declined in extent by up to 50% in the last 50 years but some recovery has also been seen. On the scale of the whole Baltic Sea the decline is believed to have been less than 25%.  A small further reduction of extent is predicted for the coming 50 years.

Trends in Quality:
The average and lower depth limit of the macroalgae belt in the Baltic has decreased over the last 50 years. There have also been changes in the algal and faunal species composition such as an increase of abundance of filamentous annual macroalgae in some areas (e.g. Puck Lagoon, the Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland). There is insufficient information to determine trends in quality over the last 50 years.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU 28 would be less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic sub-basins so does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic sub-basins so does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
Decreased light levels or increased epiphytic growth as a result of eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) are believed to be the main pressures resulting in the changes in the extent and quality of this habitat over the last 50 years. There are a number of pathways for such effects. Increased nutrient levels stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which increases the concentration of particles in water and reduces the penetration of light within the water column. As nutrients are available in sufficient amounts for longer times throughout the year, phytoplankton blooms also last longer and occur more often during the season. This shortens the optimal growth periods for macrophytes. The reduced light can also confine the vertical distribution of vegetation communities as well as the biomass of algae. Increased nutrient levels stimulate the growth of opportunistic macrophytes. Their small size with fine, highly branched filamentous structure, provides a high surface to volume ratio and therefore a high rate of nutrient uptake. This enables such species to grow rapidly if abiotic conditions (light, temperature) are also favourable. The effects of eutrophication on this habitat have been most apparent through a reduced width of the depth zone occupied by the characteristic species.
Activities which increase turbidity or remove substrate, such as offshore constructions and stone fishing, are additional known pressures as is localised pollution, for example in the Stockholm archipelago, Tallinn Bay and Gulf of Riga. Changes in sea temperature, ice cover/scour and salinity associated with climate change will add to these pressures. For example, although F. lumbricalis is known for its wide tolerance range for salinity, sexual reproduction is curtailed below 7 psu where regeneration occurs via asexual reproduction. This can reduce genetic diversity and therefore make populations vulnerable to sudden environmental changes. Furthermore, as the salinity declines, a larger part of the shallow benthic primary production on hard bottom will be taken over by species tolerant of lower salinity such as green algal species like gut weed (Enteromorpha intestinalis) and Cladophora spp.

Conservation and Management:
Improvements in water quality (reduction of nutrient inputs) are considered to have been a major factor in the recovery of the perennial macroalgal habitat in the Baltic as this has increased light penetration and reduced the scope for rapid and blanketing smothering of the canopy-forming species by ephiphytic annual algae. Controls on coastal and offshore constructions to avoid increasing turbidity and direct removal or damage to the habitat are also important conservation and management measures.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1160: MBAL U2
1170: MBAL U1
1650: MBAL U2.
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1160: VU C1 
1650: VU C1 
1170: VU C1
HELCOM (2013) assessments of all the associated biotopes

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The characteristic species Fucus vesiculosus and Furcellaria lumbricalis have a short natural reproduction cycle of up to 5 years therefore if environmental conditions are favorable and there is a seed population available, the habitat can recover over timescales of a few years to a decade. Boulders are common in areas composed of lag deposits covering boulder clay of Pleistocene origin. Such areas have the potential for hard-bottom regeneration by natural abrasion where 'stone fishing' has removed the substrate. In other situations artificial reef creation may be an option.

Summary:
This is a benthic habitat in the photic zone where the predominant substrate is rock. It has a widespread distribution in the Baltic Sea where the substrate is suitable although some of the characteristic species, such as Fucus spp. and Furcellaria lumbricalis, are missing from areas with very low salinity. The algae provide a surface for attachment for many epiphytic species and shelter for epibenthic species making this one of the most species-rich habitats in the Baltic. The depth zone occupied is determined by light penetration.
Eutrophication is one of the principal causes of the changes in this habitat because of its effects on the macroalgae. The higher nutrient levels (N, P, organic matter) can increase turbidity and lead to smothering of macroalgae by supporting more epiphytic growth. There may also be a change in the dominant species. For example the kelp Saccharina latissima which is adapted to lower light levels can move into shallow depths and out-compete Fucus.
Improvements in water quality (reduction of nutrient inputs) are considered to have been a major factor in the recovery of this habitat as this has led to improved light penetration through the water column and reduction in the scope for rapid and blanketing smothering of the canopy-forming species by epiphytic annual algae. Controls on coastal and offshore construction to avoid increasing turbidity and on the direct removal and damage to infralittoral rock surfaces would be beneficial conservation measures.

References:
Andersin, A.B., Grimas, U., Kangas, P. et al. 1986. Review of the Biology of the Gulf of Bothnia.
Bäck, S. and Ruuskanen, A. 2000. Distribution and maximum growth depth of Fucus vesiculosus along the Gulf of Finland. Marine Biology 136(2): 303-307.
Berger, R., Bergström, L., Granéli, E. and Kautsky, L. 2004. How does eutrophication affect different life stages of Fucus vesiculuosus in the Baltic Sea? A conceptual model. Hydrobiologia 514(1-3): 243-248.
Bergstrom, L., Diekmann, R., Flinkman, J. et al. 2010. Integrated ecosystem assessments of seven Baltic sea areas covering the last three decades. Diekmann, R. and Möllmann, C. (Eds.). Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bucas, M., Daunys, D. and Olenin, S. 2007. Overgrowth patterns of the red algae Furcellaria lumbricalis at an exposed Baltic Sea coast: The results of an underwater video data analysis. Estuarine Coastal & Shelf Science 75(3): 308-316.
Dahl, K., Josefson, A.B., Göke, C. et al. 2013. Climate Change Impacts on Marine Biodiversity and Habitats in the Baltic Sea - and Possible Human Adaptations. In: Krarup Leth, O., Dahl, K., Peltonen, H., Krämer, I., Kule, L.(eds.). Sectoral Impact Assessments for the Baltic Sea Region - Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity, Fisheries, Coastal Infrastructure and Tourism. Coastline Reports (21), pp. 1-34. EUCC - The Coastal Union Germany, Rostock, 2013. 
Eriksson, B.K., Johansson, G. and Snoeijs, P. 1998. Long-term changes in the sublittoral zonation of brown algae in the southern Bothnian Sea. European Journal of Phycology 33(3): 241-249.
HELCOM. 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Zweifel, U.L. and Laamanen M. (Eds.). Helsinki, Finland.
HELCOM. 2013. Fucus serratus. Species Information Sheet. Available at: http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20Species%20Information%20Sheet/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20Fucus%20serratus.pdf. (Accessed: 16/07/2015).
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Kontula, T. and Haldin, J. (Eds.). Helsinki, Finland.
Martin, G., Kotta, J., Möller, T. and Herkül, K. 2013. Spatial distribution of marine benthic habitats in the Estonian coastal sea, northeastern Baltic Sea. Estonian Journal of Ecology 62(3): 165-191.
Martin, G., Kukk, E., Kukk, H. and Kotta, J. 2004. Historical review of the literature on the phytobenthic investigations in the Gulf of Riga. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences Biology and Ecology 53(4): 236.
Olenin, S. and Daunys, D. 2004. Baltic Sea Typology Coastline Reports. Schernewski, G. and Wielgat (Eds). KlaipÄ—da, Lithuania.
Schwarzer, K., Bohling, B. and Heinrich, C. 2014. Submarine hard-bottom substrates in the western Baltic Sea – human impact versus natural development. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 70. pg 1-6.
Snickars, M., Rinne, H., Salovius-Lauren, S., Arponen, H. and O'Brien, K. 2014. Disparity in the occurrence of Fucus vesiculosus in two adjacent areas of the Baltic Sea - current status and outlook for the future. Boreal Environment Research 19(5/6): 441-451.
Torn, K., Krause-Jensen, D. and Martin, G. 2006. Present and past depth distribution of bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus) in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Botany 84(1): 53-62.
Vogt, H. and Schramm, W. 1991. Conspicuous decline of Fucus in Kiel Bay (Western Baltic): what are the causes? Marine Ecology Progress Series 69: 189-194.

Criterion A Text:
Changes in extent of this habitat have been reported in studies undertaken since the 1940s' and these reveal that Fucus and Furcellaria beds have declined and now occupy a narrower depth band in many places. In some areas it is estimated that up to 50% of the extent has been lost but on the whole Baltic Sea scale the reduction is believed to be less than 25%. In recent years some beds have also become re-established in places where they became absent in the 1990s'. A small further reduction of extent is predicted for the coming 50 years.
Expert opinion is that overall this habitat has not declined by more than 25% over the last 50 years. Likely future trends in quantity have not been determined although a small future reduction is predicted over the next 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The distribution of some of the characteristic species associated with this habitat are well known but comprehensive quantitative data on its extent and area are not available. There are trend data from some locations (e.g. since 1943 in the outer Oregrund archipelago in the southern Bothnian Sea) and country specific data (e.g. estimated coverage of at least 52 km2 in Estonia and a maximum of 1 km2 in Lithuania), however the precise extent of this habitat is unknown. Likely future trends in quantity have not been determined although a small future reduction is predicted over the next 50 years. For example it has been suggested that if trends in temperature, total phosphorus concentration and chlorophyll a continue, water quality in the Bothnian Sea will deteriorate within 2-3 decades and reach levels that may lead to major losses of F. vesiculosis. 
Expert opinion is that although there are shortcomings with the data used to calculate EOO and AOO, because  this habitat is known to be present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins, does not have a restricted geographic distribution, and the associated threats are not limited to a few locations it should be assessed as Least Concern under Criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been some reduction in the quality of this habitat, indicated by smothering of macroalgae by epiphytes and reduction in the occupied depth zone but also some improvement in recent years. Experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to quantify this reduction and are therefore unable to make an assessment under criteria C/D for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
Changes in extent of this habitat have been reported in studies undertaken since the 1940s' and these reveal that Fucus and Furcellaria beds have declined and now occupy a narrower depth band in many places. In some areas it is estimated that up to 50% of the extent has been lost but on the whole Baltic Sea scale the reduction is believed to be less than 25%. In recent years some beds have also become re-established in places where they became absent in the 1990s'.
Reduction in habitat quality has also been apparent in some areas as changes in the algal and faunal species composition. This has been reported as an increase of abundance of smothering and fast growing filamentous annual macroalgae. There are concerns about possible future declines in extent and quality of this habitat. For example it has been suggested that if trends in temperature, total phosphorus concentration and chlorophyll a continue, water quality in the Bothnian Sea will deteriorate within 2-3 decades and reach levels that may lead to major losses of F. vesiculosis.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion.HELCOM (2013) assessed the eight relevant Baltic biotopes to be of Least Concern (based on criterion A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat, a restricted distribution, and less than a 25% decline in quantity over the last 50 years, current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Least Concern  for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
4 Stable aggregations of unattached perennial vegetation on Baltic infralittoral mixed substrata (predominantly hard)

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where more tham 10% of the seabed is a mix of both hard and soft substrata according to the HELCOM classification. Stable aggregations of unattached perennial vegetation covers at least 10%, while perennial attached erect groups or Mytilus cover less than 10% of the bottom. The habitat occurs in most of the Baltic Sea area where the salinity is <10 or 5 psu (depending on the area), the exposure is sheltered and the seabed is level over wide areas within the photic zone.
Four associated biotopes with different dominant species of vegetation (constituting at least 50% of the biovolume) have been identified. ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (typical form)’ (AA.M1Q1) and ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis’ (AA.M1Q3) are encountered at depths of 0.5 to 5 meters. The unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis may occur in specific, ball-shaped morphology adapted to soft bottom conditions, and was historically described as Furcellaria cf. aegagropila.; ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached rigid hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum)’ (AA.M1Q4) is encountered at a depth of 0 to 2 meters.
‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ (AA.M1Q2) forms a characteristic biotope of shallow bays and lagoons between 0.25 and 2.5 m. This specific morphology of the Fucus spp. lacks bladders and holdfasts and the single plants can be loosely anchored in the sediment. Under more exposed conditions plants form a ball-shaped form, able to roll over the sea bottom. The Fucus dwarf forms coexist with attached F. vesiculosus, unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis, higher plants like Ruppia spp., Zannichellia palustris, Stuckenia pectinatus (formerly known as Potamogeton pectinatus), Zostera spp. and several Charophytes. The unattached thalli can cover the sediment up to about 10 cm height and thus form a three-dimensional habitat comparable to the interstitial space in coarse sediments. Epifauna is seldom attached to the Fucus dwarf form, but gastropods, amphipods and insects look for shelter and food in between the loose lying thalli. If abundances of the unattached form are very high, the sediment below becomes deoxygenated and the associated infauna below the Fucus layer may die. Presently this biotope is only known to occur in Sweden and Germany. In Germany it exists only in very few coastal lagoons with low to moderate eutrophication pressures and salinities of around 7–10 psu.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time. There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
Density of unattached Fucus spp. (typical and dwarf forms), the lower limit of the Furcellaria belt, the amount of epiphytic algae, and density of Furcellaria are potential indicators of quality of this habitat.
Characteristic species: 
Fucus vesiculosus (typical and dwarf form), Furcellaria lumbricalis (incl. Furcellaria cf. aegagropila), Ceratophyllum demersum.

Classification:
EUNIS:  
The closest corresponsence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A3.4 Baltic exposed infralittoral rock, A3.5 Baltic moderately exposed infralittoral rock and A3.6 Baltic sheltered infralittoral rock, and A5.52 Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment.
 
Annex 1:
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM, however this habitat may occur in the following Annex 1 habitats:
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow coarse sediments
Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.3 Sublittoral Loose Rock/Pebble/Gravel
9.7 Macroalgal/Kelp
9.10 Estuaries
 
Other relationships:
EUNIS (2004) A5.54: Angiosperm communities in reduced salinity corresponds to the sub-habitat - AA.M1Q4 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached rigid hornwort (Ceratophyllun demersum).
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AA.M1Q Baltic photic mixed substrate characterized by stable aggregations of unattached perennial vegetation.
This habitat has four biotopes on HUB level 6:
AA.M1Q1 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (typical form)
SS.M2Q2 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)
AA.M1Q3 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis
AA.M1Q4 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of runattached rigid hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum)

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The typical species of this habitat may be found in other European regional seas but the characteristic unattached growth form is unique to the Baltic Sea.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins occurring in areas of level seabed in the photic zone. There are distribution records for the characteristic species (Fucus spp and Fucellaria lumbricalis) but incomplete quantitative data on the area and extent of the habitat. The associated biotopes have differing distributions. For example areas characterized by unattached Furcellaria lumbricalis can be found in the Estonian west coast, Belt Sea and the German part of the southern Baltic Proper. Areas characterized by Fucus spp. (typical form)’ can be found in northern Bothnian Sea whereas Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ can only be found in the southern Baltic Proper off the German coast. Areas where the mixed substrate is dominated by stable aggregations of unattached rigid hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum) are generally found in sheltered bays and inlets all around the Baltic Sea.
The biotope dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ is estimated to have reduced in extent by more 50% over the past 50 years. Similar pressures appear to have led to a reduction in extent of the other associated biotopes (e.g. Furcellaria in Puck Bay) they but there is insufficient quantifiable data on which to make an assessment. Historical trends are unknown and it can be expected that the potential area of occurrence will be reduced in the future due to eutrophication and climate change.

Trends in Quality:
One of the associated biotopes ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ has shown a severe decline in quality, estimated to be over 20% of its area of occurrence, over the last 50 years. There is insufficient information on which to determine quality of the other three associated biotopes or of past or future trends in quality of this habitat. Overall trends in quality are therefore unknown.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs probably in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU 28 is therefore less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
One of the associated biotopes, AA.M1Q2 ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)’ has a small range following regression. The other three associated biotopes are not beli

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic sub-basins and so does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
Past and current threats to this habitat are associated with eutrophication (increase in N, P and organic matter), contaminant pollution and the introduction of toxic substances into the marine environment. There has also been some commercial exploitation of the unattached macroalgae in Poland and there is still commercial exploitation of the Furcellaria sub-biotope in Estonia.
Observed declines of the spatial distribution of the unattached Fucus spp. dwarf form biotope are mainly caused by eutrophication and its connected impacts/threats. Decreased light penetration depth, massive growth of filamentous algae and increased sedimentation/siltation cause massive alterations in the habitat conditions of sheltered coastal zones. The enclosed characteristic of bays and lagoons intensify the eutrophication impacts. Coastal constructions (ditching, deepening of harbour access channels, leisure facilities) and increased tourism has led to a further degradation of the biotope. The threat level is particularly high in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In the future climate change (increasing exposure levels, temperatures) or increasing aquaculture in bays may add to the pressures on this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Combatting local sources of eutrophication (mainly from agriculture) as well as conservation measures, such as restrictions on coastal constructions and dredging, in shallow coastal lagoons and archipelago areas can prevent damage and loss of this habitat.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1130: MBAL U2
1160: MBAL U2
1170: MBAL U1
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1130 CR, C1
1160 VU C1 
1170 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The characteristic species Fucus vesiculosus and Furcellaria lumbricalis have a natural reproduction cycle of 1-2 years, but they take several years to reach full size. If the environmental conditions are favourable and there is a seed population available, the habitat can recover in the time, over periods of a few years to a decade.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all the sub-basins of the Baltic Sea but is more typically found in moderately exposed to sheltered areas. The unattached forms of perennial vegetation can coexist with attached forms and as well as the characteristic rooted vegetation of bays, estuaries and lagoons. The unattached perennial vegetation can increase diversity by providing shelter and surface for attachment to invertebrates and algae. However, if abundances of the unattached form are very high, the sediment below may become deoxygenated and the associated infauna may die.
The main reasons for declines in extent are believed to be increased eutrophication and its related impacts. Decreased light penetration depth, massive growth of filamentous algae and increased sedimentation/siltation cause massive alterations in the habitat conditions of sheltered coastal zones. The enclosed characteristic of bays and lagoons intensify the eutrophication impacts. Commercial exploitation, coastal constructions (ditching, deepening of harbour access channels), leisure facilities and increased tourism has led to a further degradation of the habitat. The threat level is particularly high in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In the future climate change (increasing exposure levels, temperatures) or increasing aquaculture in bays may cause additional threats.Combatting local sources of eutrophication (mainly agriculture) as well as conservation measures, such as restrictions on coastal construction and dredging, in shallow coastal lagoons and archipelago areas can prevent damage and loss of this habitat.

References:
Bauch, R. 1954. Biologisch-ökologische Studien an der Gattung Fucus. I. Populationsdynamik der Fucusformen von hiddensee. Flora 142(1-24): 1-24.
HELCOM, 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Zweifel U.L. and Laamanenaltic, M. (Eds). Helsinki, Finland.
HELCOM, 2013. HELCOM Red List Biotope information sheets. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Background/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20Biotope%20Information%20Sheets%20(BIS).pdf. (Accessed: 16/07/2015).
Institute of Oceanography, University of GdaÅ„sk et al, 2009. Atlas of Polish marine area bottom habitats. Environmental valorization of marine habtiats. Broker-Innowacji, Gdynia.
Kersen, P. and Martin, G. 2007. Annual biomass loss of the loose-lying red algae community via macroalgal beach casats in the Väinameri area, NE. Baltic Sea. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Biology, Ecology 56(4): 278-289.
Martin, G., Kukk, E., Kukk, H. & Kotta, 2004. Historical review of the literature on the phytobenthic investigations in the Gulf of Riga. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences Biology and Ecology 53(4): 236.
Martin, G., Paalme, T. and Torn, K. 2006. Seasonality pattern of biomass accumulation in a drifting Furcellaria lumbricalis community in the waters of the West Estonian Archipelago, Baltic Sea. Journal of Applied Phycology 18(3-5): 557-563.
Ojaveer, H. 1999. Exploitation of biological resources of the Baltic Sea by Estonia in 1928-1995. Limnologica 29(3): 224-226.
Olenin, S. and Daunys, D. 2004. Coastal typology based on benthic biotope and community data: The Lithuanian case study. Baltic Sea Typology Coastline Reports 4: 65-83.
Overbeck, J. 1965. Die Meeresalgen und ihre Gesellschaften an den Küsten der Insel Hiddensee (Ostsee). Botanica Marina 8(2-4): 218-233.
von Oertzen. J.-A. 1968. Untersuchungen über die Besiedlung der Fucusvegetation der Gewässer um Hiddensee. Z. Fischerei 16(34): 253-277.
Segestråle, S.G. 1957. Chapter 24. Baltic Sea. Geological Society of America 67(1): 751-800.

Criterion A Text:
Some localised loss of this habitat have been reported (e.g. Puck Bay, Poland) particularly for the dwarf form of unattached Fucus spp. Although information about the unattached Fucus dwarf form biotopes is rare, comparisons of historical records with the present distribution in German coastal lagoons give hints to a decline of >25% during the last 50 years. On the Swedish coast the decline was considerably greater but there has been some recovery. The dwarf Fucus biotope is believed to make up less than 5% of this habitat type, therefore current expert opinion is that overall reduction in quantity is less than 25%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A.

Criterion B Text:
Comprehensive quantitative data on the extent and area covered by this habitat is not available but there are some relevant records such as quotas and landings from the commercial collection of unattached seaweed in Estonia, and modelling studies e.g. from the Asko area of Sweden. Some localised loss has been reported (e.g. Puck Bay, Poland) particularly for the dwarf form of unattached Fucus spp. Because it is present in all the Baltic sea sub-basins the EOO exceeds 50,000 km2. Although some potential trends have been identified, there is also a lack of information on which to base any estimation of future trends in geographical distribution or threatening processes. Experts therefore consider this habitat to be Data Deficient under Criteria B.

Synthesis:
This habitat is known to occur in all the sub-basins of the Baltic Sea although favouring sheltered areas. Information is also available on the distribution of the characteristic species (Fucus and Furcellaria). Declines in extent have mostly been reported for the unattached Fucus spp. dwarf form biotope (also the rarest biotope associated with this habitat) but areas dominated by other species (e.g. Furcellaria) have also seen a decline. In other cases (Fucus vesiculosus beds) modelled distributions suggest a possible increase in cover of attached forms.
The overall assessment for this EUNIS level 4 habitat has been based on the HELCOM (2013) assessments for the associated HELCOM HUB biotopes. Draft assessments were derived using a weighted approach whereby the HELCOM assessment outcomes were assigned a score. This was averaged across the relevant biotopes. The outcomes were reviewed by Baltic experts to reach a final conclusion. 
HELCOM (2013) assessed the the unattached dwarf form of Fucus (AA.M1Q2) as EN(A1). The other associated biotopes (AA.M1Q1, AA.M1Q3 and AA.M1Q4) were assessed as LC (A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat, a known occurrence in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins, and less than a 25% decline in quantity over the last 50 years, current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Least Concern for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AA.M1Q2 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form).


