# European Red List of Habitats Table

Habitat Type Name:
49 Epibenthic communities in Baltic upper circalittoral mixed sediment

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone. The substrate is a mix of  soft or crystalline rock, boulders or stones mixed with mobile substrates such as sand or coarse substrate as well as muddy sands as defined in the HELCOM HUB classification. It typically occurs in depths from 20-150m and seven associated biotopes have been described, some of which are more common in particular depth zones. The biotopes are variously characterised by epibenthic bivalves, chordates, cnidarians (soft corals and sea anemones), bryozoans, crustaceans, sponges and a mixed epibenthic macrocommunity. Some occur in all the sub-basins of the Baltic Sea whereas as others, such as aphotic mixed substrates characterised by epibenthic sponges, are only reported from the Belt Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. Depending on the dominant species the biotope may either be encrusting or form a layer of living material extending 20cm about 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 fauna are potential indicators of quality.
Characteristic species:  
The characteristic species differ depening on the dominant biotope. They include ; Mytilus spp. and Modiolus modiolus; Ascidians, such as Ciona intestinalis, Dendrodoa grossularia, Molgula spp., Corella parallellogramma, Ascidia mentula, Ascidia virginea and Ascidia obliqua; epibenthic cnidarians Laomedea spp., Cordylophora caspia, Edwardsia spp, Metridium senile, Gonactinia prolifera, Urticina felina, Stomphia coccinea, Sagartia elegans; bryozoans Electra crustulenta, Flustra foliacea, Eucratea loricata) as well as barnacles Amphibalanus improvises, Balanus crenatus, Semibalanus balanoides and sponges such as  Haliclona oculata.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mixed 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 all the time
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
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.5 Subtidal sandy mud
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB (2013) classification: 
AB.M1E– Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by epibenthic bivalves This habitat has one sub-habitat on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic mixed substrates dominated by Mytilidae’ (AB.M1E1).
AB.M1F–Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by epibenthic chordates
AB.M1G–Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by epibenthic cnidarians This habitat has in total four sub-habitats on HELCOM HUB level 6, of which two (AB.M1G3 ‘Baltic aphotic mixed sediment dominated by stone corals (Scleractinida)’ and
AB.M1G4 ‘Baltic aphotic mixed sediment dominated by soft corals (Alcyonacea)’) are only encountered in Kattegat and are thus excluded from the Baltic Sea European Red List of habitats assessment. The two sub-habitats included in the Baltic Sea European Red List of habitats are ‘Baltic aphotic mixed substrate dominated hydroids (Hydrozoa)’ (AB.M1G1), and ‘Baltic aphotic mixed substrate dominated by sea anemones (Actiniarida)’ (AB.M1G2)
AB.M1H–Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by epibenthic moss animals (Bryozoa) This habitat has two sub-habitats on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by crustose moss animals (Electra crustulenta)’ (AB.M1H1) ‘Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by erect moss animals (Flustra foliaceae)’ (AB.M1H2)
AB.M1I– Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by epibenthic crustacea This habitat has one sub-habitat on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic mixed substrate dominated by barnacles (Balanidae)’ (AB.M1I1).
AB.M1J: Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by epibenthic sponges
AB.M1V–Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by mixed epibenthic macrocommunity.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occurs throughout the Baltic with the associated biotopes (e.g. dominated by Mytilidae and by bryozoans) mostly typical and characteristic for the Baltic brackish waters although some, such as the biotopes dominated by epibenthic sponges are more unusual.

Trends in Quantity:
Different trends in quantity have been identified for the different associated biotopes, with all except one believed to have declined between 10-30% over the last 50 years. Future declines in extent are predicted for those biotopes dominated by bryozoans and by Mytilids.

Trends in Quality:
There have been some declines in quality of some of the associated biotopes (e.g. in the order of 10% for biotopes dominated by Mytilidae) but in most cases there is insufficient information to make a trend analysis.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Overall no, but some of the associated biotopes do have a small natural range following regression. This is the case for areas dominated by erect bryozoans and those dominated by epibenthic sponges.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication is a major threat to this habitat. The growth rate of annual macrophyte algae is known to increase due to higher nutrient concentrations in the water, which might restrict the available substrate for the settlement by epifaunal turf communities. The increased siltation rate due to eutrophication, further reduces the availability of hard substrates especially impeding the settlement of larvae. A higher particle concentration in the water may also impede the filter feeding efficiency of some characteristic species such as adult Flustra foliacea. Oxygen depletion due to eutrophication is seen as less serious threat. This habitat is also threatened by physical disturbance by bottom trawling, offshore construction work and exploitation of soil resources, in the same way as several other hard bottom habitats.

Conservation and Management:
All actions which aim to reduce physical disturbance of aphotic habitats on mixed hard and soft substrates in the Baltic Sea would benefit this habitat. In addition, appointing protected areas where the habitat is known to occur and restricting bottom trawling, offshore construction work and exploitation of sand and gravel in these areas would constitute an effective conservation measure. Further mapping activities should be carried out to better delineate the area of occurrence.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1160 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2013) have assessed AB.M1E1, AB.M1G1, A

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The associated biotopes dominated by bryozoans have the potential to fairly quickly recolonise destroyed areas after the pressure/threat has been removed and the environmental conditions are restored. The recovery potential is unknown for the other associated biotopes. The overall capacity for recovery is therefore unknown.

Summary:
This is a benthic habitat in the aphotic zone. It occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins although some of the associated biotopes have a more restricted distribution. Areas dominated by epibenthic sponges for example are only present in the Belt Sea and Gulf of Bothnia, while those dominated by hydroids and sea anemones do not occur in the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Riga.
Eutrophication is a major threat to this habitat. It is also threatened by physical disturbance by bottom trawling, offshore construction work and sand and gravel extraction. All actions which aim to reduce physical disturbance of aphotic habitats on mixed hard and soft substrates in the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of this habitat. In addition, appointing protected areas where the habitat is known to occur and restricting activities which cause direct damage or disturbance to the seabed would be beneficial to this habitat. Further mapping activities should be carried out to better delineate the area of occurrence.

References:
Barthel D., Wolfrath B. 1989. Tissue sloughing in the sponge Halichondria panacea: afouling organism prevent being fouled. Oecologia 78: 357-360.
Bitschofsky F., Forster S., Scholz J. 2011. Introduction in: ‘Regional and temporal changes in epizoobiontic bryozoan-communities of Flustra foliacea (Linnaeus, 1758) and implications for North Sea ecology’. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 91(3): 423–433.
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.
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138.
Hiscock, K., Wilson, E. 2007. Metridium senile. Plumose anemone. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=3806
Moen, E., Svenson, E. 2009. Djurliv i havet: Nordeuropeisk marin fauna. Nordstedts. 768 pp.
OCEANA. 2011. Conservation proposals for ecologically important areas in the Baltic Sea. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/OCEANA_Baltic_report_2011_ENG.pdf
OSPAR 2008. OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats.
Stresemann E., Hannemann H.-J., Klausnitzer B. Senglaub K. 1992. Exkursionsfauna von Deutschland. Band 1, Wirbellose (ohne Insekten). Volk und Wissen Verlag gmbH Berlin.
Picton, B.E., Morrow, C.C. 2010. Encyclopedia of Marine Life of Britain and Ireland. Available at: http://www.habitas.org.uk/marinelife/index.html (viewed may 29 2013)
Ryland J.S., Hayward P.J. 1977. British anascan bryozoans. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series), No. 10. Academic Press, London.
Stresemann E., Hannemann H.-J., Klausnitzer B. Senglaub K. 1992. Exkursionsfauna von Deutschland. Band 1, Wirbellose (ohne Insekten). Volk und Wissen Verlag gmbH Berlin.
Tyler-Walters H., Ballerstedt S. 2007. Flustra foliacea. Hornwrack. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 08/07/2013]. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/generalbiology.php?speciesID=3342

Criterion A Text:
All except one of the associated biotopes are believed to have declined, and in some cases this has been estimated to be up to 30% in the last 50 years. This habitat is therefore assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A. Future declines in extent are predicted for those biotopes dominated by bryozoans and by Mytilids.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is found in all the Baltic sub-basins therefore EOO exceeds 50,000 km2 however with no quantitative data on habitat extent or area, accurate calculation of EOO and AOO is not possible at the present time. Future declines in extent are predicted for those biotopes dominated by bryozoans and by Mytilids but the overall future trend is unknown.

Synthesis:
This habitat is known to occur in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins but quantiative data on the area covered is not available. There are considered to have been significant declines (up to 30%) in the extent of many of the associated biotopes and predicted future declines. Some decline in quality (up to an estimated 10%) has also been reported for some of the associated biotopes but the overall trend is uncertain. 
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 four of the associated biotopes as NT(A1), and four as LC(A1). One further biotope was not evaluated. On the basis of these assessments and expert opinion, this habitat is assessed as Near Threatened, since there has been an estimated 10-30% decline in quantity over the last 50 years.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AB.M1F1 Baltic aphotic mixed hard and soft substrates dominated by sea squirts
AB.M1G2 Baltic aphotic mixed hard and soft substrates dominated sea anemones (Actiniarida)
AB.M1H2 Baltic aphotic mixed hard and soft substrates dominated by ere


Habitat Type Name:
50 Infaunal communities in Baltic upper circalittoral mixed sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs in the Baltic on aphotic bottoms with 10- 90% coverage of hard (rock/boulders/stone) and 10-90% soft substrata (e.g. muddy/coarse sediment/sand) according to the HELCOM HUB classification. 
Indicators of quality:
None indentified
Characteristic species: 
None identified

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mixed 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 all the time
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
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.5 Subtidal sandy mud

Comment EU28+:
This habitat is widespread however there is insufficient quantitative data to make an accurate estimate of EOO and AOO.

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

Pressures and Threats:
No pressures and threats have been identified specifically for this habitat.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1160 VU C1
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2013) did not evaluate this habitat type.

Summary:
There is insufficient information to full describe any pressures and threats or conservation management measures for this habitat at the present time.

References:
HELCOM 2013. HELCOM HUB. Technical Report on the HELCOM Underwater Biotope and habitat classification Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 139.

Criterion A Text:
There was insufficient information on habitat extent, quality and changes over time to assess this habitat at the present time. It is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
There was insufficient information on habitat extent, quality and changes over time to assess this habitat at the present time.It is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criteria B.

Synthesis:
There is insufficient information on habitat extent, quality and changes over time to assess this habitat at the present time. It has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
51 Sparse or no macrofaunal community in Baltic upper circalittoral mixed sediment

Habitat Description:
This Baltic Sea benthic habitat occurs in the aphotic zone with 10- 90% coverage of hard (rock/boulders/stone) and 10-90% soft substrata (e.g. muddy/coarse sediment/sand) according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic fauna are present but cover less than 10% of the seabed or absent. It is typically present in a depth zone of  20 to 100 m.
 
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 overtime. 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:
Mytilus spp., Macoma balthica may be present but this habitat is characterised by a scarce epibenthic  fauna.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mixed 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 all the time
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
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.5 Subtidal sandy mud
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.M2T: Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterized by sparse epibenthic fauna
AB.M4U: Baltic aphotic mixed substrate characterised by no macrocommunity.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is common in the Baltic Sea. There are no data indicating large changes in quantity in the recent or historic past. No estimates of future trends have been made.

Trends in Quality:
The current habitat condition can be considered good.

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

Conservation and Management:
No conservation and management measures have been identified specifically for this habitat

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1160 VU C1 
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2013) assessed one biotope ABM2T as LC(

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic sub-basins. No pressures, threats, or specific conservation management measures have been identified for this habitat at the present time.

Criterion A Text:
The area covered by this habitat is believed to have been stable over the last 50 years. It has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
A lack of a comprehensive quantitative data on the area covered by this habitat in the Baltic means that precise figures for EOO and AOO could not be calculated although as it is present in all Baltic Sea sub-basins, the EOO is likely to exceed 50,000km2. This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The quantity and quality of this habitat is considered to have been stable over the last 50 years and no significant change is expected in 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 one relevant biotopes (AB.M2T) as Least Concern (A1). Biotope AB.M4U was not evaluated. There is no additional data or information to update the assessment outcome past the HELCOM 2013 assessment. Current expert opinion is therefore an assessment of Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
55 Sparse or no macrofaunal communities in Baltic upper circalittoral sand

Habitat Description:
This Baltic Sea benthic habitat occurs in the aphotic zone where there is least 90% coverage of sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification.  Macrofauna, epifauna and infauna are sparse or absent. It is typically present below depths of 30m and occurs in high energy exposure areas. One associated biotope has been identified: ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by meiofauna’ (AB.J4U1). This occurs in all wave exposure classes and is identified by a large representation of meiofauna (for example Oligochaeta, Ostracoda, Nematoda, Copepoda), which constitutes at least 50% of the biomass. In the Gulf of Bothnia nectobenthic Mysidae can be associated with the biotope, and Mysidae can also appear in benthic grab-samples.
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 overtime. 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: 
Oligochaeta, Ostracoda, Nematoda, Copepoda. In the Gulf of Bothnia nectobenthic Mysidae can be associated with the habitat, and Mysidae can also appear in benthic grab-samples.

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 (2013) classification: 
AB.J4U: Baltic aphotic sand characterized by no macrocommunity This habitat has one sub-habitat on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by meiofauna’ (AB.J4U1).

Comment EU28:
Based on known presence in all the Baltic sub-basins and expert opinion.

Comment EU28+:
Based on known presence in all the Baltic sub-basins and expert opinion.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is fairly common in the Baltic Sea with a clear emphasis on the northern parts of the Bothnian Bay. There are no historical data on trends but the extent is believed to have been stable overall in the recent past although slight regional changes have occurred. No estimates of future trends have been made.

Trends in Quality:
No significant recent changes in condition have been reported although natural continual transition into other habitats can be expected as a result of land uplift and siltation/sedimentation.

Pressures and Threats:
Changes in water turbidity can affect the balance between photic/aphotic distribution of this habitat. This may result from coastal development, eutrophication (N, P and organic input), dredging and deposition of sediment.

Conservation and Management:
No conservation or management measures have been identified specifically for this habitat, however turbidity monitoring would be beneficial to detect any changes in the quality.

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

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic sub basins, typically present below depths of 30 m and in high energy exposure areas. Macrofauna, epifauna and infauna are sparse or absent but there may be a large biomass of meiofauna. Eutrophication, uplift and changes in sedimentation regimes could affect the quality and extent of this habitat in the future. No specific conservation or management measures have been identified although turbidity monitoring would be beneficial particularly to detect any changes in quality.

References:
HELCOM, 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings: 138. Helsinki Commission.

Criterion A Text:
The quantity of this habitat is considered to have been stable over the last 50 years. It has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
A lack of a comprehensive quantitative data on the area covered by this habitat in the Baltic Sea means that precise figures for EOO and AOO could not be calculated. As it is present in all Baltic sea sub-basins and is common throughout the Baltic the EOO is likely to exceed 50,000km2 and AOO exceed 50. Future trends have not been predicted. This habitat is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Synthesis:
The quantity and quality of this habitat is considered to have been stable over the last 50 years and no change is expected in 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 this habitat (AB.J4U1) as Least Concern (A1). There is no additional data or information to update the assessment outcome past the HELCOM 2013 assessment. The current expert opinion is therefore an assessment of Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
56 Epifaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is  muddy sediment according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic species cover at least 10% of the seabed and it is typically found below approximately 20 m in low to moderate energy exposure conditions. Six different biotopes associated with this habitat have been described. These are characterised by epibenthic bivalves, crustaceans, polychaetes and cnidarians, as well as biotopes with a mixed or sparse epibenthic community. Some of these biotopes have a restricted distribution in the Baltic e.g. those characterised by epibenthic polychaetes, or which have a sparse epibenthic macrocommunity which are only reported from The Belt Sea and The Sound. Aphotic muddy sediments characterised by epibenthic cnidarians are present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins. 
Water movement is relatively limited in deep muddy areas and this creates a favourable environment for small tube-building amphipods such as Haploops spp. which can  be visible as a dense mat of tubes on the surface of the sediment. These are important feeding grounds for many species of fish including cod. Where seapens such as Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea dominate the epibenthos, for example in parts of the Kattegat trench and the Djupa Rännan trench, they also provide food and shelter for many other species, including commercially imporant fish. 
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 amount of sediment covering the hard surfaces and the diversity, abundance and biomass of associated fauna are potential quality indicators for this habitat.
Characteristic species:  
There are different characteristic species depending on the biotope. These include Mytillus spp.  Hediste diversicolor , Gammarus spp.. Haploops spp., the Ostracod Philomedes brenda, the brittlestar Ophiura robusta, several species from the taxa Maldanidae and Terebellida, the seapens Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea.

Classification:
EUNIS: 
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mud 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:
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 mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.6 Subtidal Muddy
 
Other relationships:
EUNIS (2004) A5.378 Baltic muddy bottoms of the aphotic zone.
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.H1E  Baltic aphotic muddy sediments characterised by mixed epibenthic bivalves This habitat has one biotope on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic photic shell gravel dominated by Mytilidae’ (AA.E1E1).
AB.H1I Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterised by epibenthic crustaceans
AB.H1K Baltic photic muddy sediment characterised by epibenthic polychaetes This habitat has one biotope on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by tube building polychaetes’ (AB.H1K1).
AB.H1V Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterised by mixed epibenthic macrocommunity
AB.H2T Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterised by sparse epibenthic macrocommunity This habitat has one biotope on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by sea pens’ (AB.H2T1). 
AB.H1G Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterised by epibenthic cnidarians.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Large areas of muddy sediments covered by bivalves, such as Mytilus edulis and/or Modiolus modiolus are a typical habitat in the Baltic Sea.

Map Description:
There are 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). 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.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is defined by the fauna which is present there, and a reduction in the area occupied by the characteristic species represents a reduction in quantity of the habitat. While there has possibly been some increase (10%) in Mytilus dominated areas the Haploops dominated biotopes have declined by between 50-70% during the past 50 years. A significant decline in density of the Haploops spp. has also been reported from some locations (e.g. from approx 4000 individuals/m2 to around 97 individuals/m2 in two monitoring stations outside Helsingborg between 1947 and 2009). The density of Modiolus in these monitoring stations has also decreased (from around 160/m2 upto 1947 to around 6 indiviudal/m2 in 2009). There was insufficient information on which to determine trends in quantity of the other associated biotopes and no historic data or estimates that might be used to indicate future trends.

Trends in Quality:
A significant decline in density of the Haploops spp.dominated biotope has also been reported from some locations The density of Modiolus spp. in these monitoring stations has also decreased.  A qualitative reduction of 10% is estimated for some Mytilidae dominated areas in the next 50 years.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (Russia). The percentage hosted by EU2 8 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:
Eutrophication, contaminant pollution and bottom trawling have been identified as current and future threats to this habitat. If climate change effects water stratification and therefore the extent and duration of anoxic conditions, this will also pose a threat. Bottom trawling has a direct impact on the substrate and is believed to have caused the decline of the Haploops spp. communities to some extent in the Belt Sea and Kattegat area. Bottom trawling is, however not likely to be the only cause for the past decline as it is currently forbidden in the area. Another likely cause for the declin is periodic anoxia, which occurs within the distribution of the habitat. In this area anoxia is probably caused by restricted water movement and unusual water stratification, possibly due to changing climatic conditions. Increasing temperatures have been noted in the area. Furthermore the deep muddy biotopes dominated by Haploops spp. can be threatened by pollution of various hazardous substances, as accumulation bottoms generally occur on the same deep muddy bottoms as the Haploops spp. dominated areas.

Conservation and Management:
Bottom trawling restrictions in Öresund and Kattegat need to be enforced, so that any sporadic illegal trawling activities are stopped. In order to facilitate monitoring, Automatic Identification System (AIS) should become mandatory for all trawling fishing vessels. Bottom areas deeper than 20 m in Öresund should be protected from invasive fishing and other similar activities. The small area in Öresund where the Haploops spp. biotope occurs should be included in the Knähaken marine protected area south of the Helsingborg municipality border. Furthermore, the bottom areas around Ven island should be mapped and potentially protected. More generally, efforts to reduce eutrophication will benefit this habitat.

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 (2013) assessed AB.H1E1 and AB.H1K1 as L

Summary:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is muddy sediment. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic species cover at least 10% of the seabed and it is typically found below approximately 20 m in low to moderate energy exposure conditions. Six different biotopes associated with this habitat have been described. These are characterised by epibenthic bivalves, crustaceans, polychaetes and cnidarians, as well as biotopes with a mixed or sparse epibenthic community. This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins although some associated biotopes have a more restricted distribution (e.g. areas dominated by Haploops spp. and by tube-building polychaetes which only occur in the Belt Sea and The Sound).
The main pressures and threats to this habitat are eutrophication, and activities which disturb the seabed such a demersal trawling. A potential future threat is climate change with possible consequences for changing patterns of water stratification in the Baltic. Beneficial management measures include improvements in water quality, and the establishment of protected areas including restrictions on activities which cause direct damage to the seabed.

References:
Bay-Nouailhat W. 2008. Description of Virgularia mirabilis, Available at: http://www.european-marine-life.org/05/virgularia-mirabilis.php (viewed 28 May 2013).
Bay-Nouailhat W. 2008, Description of Pennatula phosphorea, Available at: http://www.european-marine-life.org/05/pennatula-phosphorea.php (viewed  28 May 2013).
Göransson P, Bert ilsson-Vuksan, S., Karlfelt, J.,  Börjesson L. 2010. Haploops-samhället och Modiolus-samhället utanför Helsingborg 2000- 2009. Miljönämnden i Helsingborg.
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.
Hill, J. and Wilson E. 2000. Virgularia mirabilis. Slender sea pen. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 11/07/2013]. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=4579
Moen, F. E., Svensen, E. 2004. Marine fish & invertebrates of Northern Europe. KOM, Kristiansund. 608pp.
OCEANA 2011. Conservation proposals for ecologically important areas in the Baltic Sea. http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/OCEANA_Baltic_report_2011_ENG.pdf
OSPAR. 2008. OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats.

Criterion A Text:
There has been a significant decline in the quantity of some of the associated biotopes of this habitat, with the overall reduction estimated to be between 25-30%. This species is therefore assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+. There is no information on historic or future reductions in quantity for this habitat.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is found in all the Baltic sub-basins therefore EOO exceeds 50,000 km2 however with no quantitative data on habitat extent or area, accurate calculation of EOO and AOO is not possible at the present time. There has been a signiicant historical decline which is likely to continue. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under cirterion B1a and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been a decline in quality of this habitat but insufficient data to quantify this. Experts have therefore assessed this habitat as Data Deficient under criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
There has been significant decline in quantity of some of the associated biotopes and the possibility of future decline in the most extenstive biotope (dominated by Mytilidae) has also been identified. Reductions in the density of the characteristic species (Modiolus and Haploops) are also an indication of decline in quality. Overall this habitat is considered to have declined in both quantity and quality 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 AB.H1E1 and AB.H1K1 as Least Concern (A1) and AB.H1I12 as Endangered (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:
AB.H1I12 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Haploops spp.


Habitat Type Name:
57 Infaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment dominated by bivalves

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on Baltic Sea aphotic bottoms with at least 90% coverage of muddy sediment according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic macrofauna is not present and the biomass of infaunal bivalves dominates. The habitat generally occurs below a depth of approximately 20 m in locations of energy exposure. Three associated biotopes have been identified with different species of bivalves dominating (more than 50% of the biomass). These are: ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica)’ (AB.H3L1); ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)’ (AB.H3L3); and ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Astarte spp.’ (AB.H3L5). These biotopes have slightly different distributions in the Baltic because of different temperature and salinity preferences of the associated dominating species. For example as an arctic-boreal species, Astarte borealis appears in these Baltic biotopes at its southern limit. It is resistant to anoxic conditions, however recurring and long lasting anoxia is fatal.The biotope dominated by the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) can only be found in the southwestern parts in the Belt Sea where the salinity is high. Compared to shallow bottoms, the deep muddy bottoms are structurally relatively monotonous therefore the large shells of Arctica islandica increase the complexity of the habitat. It plays an important role as a biomass producer, enhancer of benthopelagic coupling, reducer of water turbidity, and ecosystem engineer as well as being among the longest-lived and slowest growing marine bivalves. 
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 fauna are potential indicators of quality and, in the case biotopes dominated by M. baltica, the presence of a full size range of individuals in the population. 
Characteristic species: Macoma balthica, Arctica islandica, Astarte spp.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mud 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:
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 mud
 
EUSeaMap: 
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.6 Subtidal muddy
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.H3L Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by infaunal bivalves.
Level 6 of the HELCOM HUB classification;
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica)’ (AB.H3L1)
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)’ (AB.H3L3)
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Astarte spp.’ (AB.H3L5).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
A common, widespread, typical habitat of Baltic soft bottoms.

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 that 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 therefore EOO is likely to exceed 50,000km2

Comment EU28+:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic sub-basins therefore EOO is likely to exceed 50,000km2

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat has declined in extent. Areas of aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) are believed to have declined by 20% over the last 50 years and those dominated by Astarte spp. to have declined by at least 50%. There are no signs of decline in areas dominated by the Baltic tellin (Macoma baltica).
The biotope dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) is expected to be reduced by more than 80% in the next decades. No estimation of future trends for the other associated biotopes have been made.

Trends in Quality:
The biotope dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) has shown an intermediate decline in quality in 50% of the area. There has been an increase in biomass of some of the sub-habitats, associated with eutrophication during the 1980s. For example a high biomass of molluscs was recorded in The Sound between late 1980s and early 1990s but since then biomass has reduced. In contrast biomass of polychaetes has steadily increased.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Not overall although the biotope dominated by Astarte spp. has a small range following regression.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Not overall although the biotope dominated by Astarte spp. has a small range following regression.

Pressures and Threats:
Eutrophication is considered to be the major anthropogenic threat to this habitat. Long lasting and frequent periods of oxygen depletion have caused mortality of Arctica islandica populations. Due to the slow population growth rate, the recovery of declined populations is slow, and therefore communities characterized by Arctica islandica have been replaced by communities consisting of short lived polychaetes. No successful spawning of Arctica islandica has occurred in the in the muddy areas of Mecklenburg and the Kiel Bight during the last decades. In sampling carried out during the early summer of 2013 in German areas, a lot of tiny 1-2 mm small Arctica islandica were observed in the shallow sandy areas, but none in the mud. Even if the larvae were able to settle, they are apparently killed by the recurring oxygen depletion in the summer. Demersal fisheries may also impact this habitat by damaging and removing bivalves from the sediment.
Climate change is considered to be a future threat because of predicted changes in salinity and therefore the survivability of species characteristic of some of the associated biotopes.

Conservation and Management:
The main anthropogenic threat of the habitat is eutrophication and the anoxia of the bottoms that follows. Even for species such as Astarte borealis which are resistant to anoxic conditions, longer and repetitive periods can cause mortality. 
Action to reduce the level of eutrophication, which will benefit oxygen levels on the deep muddy bottoms, is urgently needed because successful recruitment of the characteristic bivalves requires a few consecutive years of good oxygen levels. Restricting bottom trawling in the areas where this habitat occurs may also improve the potential of the Arctica islandica to recolonize the seabed.

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 (2013) have assessed AB.H3L1 as LC(A1), AB.H3L

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
In areas dominated by the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) recovery is likely to take many decades because of the long generation time of this species. No information exists on likely recovery rates for the other associated biotopes

Summary:
This habitat occurs across the Baltic although some of the associated biotopes are only present in some of the sub-basins. For example areas dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) are only present in the Belt Sea and those dominated by Astarte spp. are only found in the southern and western Baltic.
Eutrophication is one of the major threats to this habitat because it can result in long lasting and frequent periods of oxygen depletion at the seabed. Even though resistant to anoxic conditions, longer and repetitive periods can kill or diminish species that characterise this habitat such as Arctica islandica. Actions to reduce the level of eutrophication in order to increase the oxygen level on the deep muddy bottoms are urgently needed. Climate change is considered to be a future threat because of likely resulting changes in salinity.

References:
Bergstrom, L., Diekmann, R., Flinkman, J. et al. 2010. Integrated ecosystem assessments of seven Baltic sea areas covering the last three decades. ICES cooperative research report 302.
Brey, T., Arntz, W.E., Pauly, D. & Rumohr, H. 1990. Arctica (Cyprina) islandica in Kiel Bay (Western Baltic): growth, production and ecological significance. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 136: 217-235.
Carstensen, J., Andersen, J.H., Gustafsson, B.G. & Conley, D.J. 2013. Deoxygenation of the Baltic Sea during the last century. PNAS 111(5): 5628-5633.
OSPAR. 2009. OSPAR Background Document for Ocean quahog Arctica islandica. Biodiversity Series. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/Species/P00407_Ocean_quahog.pdf
Gogina, M., Glockzin, M. & Zettler, M.L. 2010. Distribution of benthic macrofaunal communties in the western Baltic sea with regard to near-bottom environmental parameters. J. Marine Systems 80: 57-70.
Gogina, M. & Zettler, M.L. 2010. Diversity 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(3): 313–321.
HELCOM. 2013. Biotope information sheet; Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) AB.H3L3.
Karlson, K, Rosenberg, R. & Bonsdorf, E. 2002. Temporal and spatial large-scale effects of eutrophication and oxygen deficiency on benthic fauna in Scandinavian and Baltic waters - a review. Oceanography & Marine Biology: An Annual Review 40: 427-489.
Kotta, J., Kotta, I., Martin, G. & Kukk, H. 1998. A survey of data published on the littoral zoobenthos of the Gulf of Riga. Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci. Biol. Ecol 47(2): 83-97.
Kotta, J. & Olafsson, E. 2003. Competition for food between the introduced polychaete Marenzelleria viridis (Verrill) and the native amphipod Monoporeia affinis Lindstrom in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research 50: 27-35.
Krause, J. Ch. 2000. Der Einfluss von Sand- und Kiesabbau auf bestandsgefährdete Makrofauna - Populationen in der südlichen Ostsee. PhD thesis, University of Rostock.
Moen, F. E. & Svensen, E. 2004. Marine fish & invertebrates of Northern Europe. KOM, Kristiansund. 608pp.
Zettler, M. L., Bönsch, R. & Gosselck, F. 2001. Distribution, abundance and some population characteristics of the ocean quahog, Arctica islandica (Linnaeus, 1767), in the Mecklenburg Bight (Baltic Sea). Journal of Shellfish Research 20: 161–169.
Zettler, M. 2002. Ecological and morphological features of the bivalve Astarte borealis (Schumacher 1817) in the Baltic Sea near its geographical range. Journal of Shellfish Research 21: 33-40.

Criterion A Text:
There have been declines in the extent of the habitat in the last 50 years particularly where Astarte spp. and Arctica islandica dominate (more than 50% and an estimated 20%, respectively). Further reduction in quantity of more than 80% in the next decades has been predicted in the case of areas dominated by A. islandica. The overall decline is considered to have been between 30-50% This habitat has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is found in all the Baltic sub-basins therefore EOO exceeds 50,000 km2 however with no quantitative data on habitat extent or area, accurate calculation of EOO and AOO is not possible at the present time. Further reduction in quantity is predicted (more than 80% in the next decades in the case of areas dominated by A. islandica). This habitat has been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B1a and B1b and Data Deficient for all other criteria. OVerall it is considered to be Data Deficient.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been a reduction in quality of this habitat over the last 50 years but there are insufficient data on which to assess Criteria C/D

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is well established and it is known to occur in all the sub-basins. There have been declines in extent over the last 50 years particularly where Astarte spp. and Arctica islandica dominate (by more than 50% and an estimated 20%, respectively). Further reduction in quantity is predicted (more than 80% in the next decades in the case of areas dominated by A. islandica). Habitat quality is also considered to have declined 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 the biotope AB.H3L1, Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Baltic tellin as Least Concern (A1), AB.H3L3, Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog as Critically Endangered (A2) and the biotope AB.H3L5, Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Astarte spp as Endangered (A1). Given the past and predicted future decline in extent of this habitat, differences in vulnerability to anoxic conditions between the associated biotopes and some envisaged decline in quality of all the associated biotopes current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Vulnerable (A1) for both the EU 28 and EU 28+

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AB.H3L3 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica).
AB.H3L5 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Astarte spp.


Habitat Type Name:
58 Infaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment not dominated by bivalves

Habitat Description:
This habitat is distributed on Baltic aphotic bottoms with at least 90% coverage of muddy sediment according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic macrofauna are generally not present and infaunal polychaetes/crustaceans/echinoderms/or insect larvae dominate in terms of biomass. This habitat typically occurs below approximately 20 m depth and is present in all energy exposure classes and in all the Baltic sub-basins. Four  associated biotopes have been identified: these are characterized by infaunal polychaetes where species such as Polydora ciliata, Lagis koreni, Capitella capitata, Scoloplos (Scoloplos) armiger constitute at least 50% of the infaunal biomass; by infaunal crustaceans  where the benthic amphipods Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia femorata dominate;  or where  insect larve where (Chironomidae) or echinoderms dominate the biomass. M. affinis is an important food source for several fish species, such as cod (Gadus morhua), herring (Clupea harengus), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) and fourhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus quadricornis). In favourable conditions, M. affinis and Pontoporeia femorata can occur in great abundances, even several thousand individuals per square meter. 
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 fauna may be indicators of quality.
Characteristic species:  
Polydora ciliata, Lagis koreni, Capitella capitata, Scoloplos (Scoloplos) armiger, Marenzelleria arctia, Marenzelleria viridis, Marenzelleria neglecta. In biotopes characterized by infaunal crustaceans – Monoporeia affinis, Saduria entomon and Pontoporeia femorata. In biotopes characterized by insect larvae Chironomidae and in biotopes characterized by infaunal echinoderms Amphiura filiformis, Brissopsis lyrifera and Amphiura chiajei. The isopod Saduria entomon often occurs in this biotope.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mud 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:
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 mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.6 Subtidal Muddy
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.H3M: Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by infaunal polychaetes
AB.H3N: Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by infaunal crustaceans 
AB.H3P: Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by infaunal insect larvae 
AB.H3O Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by infaunal echinoderms
 
Level 6 of the HELCOM HUB classification;
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Scoloplos (Scoloplos) armiger’ (AB.H3M1),
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Marenzelleria spp.’ (AB.H3M3) 
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by various opportunistic polychaetes’ (AA.H3M5).
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia femorata’ (AB.H3N1).
‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by midge larvae (Chironomidae)’ (AB.H3P1).
'Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Amphiura filiformis'  (AB.H3O1) 
'Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Brissopsis lyrifera and Amphiura chiajei' (AB.H3O2)

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Large areas of aphotic muddy sediment characterized by infaunal polychaetes is a typical habitat in the Baltic Sea. M. affinis occurs in most parts of the Baltic Sea on soft bottoms, and is an ecologically important and dominant native species in the Baltic Sea benthic community at depths of 10–80 m.

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

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

Trends in Quantity:
Most of the associated biotopes are considered to have been stable over the last 50 years with the exception of muddy sediment dominated by Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia femorata which is believed to have shown a decline of approximately 25% over the last 50 years. There are insufficient data on historic trends and no estimates of future trends.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information on current quality and historic trends relating to this habitat and no future estimates have been made.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is common throughout the Baltic Sea except for the most northern parts of the Bothnian Bay. A major threat is eutrophication leading to anoxia on the deep soft sediment bottoms where it occurs. The crustacean dominated biotope may also be threatened by accumulation of various persistent hazardous substances in the soft sediments of the deep accumulation bottoms. The further spread of the invasive polychaete species Marenzelleria spp. in the Baltic Sea threatens the future persistence of biotope dominated by M. affinis.  Marenzelleria spp. and M. affinis are believed to compete for resources, and as Marenzelleria spp. is tolerant of anoxic conditions is has a competitive advantage if incidences of anoxia in the aphotic muddy sediments increases. At the same time it can be favourable to M. affinis by oxygenating sediments.

Conservation and Management:
All actions to reduce the level of eutrophication on the scale of the whole Baltic Sea will benefit this habitat. The invasive polychaete Marenzelleria spp. has already had an effect in areas previously dominated by Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia femorata and unfortunately very little can be done to reduce the population of the polychaete worms in the Baltic Sea. Measures can however be taken to hinder the spread of new invasive species into the Baltic Sea.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MBAL U1
1160: MBAL U2
1650: MBAL U2
 
HELCOM (2013) assessments:
1110 VU C1 
1160 VU C1  
1650 VU C1 
HELCOM (2013) have assessed AB.H3M1, AB.H

Summary:
Large areas of aphotic muddy sediment characterised by infaunal polychaetes is a typical habitat in the Baltic Sea.The habitat is common throughout the Baltic Sea except for the most northern parts of the Bothnian Bay. Associated biotopes have differing distribution in the area. For example ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Marenzelleria spp.’ (AB.H3M3) is common in the Baltic Proper, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland and Bothnian Gulf, ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Scoloplos (Scoloplos) armiger’ (AB.H3M1) occurs in the Baltic Proper and The Sound.
A major threat is eutrophication leading to anoxia on the deep soft sediment bottoms where it occurs. All actions to reduce the level of eutrophication on the scale of the whole Baltic Sea will benefit this habitat. The invasive polychaete Marenzelleria spp. has already had an effect in areas previously dominated by Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia femorata.  Marenzelleria spp. and M. affinis are believed to compete for resources, and as Marenzelleria spp. is tolerant of anoxic conditions is has a competitive advantage if incidences of anoxia in the aphotic muddy sediments increases. At the same time it can be favourable to M. affinis by oxygenating sediments.

References:
Bonsdorff, E., Laine, A.O, Hänninen J., Vuorinen I. and Norkko, A. 2003. Zoobenthos of the outer archipelago waters (N. Baltic Sea) â€‘ the importance of local conditions for spatial distribution patterns. Boreal Environment Research 8:135–145
Donner, K.O., Lindström A. and Lindström, M. 1987. Seasonal variation in the vertical migration of Pontoporeia affinis (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Ann. Zool. Fennica 24:305–313.
HELCOM 2007. HELCOM lists of threatened and/or declining species and biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea area. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 113. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki.  http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/Publications/Proceedings/bsep113.pdf
Kotta, J. and Olafsson, E. 2003. Competition for food between the introduced polychaete Marenzelleria viridis (Verrill) and the native amphipod Monoporeia affinis Lindstro¨m in the Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research 50: 27-35.
Leinikki, J., Backer, H., Oulasvirta, P. and Leinikki, S. (Eds.) 2004. Aaltojen alla – Itämeren vedenalaisen luonnon opas. Like, Helsinki. 144pp.
Neideman, R., Wenngren, J. and Olafsson, E. 2003. Competition between the introduced polychaete Marenzelleria sp. and the native amphipod Monoporeia affinis in Baltic soft bottoms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264: 49-55.

Criterion A Text:
There have been declines in the extent of some of the associated biotopes but overall this habitat is not considered to have declined by more than 25% over the last 50 years. habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
A lack of a comprehensive of quantitative data on the area covered by this habitat in the Baltic means that precise figures for EOO and AOO could not be calculated however as it is present in all Baltic sea sub-basins and is common throughout the Baltic the EOO is likely to exceed 50,000 km2  and the AOO to exceed 50. Future trends have not been determined. Expert opinion is therefore that this habitat should be assessed as Data Deficient  Criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
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 established and it is known to occur in all the sub-basins. There have been various changes in the associated biotopes over the last 50 years. For example M. affinis and P. femorata decreased drastically in the late 1970s early 1980s in the northern Baltic. By early 1990s P. femorata vanished and M. affinis abundance was low. This decline was followed by increase in M. balthica and arrival of Marenzellaria in the 1992. There are a lack of quantitative data on current and historic trends relating to this habitat and no estimates  have been made of future trends.
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 assessed four associated biotopes (AB.H3M1, AB.H3M3, AB.H3M5 and AB.H3P1) as Least Concern (A1). Biotope AB.H3N1 was assessed as Near Threatened (A1). With no additional data available the current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AB.H3N1 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Monoporeia affinis and/or Pontoporeia femorata.


Habitat Type Name:
H2.3 Temperate high-mountain siliceous scree

Habitat Description:
This habitat consists of siliceous, mostly acidic screes, moraines or stone rivers of high altitudes (mainly over 1000 m above sea level) and cool sites in mountain ranges of the nemoral zone of Europe, including the Alps, Pyrenees, Carpathians, central and eastern parts of Balkan Peninsula, Apennines, etc.. Scree habitats consist of rock fragments with different forms and sizes covering the frost-shattered summits of mountains or accumulating on slopes below siliceous cliffs. Siliceous screes are made up of siliceous rocks, such as quartzite, granite and sandstones.
The screes are colonised by a range of mostly perennial plant species. The vegetation consists of assemblages of mostly acidophilous or neutrophilous species. The composition is strongly influenced by altitude and geographical ranges. Siliceous screes are habitats which contain many relic and local endemic species, but less than calcareous screes. The diversity of vegetation units is also smaller compared to calcareous screes. A widespread alliance in the Alpine and Carpathian mountain systems is the Androsacion alpinae. In the Pyrenees, where the habitat is more common, two specific alliances occur: Senecionion leucophylli and Dryopteridion oreadis. The plants grow tufted between the scree stones, in places with a little soil. Typical species include Androsace alpina, A. wulfeiana, Saxifraga bryoides, Silene acaulis and Festuca picta. Another widespread species of this habitat in most European mountains is Oxyria digina.
The siliceous screes are more humid than the calcareous ones, because they have larger water-retention characteristics. The humid, humus-rich siliceous screes of the Alps, on slopes long-covered with snow, are carpeted by Luzula alpinopilosa, and accompanied by species that constitute an ecological variant of the snow patch communities. There are also communities of ferns and low semi-shrubs, including Gymnocarpium dryopteris, Cryptogramma crispa, Athyrium distentifolium, Dryopteris dilatata, Cystopteris fragilis, Vaccinium spp. colonizing non-stabilized screes on shady places, often with a high proportion of large blocks. The scree vegetation in the Caucasus Mountains., outside the range of the EU 28+, is represented by the endemic alliances Scrophulario minimae-Symphyolomion graveolens and Chaerophyllion humilis. Those screes are outside this habitat type’s definition.
Indicators of quality:
•    Occurrence of natural erosion processes.
•    Presence of rare, relict or endemic species.
•    Absence of human activities, including grazing.
•    Absence of alien species.
Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Adenostyles leucophylla, Achillea erba-rotta, A. nana, Androsace alpina, A. hedraeantha, Athyrium distentifolium, Arenaria biflora, Armeria alpina,  Cardamine glauca, C. resedifolia, Cerastium pedunculatus, C. pyrenaicum, C. uniflorum, Cochlearia tatrae, Cryptogramma crispa, Deschampsia alpina, Doronicum clusii, D. grandiflorum, Dryopteris dilatata, D. expansa, D. oreades, Festuca picta, Gentiana frigida, Geum reptans, Gymnocarpium dryopteris, Lerchenfeldia flexuosa, Linaria alpina, Luzula alpino-pilosa, Minuartia sedoides, Murbeckiella pinnatifida, Oreochloa disticha, Oxyria digyna, Pleuropteropyrum undulatum, Poa contracta, P. laxa, Polygonum alpinum, Ranunculus glacialis, Saxifraga adscendens, S. androcasea, S. bryoides, S.carpathica, S. cernua, S. oppositifolia, S. pedemontana subsp. cymosa, Senecio glaberrimus, S. leucophyllus, S. transylvanicus, S. rochelianus, S. rupestris, Silene acaulis, Poa cenisia, Vaccinium spp., Veronica baumgartenii.
Mosses: Dicranoweisia crispula, Polytrichum alpinum, Racomitrium lanuginosum, Sanionia uncinata
Lichens: Polyblastia alpina, Solorina crucea
Reptiles: Podarcis muralis
Birds: Alectoris graeca, Tichodroma muraria, Prunella collaris, Monticola saxatilis Mammals: Chionomys nivalis

Classification:
EUNIS:
H2.3 Temperate-montane acid siliceous screes
EuroVegChecklist:
Androsacion alpinae Br.-Bl. in Br.-Bl. et Jenny 1926
Senecionion leucophylli Br.-Bl. 1948
Dryopteridion oreadis Rivas-Mart. 1977 corr. Rivas-Mart. et al. 1984
Annex 1:
8110 Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani)
Emerald:
H2.3 Temperate-montane acid siliceous screes
MAES-2:
Sparsely vegetated land
IUCN:
6. Rocky Areas [e.g. inland cliffs, mountain peaks]

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat type occurs mostly within the high mountains of Europe because the underlying conditions (functioning) are found best at high elevations (frost-shattered cliffs). Moraines represent also a major part of this habitat types in alpine and nival levels.

Map Description:
The map is complete for EU, but very incomplete for Switzerland and the Balkan. Data sources: EVA, Art17, NAT.

Trends in Quantity:
The current trend in quantity is stable at the European scale because this habitat is found in mountainous regions, and it is therefore weakly affected by human activities. The trend over the last 50 years is almost stable (1 % decline). This very slight reduction reflects local destruction of the habitat by the development of ski complexes, construction of roads, and quarrying. The reduction caused by the natural process of scree stabilization (i.e. favouring the establishment of grasses and shrubs) may have played a role over the historical period (250 years) but there is no data available to estimate precise values. The future trend is expected to be stable or slightly decreasing. Despite weak differences among countries, the decrease in quantity appears to be higher in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe.

Trends in Quality:
The reduction in quality over the last 50 years has occurred quite locally with a slight decline (30% severity) affecting 5% of the extent of the habitat.. The reduction in quality is largely due to the loss of functionality of screes as a result of nearby works. When crossing screes, roads and ski runs reduce the mobility of scree materials (stones) by cutting their slow downward flow. Erosion and alteration of cliffs above screes - by regularly releasing materials - are also needed for good scree functioning. Securing works of such cliffs (wire nets placed on or below cliffs) are very likely to prevent screes from functioning normally. Historical trend might have followed the same evolution but not enough data is available to estimate precise values. Future trends in quality will continue to decrease locally because of infrastructure development. Climate change and higher temperatures will probably influence quality in the future but little is known about the outcomes at the European scale.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Of the current distribution of the habitat, 85% lies within the EU 28, if one considers that this habitat’s native biota is limited to European phytosociological alliances. Alliances from the Caucasus mountains are formed by different biota.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat type is widespread across high-mountain regions.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat type occupies large areas across high-mountain regions of Europe.

Pressures and Threats:
The main source of threats to this habitat type in Western Europe is infrastructure construction in the mountain environment (high altitudes): ski complexes with ski runs, tracks and roads. Of particular concern is the reshaping of ski runs, which consists of leveling the terrain surface by grinding stones so as to make it as smooth as possible (‘boulevard’ ski runs). At lower altitudes quarrying is also athreat. Stabilization of screes also occurs naturally when erosion of cliffs above stops, but this natural process is hard to quantify. Among future possible threats is climate change.

Conservation and Management:
Screes are important natural features of the mountain environment. Therefore, this habitat type has no specific management requirements except leaving it undisturbed and undestroyed. Conservation is then effective when free evolution is possible, like within protected areas. ‘Manage landscape features’ refers to the need to better protect this kind of habitats with a high degree of naturalness in land-use planning, especially when no specific regulation can be applied (no protected species or habitat, outside a protected area, outside a Natura 2000 site).

Summary:
This habitat consists of siliceous, mostly acidic screes, moraines or stone rivers found at high altitudes and cool sites in mountain ranges through the nemoral zone of Europe.The screes are colonised by a range of mostly perennial, mostly acidophilous plants, the composition  strongly influenced by altitude and regional climate and often including many relic and local endemic species, though less than on calcareous screes. Often the vegetation cover is sparse but these screes can be more humid because of the impervious and water-retentive character of the substrates and long snow-lie also encourages luxuriant growth and accummulation of humus.  Tourist activity and infrastructure pose threats and the habitat needs to remain undisturbed.

References:
ValachoviÄ M., Dierssen K., Dimopoulos P., HadaÄ E., Loidi J., Mucina L., Rossi G., Valle Tendero F. and Tomaselli M. 1997. The vegetation on screes - survey of higher syntaxa in Europe. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 32: 173-192.

Criterion A Text:
There has been a very slight reduction in quantity at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels in the past 50 years. Calculations were made with territorial data only. There is no available quantitative data on historical or future reductions in quantity and this habitat is therefore assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat is widespread, its EOO is larger than 50,000 Km2 and the AOO is larger than 50. Since the major threat to this habitat is infrastructure construction, it is estimated to occur at well more than ten locations. This habitat is therefore assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been a reduction in quality with a slight decline (approximately 30% severity) affecting 5% of the extent of the habitat in the last 50 years. The values reported above were calculated using only territorial data .There is no information on historical or future trends in quality and this habitat. This habitat is therefore assessed as Least Concern under Criterion C/D.

Synthesis:
Despite a variable level of data quality among countries, and the lack of quantitative data, this habitat is assessed as Least Concern since it is widespread in Europe and the reductions in quantity (1-2%) and quality (slight decline (30% severity) affecting 5% of the extent of the habitat) over the past 50 years have been small and localized.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: R. Tzonev
Territorial data: E. Agrillo, F. Attorre, S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, G. Buffa, L. Casella, R. Delarze, P. Finck, J. Loidi, V. Matevski, A. Mikolajczak, M. ValachoviÄ, D. Paternoster, P. Perrin, G. Pezzi, U. Raths, U. Riecken, V. Rusakova, A. Ssymank, D. Viciani
Working Group Sparsely Vegetated Habitats: F. Essl, G. Giusso del Galdo, A. Mikolajczak, D. Paternoster, M. ValachoviÄ, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Type Name:
59 Sparse epibenthic community of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment

Habitat Description:
This Baltic Sea benthic habitat occurs in the aphotic zone where there is at least 90% coverage of muddy sediment according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic fauna is present but covers less than 10% of the seabed. One associated biotope has been identified: ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by seapens’ (AB.H2T1). This is characterized by conspicuous populations of seapens that usually live scattered over the sea floor but usually cover less than 10% of the muddy surface. It occurs typically from 15 to 200 meters depth in low to moderate energy exposure classes in the highest salinity regions of the Baltic (up to 23 psu in The Sound). These deep water communities are crucially important to the function of the ecosystem. They provide food and shelter for many other species, including commercially important fish.
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 fauna are suggested quality parameters including the presence of seapens which are both characterstic of this habitat and vulnerable to the most significant pressures. 
Characteristic species: 
In the Baltic Sea the most common seapens associated with this habitat are Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea. Virgularia mirabilis is found in sheltered areas where the seabed comprises soft sediments such as fine, muddy sand or mud in depths below 10 meters. It lives partly embedded in the sediment and can form colonies up to 60 cm tall. Pennatula phosphorea forms erect colonies up to 40 cm tall.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mud 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:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1130 Estuaries
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.6 Subtidal Muddy
 
Other:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AB.H2T Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by sparse epibenthic macrocommunity.
This habitat has one biotope on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by sea pens’ (AB.H2T1).

Comment EU28+:
Based on presence in 100 x 100km grid squares therefore maximum potential EOO and AOO

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat only occurs in the Western Baltic Sea, in The Sound. The data used to calculate EOO and AOO was based on HELCOM mapping in 100 x 100 km cells is therefore a maximum. Expert opinion is that although the soft sediment substrate remains, the loss of the associated seapen communities means there has been an estimated decline in extent of between 50-80% over the past 50 years.  No historic data are available and there have been no estimates of future trends.

Trends in Quality:
The damage and loss of the seapen communities associated with this habitat is indicative of a decline in quality however there is insufficient information to quantify the trend.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has undergone a significant decline during the past 50 years and has anmaximum estimated EOO of 2,800 km2. The decline is considered to be the result of activities which disturb the seabed and damage the associat

Justification of Restricted Area:
Because of its salinity and depth requirements, this habitat is only found in the deeper parts of The Sound at the entrance to the Baltic.

Pressures and Threats:
The main anthropogenic threats to this habitat are bottom trawling and oxygen depletion caused by eutrophication. Towed demersal fishing gear disturbs the seabed and both damages and removes benthic fauna.  The seapens, which characterise this habitat, are very vulnerable to being damaged by trawls because of their body size and height above the sediment. This habitat is also sensitive and vulnerable to other activities which disturb the seabed, such as dredging and the disposal of dredge spoil which may remove, smother and/or bury epibenthic species. The slow recovery of seapens can result in changes in the associated communities in areas of soft sediment, shifting to favour an abundance of small invertebrates.

Conservation and Management:
Restrictions on bottom trawling in areas where this habitat occurs (The Sound trenches) is the most significant action that would benefit this habitat. This may be introduced both within and outside the boundaries of Marine Protected Areas and would prevent the loss of this habitat from the Baltic.  Improvements in water quality (N, P and organic matter levels)  reducing the risk of anoxic events in the bottom waters of the Sound, and preventing dreding and disposal of dredge spoils in areas where this habitat occurs are further valuable conservation management measures.

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

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Time between damaging activity, the type of damage activity and the predominant species influences recovery. Recovery times following dredging of similar habitats in the North Sea were significantly shorter for short-lived species (<1–3 years), free-living and tube-dwelling species and for scavenging or opportunistic species, than for medium live  species (3–10 years), burrow-dwelling species and suspension feeders. In trawled areas, recovery times were significantly shorter for free-living species, species covered by an exoskeleton or a hard tunic and species that produce pelagic or benthic eggs than for epiphytic/zoic species, species that grow attached to the substratum and have an erect or stalked body form and species that reproduce asexually. Differences in the recoverability of different species groups following fishing may result in changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning over the long term. Recovery times following oxygen depletion and pollution has been investigated in several studies of the Gullmarsfjord, Sweden showing recovery times of between 2-8 years.

Summary:
The habitat is characterised by colonies of the seapens Virgularia mirabilis and Pennatula phosphorea established in areas of soft sediment. It only occurs in the deep parts of The Sound in the highest salinity waters of the Baltic. Current information suggests that it may cover a maximum area of around 1900 km2 but this is likely to be an over estimate. The main anthropogenic threats to this habitat are bottom trawling and oxygen depletion caused by eutrophication. The seapens, which characterise this habitat, are very vulnerable to being damaged by trawls because of their body size and height above the sediment whilst slow recovery of seapens, can result in changes in the associated communities in areas of soft sediment, shifting to favour an abundance of small invertebrates. This habitat is also sensitive and vulnerable to dredging and the disposal of dredge spoil which may remove, smother and/or bury epibenthic species. Restrictions on bottom trawling in areas where it occurs (The Sound trenches) both within and outside Marine Protected Areas, is the most significant action that would benefit this habitat. Improvements in water quality (N, P and organic matter levels)  reducing the risk of anoxic events in the bottom waters of the Sound, and preventing dreding and disposal of dredge spoils in areas where this habitat occurs are further valuable conservation and management measures.

References:
Jorgensen, L.L., Planque, B., Thangstad, T.H. and Certain, G. 2015. Vulnerability of megabenthic species to trawling in the Barents Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. Available at: doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv107 (Accessed: 05/10/2015).
HELCOM. 2009. Check list of Baltic Sea Species. Helsinki Commission.
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 138. Helsinki Commission.
HELCOM. 2013. Biotope Information Sheet. Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by sea-pens. Available at: http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20Red%20List%20AB.H2T1.pdf (Accessed: 05/10/2015).
OCEANIA. 2011. Conservation proposals for ecologically important areas in the Baltic Sea.

Criterion A Text:
Expert opinion is that, athough the soft sediment substrate may still be present, the loss of the characteristic species amounts to an estimated decline in extent of this habitat of between 50-80% over the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat occurs in a spatially limited area of the southern Baltic Sea. It has been heavily disturbed by intensive trawling with more than half the area it occupies considered to have been destroyed in the last 50 years. Although the AOO is 19, because these are not widely separated it can also be considered to be present in very few locations. This means that a single threat (e.g. eutrophication or trawling) may affect all the places where it occurs.  For this reason it is also capable of becoming critically endangered or collapsed within a very short time period. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under Criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
The damage and loss of the seapen communities associated with this habitat is indicative of a decline in quality however there is insufficient information to quantify the trend. Experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to assess Criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
This habitat occurs in a spatially limited area of the southern Baltic Sea. It has been heavily disturbed by intensive trawling with more than half the area it occupies considered to have been destroyed in the last 50 years. A contining decline in spatial extent, abiotic and biotic quality is considered likely. Furthermore, because the places where it occurs are not widely separated (all in a small area of The Sound) it can also be considered to be present in very few locations. This means that a single threat (e.g. eutrophication or intensive trawling) may affect all the places where it occurs. For this reason it is also capable of becoming critically endangered or collapsed within a very short time period. 
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 this habitat as Endangered on the basis of a decline in quantity over the last 50 years. Its restricted distribution, clustered location, and likely continuing decline in quantity and quality means that for the current assessment expert opinion is that this habitat should be considered to be Endangered for the EU 28. It is not present and has therefore not been assessed for EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
61 Communities of Baltic lower circalittoral soft sediments (mud and sand)

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone, comprising areas of soft sediment, predominantly mud, below the halocline . The upper water layer is separated from the more saline deepwater layer by a permanent halocline located at depths of about 70-100 m (there is no halocline in the shallower areas in the northeastern Baltic). The strong permanent halocline and seasonal thermocline in summer limits vertical mixing of the water column leading to the formation of oxygen-depeted zones in the deep areas of the central Baltic. The pycnocline in the Baltic occurs around 80m of depth and below this hypoxia and anoxia occur almost permanently. Salinity has risen since early records at the beginning of the 20th century and increasing stability of the halocline restricts water exchange between the more saline bottom layer and overlying water masses. The environmental conditions of the deep zone of the Baltic are not uniform but vary widely in terms of salinity (14-21 ppt) and oxygenation (3-80% saturation). The conditions depend in the first instance on influxes, which are very irregular, which renew the deep waters with oxygen. Between 1948-52, for example, when there was frequent renewal of deep waters, worms such as Halicryptus spinulosus and Scoloplos armiger were present whereas during 1956-57 lack of influxes led to the extinction of the fauna in the deeper parts of the Bornholm and Gdansk Deeps. The three deep basins in the central Baltic are the Bornholm Basin, Gdansk Deep and Gotland Basin. In the Bornholm Basin, the Central Basin and the Gulf of Finland, the bottom layer is separated from the surface layer by a permanent halocline. During periods of stagnation this separation gives rise to an oxygen deficit and periodically to complete oxygen depletion and formation of hydrogen sulphide. The result is a total disappearance of macrofauna in the deepest part of these basins. In places there is a constant oxygen poor zone which is virtually devoid of macrofauna and has an extremely improvershed meiofauna, which generally consists of only a few thousand nematodes per square meter. Comparison of the persistence of the soft bottom macrofauna in the deeper parts of the Baltic between areas that the communities of the Gulf of Bothnia are the most stable, while those of the Bornholm and Gdansk Deeps vary strongly, mainly owing to the periodic oxygen deficit. Physical forcing can remedy deoxygenation effects of eutrophication through enhanced vertical mixing. The Slupsk furrow differs from other deep water areas of the Baltic Proper in both the salinity and oxygen content. All the remaining deep areas (the Bornholm, Gdansk and Gotland Deeps) are plagued by periodic oxygen depletion and/or the presence of H2S in the near-bottom water. At present the Slupsk furrow is the only part of the Baltic Proper where bottom areas below the isohaline water layer are inhabited by a number of marine species which take advantage of the relatively high salinity and acceptable oxygen content.
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:
Where there is sufficient oxygen and elevated salinity – Copepods (Harpacticoida) e.g. Laophonte baltica, Amphiascoides dispar and Kliopsyllus constrictus. In the deeps around Gotland the polychaetes Scoloplos arminger and where the substrate is predominantly clay Pontoporeia femorata and Terebellides stroemi.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.21 Sublittoral sand in low or reduced salinity, A5.41 Sublittoral mud in low or reduced salinity, A5.37 Deep circalittoral sand and A5.37 Deep circalittoral mud. 
 
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:
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES: 
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
Marine - shelf
 
MSFD:
Shelf sublittoral sand
Shelf sublittoral mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shelf sands
Shelf muds
 
IUCN: 
9.4 Subtidal sandy
9.5 Subtidal sandy-mud
9.6 Subtidal muddy

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Large parts of seabed in the deeper regions of the Baltic lie below the halocline, although the extent can vary from year to year depending on the influx of oxygenated saline water through the Kattegat. Factors which influence the frequency and persistence of such inflows include weather conditions and circulation patterns, and are therefore unpredictable.

Comment EU28:
Based on EUSeaMap modelling. Mapped extent of this habitat is recognised as biased and underestimated.

Comment EU28+:
Based on EUSeaMap modelling. Mapped extent of this habitat is recognised as biased and underestimated.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is naturally subjected to intermittent periods of hypoxia. The frequency of such events is unpredictable but there has been a significant expansion of the area of seabed affected during such periods from less than10,000 km2 before 1950 to over 60,000km2 since 2000. This is believed to be mainly caused by enhanced nutrient inputs to the Baltic. In the Landsort Deep, oxygen conditions have deteriorated fairly steadily since the beginning of the last century and reached zero values around 1968. Since then there have been intermittent periods with better conditions at intermediate depths but no major improvements. In the central basin the area permanently devoid of macrofauna has grown since the early 20th century.

Trends in Quality:
This habitat is naturally subjected to intermittent periods of anoxia. The frequency is unpredictable, but with longer periods and larger areas affected in recent decades, the scope for recovery by species such as Articia islandica are reduced. No successful spawning of A.islandicia has occurred in the muddy areas of Mecklenburg and Kiel Bight during the last decades and its disappearance or scarcity is in indicator of reduced quality of this habitat  in parts of the Lubeck Bight and Kiel Bight. There has also been a severe decrease in the abundance of Macoma balthica in the Mecklenburg Bight and the Bornholm Basin. Former mollusc dominated communities that were still present in the southern Baltic in the early 1950s have been replaced by communities dominated by polychaetes. This may also be linked to the effects of demersal fishing gears. An analysis of the fishing intensity of EU trawlers (bottom otter, beam and mid-water trawls) using Automatic Identification System (AIS) ship tracking data over one year (September 2014 -2015) shows high coverage in all European coastal waters and over the continental shelf. When combined with the modelled distribution of EUNIS marine habitat types it is possible to examine the extent of likely impact on a particular benthic habitat.  For example, over this time period around 30% of deep circalittoral mud habitats and around 40% of deep circalittoral sand habitats in the Baltic Sea (including the Kattegat) were subject to such fishing pressure.Given that this is based on a single year of data and that this type of pressure has been taking place for decades it is likely to be an underestimate of the total effect on this habitat.  
 In the Gulf of Finland, mass occurrence of several macrobenthic animals at depths of 80-90m and even deeper was not a rare phenomena. This has not been the case since 1989/90 despite some recolonisation.

% 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 in the Baltic. This habitat may be present in other European regional seas.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The EOO is believed to exceed 50,000 50,000 km2 therefore this habitat does not have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The EOO is believed to exceed 50,000 km2 therefore this habitat does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is naturally periodically affected by oxygen depletion but eutrophication is believed to be responsible for increasing the affected area and the duration of these episodes. Bottom trawling can also affect benthic communities directly and influence the recovery time. Climate change effects, such as modification of hydrographic conditions is likely to be another pressure. One plausible/possible consequence of global warming in the Baltic Sea is lowering of oxygen levels in the waters below the haloclines. Tolerance towards low oxygen differs between species, and the invasive bristle worms (Marenzelleria spp.) are more tolerant than for instance the native crustacean amphipods Monoporeia spp. and Pontoporeia spp. Increased hypoxic conditions in the Baltic Sea will likely promote dominance of the bristle worm Marenzelleria in the future, a shift that has already occurred in the Gulf of Finland.

Conservation and Management:
Measures to reduce eutrophication can reduce the impact and duration of naturally occurring anoxic periods which affect this habitat. Limiting bottom trawling may be beneficial by allowing recovery of the habitat. The longer term effects of climate change are unknown, but changes in hydrographic conditions (e.g. water flow into the Baltic, salinity and temperature gradients) could potentially exacerbate the impact of anoxic periods on this habitat.

Conservation Status:
This habitat does not correspond to any Habitats Directive Annex 1 habitat type.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Unknown. Recovery will be influenced by the frequency and longevity of anoxic periods. As these occur naturally, are intermittent and unpredictable it is not possible to estimate time scales for recovery. It should however be noted that some of the associated species are long lived and have not recolonised areas affected in the 1950s. Recovery may also be hindered or slowed down by the colonisation of opportunistic species such as polychaetes and depending on larvael supply from healthier areas with established populations.

Summary:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the aphotic zone, comprising areas of soft sediment, predominantly mud, below the halocline, typically at depths below 70-100m. The strong permanent halocline and seasonal thermocline in summer limits vertical mixing of the water column leading to the formation of oxygen-depleted zones in the deep areas of the central Baltic.
The environmental conditions of the deep zone of the Baltic are not uniform but vary widely in terms of salinity (14-21 ppt) and oxygenation (3-80% saturation).  During periods of stagnation, this separation by the halocline gives rise to an oxygen deficit and periodically to complete oxygen depletion and formation of hydrogen sulphide (H2S). In places there is a continuously oxygen poor zone which is virtually devoid of macrofauna and has an extremely impoverished meiofauna generally consisting of a few thousand nematodes per square meter only. 
Although this habitat is naturally periodically affected by oxygen depletion, eutrophication is believed to be responsible for increasing the affected area and the duration of these episodes. Bottom trawling which, even on a single year of data, has been reported to potentially impact more than 30% of the area of this habitat, can also affect benthic communities directly and influence the recovery time. Climate change effects, such as modification of hydrographic conditions is likely to be another pressure.  Measures to reduce eutrophication can reduce the impact and longevity of naturally occuring anoxic periods which affect this habitat and limiting bottom trawling can contribute to allowing recovery of this habitat .

References:
Andersin, A-B, Lassig, J. and Sandler, H. 1977. Community structures of soft bottom macrofauna in different parts of the Baltic.pg7- 20. In Keegan, B.F., Boaden, P.J.S & Ceidigh P.O. (Eds). Biology of Benthic Organisms: 11th European symposium on Marine Biology.
Axe, P. 2007. Hydrography and oxygen in the deep basins HELCOM Baltic Sea Environment Fact Sheets. Online. [Viewed 05/06/15], http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/environment-fact-sheets/.
Bergstrom, L., Diekmann, R., Flinkman, J. et al. 2010. Integrated ecosystem assessments of seven Baltic sea areas covering the last three decades. ICES cooperative research report. No.302
Drzycimski, I. 2000. The Slupsk Furrow as an Marine Protected Area in the Baltic. Oceanological Sutdies XXIX(2) 33-42.
Eigaard Ole R. et al. “Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions” ICES J. Mar. Sci., doi = 10.1093/icesjms/fsv099.
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic
Sea Environment Proceedings 138, Helsinki Commission.
Karlson, K., Rosenberg, R. and Bonsdorff, E. 2002. Temporal and spatial large scale effects of eutrophication and oxygen deficiency on benthic fauna in Scandinavian and Baltic waters – A review. Oceano.Mar Biol. Ann.Rev 40:427-489
Naslund, J. 2011 Biotope classification of Swedish zoobenthos data for the Baltc EUNIS. AquaBiota Water Research. Aquabiota Notes 20011: 4. 16pp.
Tempera, F. 2015 Bringing together harmonised EUNIS seabed habitat geospatial information for the European Seas. European Commission JRC Technical Report.
Vespe M, Gibin M, Alessandrini A, Natale F, Mazzarella F, & Osio G. in press. Mapping EU fishing activities using ship tracking data – accepted for publication, Journal of Maps – available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.03826.
Å¹mudsiÅ„ski, L. 1966. The conditons of distribution of bottom fauna in the Baltic Sea and its Adjacent Firths. ICES. C.M. 1966/D:7 Baltic-Belt Seas Committee

Criterion A Text:
The increase in extent of both permanent and temporary anoxic conditions in the lower circalittoral indicates a decline in quantity of this habitat. This species is assessed as Near Threatened under criterion A since there is an estimated 25-30% decline in the quantity of this habitat over the last 50 years. There is no information on historic declines or future trends.

Criterion B Text:
Modelled data suggest that the EOO of this habitat may exceed 50,000 km2 however a lack of quantitative data means that this remains an estimate. AOO cannot be calculated at the present time. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
It is estimated that there has been a severe decline in the quality of this habitat affecting more than 30% of its extent over the last 50 years as a result of the expansion of the area permanently or temporarily affected by anoxia. The extent of demersal fisheries and their ability to change the structure of benthic communities in areas of soft sediment, such as the decline in erect epifauna, is another sign of declining quality. This habitat is therefore assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion C/D and Criterion C/D1. There is no information about historic or future reductions is quality.

Synthesis:
There has been a marked decline in the quality of this habitat, which is apparent from the drastic changes in species and functional guild composition in central and northern sub-halocline areas including the gradual disappearace of Scoloplos armiger between the 1950s and 1990s. Former mollusc dominated communities that were still present in the southern Baltic in the early 1950s have been replaced by communities dominated by polychaetes. In the Gulf of Finland, mass occurrence of several macrobenthic animals at depths of 80-90 m and even deeper was not a rare phenomena. This has not been the case since 1989/90 despite some recolonisation. Demersal fisheries are widespread and also believed to have affected the quality of this habitat. 
Habitat extent has also been affected. The earliest records of severe bottom water hypoxia and anoxia are from around 1950. Bottom water and sedimentary areas with low oxygen concentrations have been spreading during the latter part of the 20th century and the presence of H2S has become a permanent feature of the Gansk, Bornholm and Gotland Deeps. Naturally, hypoxia occurs intermittently, but the areas affected have expanded  from <10,000 km2 before 1950 to >60,000 km2  since 2000. This is believed to be mainly caused by enhanced nutrient inputs.
On the basis of expert opinion, this habitat is assessed as Vulnerable for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ since there has been a substantial reduction in quality affecting more than 30% of its extent over the last 50 years. This is a consequence of  expansion of the area permanently or temporarily affected by anoxia.


Habitat Type Name:
60 Sparse or no macrocommunities of Baltic upper circalittoral muddy sediment

Habitat Description:
This Baltic Sea benthic habitat occurs in the aphotic zone in areas with at least 90% coverage of muddy sediment. The sediment must contain at least 20% of mud, silt or clay (grain size less than 63 μm). The associated biotope is : ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by meiofauna (AB.H4U1) although when degraded this may be represented by ‘Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by anerobic organisms (AB.H4U2). The balance between the two depends on whether conditions are aerobic or anerobic and deterioration in the former biotope may result in the habitat being dominated by the latter (anerobic) biotope more typical of degraded conditions. 
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:
Unknown

Classification:
ENUIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.41 Sublittoral mud 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:
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
 
MAES:
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.6 Subtidal Muddy
 
Other relationships:
Level 6 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013). Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by meiofauna (AB.H4U1).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Sparse or no macrocommunities are a naturally occurring distinct feature of large areas of the central Baltic Sea.

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

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

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat occurs throughout the Baltic in both shallow coastal waters and the deeper central parts. Coastal areas with muddy substrate have been exploited heavily by construction and dredging activities along the Swedish coast. Construction activities have become more prevalent and invasive in the past few decades and have modified a significant proportion of the coastal muddy sediments. In contrast, no severe declines are believed to have occurred along the Finnish coast. Further offshore there has been an increase, particularly in the area dominated by anaerobic organisms in the last 50 years due to anthropogenic eutrophication.

Trends in Quality:
No information is available for trends in quality

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat probably 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 do occur in other European regional seas.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is affected by anoxia caused by eutrophication. Meiofauna are considered to tolerate anoxia better than macrofauna. However prolonged anoxia will rapidly increase mortality of meiofauna. Construction of summer cottages and small marinas in sheltered bays threatens the habitat by altering the substrate and environmental conditions.

Conservation and Management:
More information is needed on the distribution and ecology of this habitat. Development and construction in the shallow muddy areas along the coast where it occurs should be restricted to maintain the aerobic conditions.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all Baltic sub-basins in areas of muddy sediments under aphotic condtions.  It is dominated by meiofauna although when degraded may be represented by anerobic organisms. The balance between the two depends on whether conditions are aerobic or anerobic.  Eutrophication is a significant pressure on this habitat as is the construction of summer cottages and small marinas in sheltered bays. Such developments threaten the habitat by altering the substrate and environmental conditions. Beneficial conservation measures include restrictions on development and construction in the shallow muddy areas along the coast where the habitat occurs in order to maintain the aerobic conditions and also the control of discharges to the marine environment that result in eutrophication.

References:
Bay-Nouailhat, W. 2008. Description of Virgularia mirabilis, Available at: http://www.european-marine-life.org/05/virgularia-mirabilis.php (viewed 28 May 2013).
Bay-Nouailhat, W. 2008. Description of Pennatula phosphorea, Available at: http://www.european-marine-life.org/05/pennatula-phosphorea.php (viewed 28 May 2013).
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. 
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 138 Helsinki Commission 
Hill, J. and Wilson E. 2000. Virgularia mirabilis. Slender sea pen. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited11/07/2013]. Available at:http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php?speciesID=4579
Moen, F.E. and Svensen, E. 2004. Marine fish & invertebrates of Northern Europe. KOM, Kristiansund. 608pp.
OSPAR 2008. OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats.

Criterion A Text:
Based on expert opinion, this habitat is believed to have declined by more than 25% over the last 50 years. It has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is common and has a large natural range in the Baltic Sea. Precise figures cannot be calculated for EOO and AOO but they are believed to have exceed the threshold for threatened status. Future trends are unknown. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Synthesis:
In the coastal zone there has been some deterioration in the extent and quality of this habitat due to increased sedimentation and eutrophication as a result of coastal development and increased levels of N, P and organic matter. Further offshore where anoxic conditions are more naturally prevalent, there has been some increase in the habitat extent. Overall there is a lack of quantitative information in changes in distribution, extent and quality of this habitat but expert opinion considers there to have been a decline in extent in the range of 25-35% of aphotic sediment dominated by meiofauna 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 the associated Baltic biotopes (AB.H4U1) as Near Threatened (A1). With no additional information on changes in extent or quality of this habitat, and due to the overall decline in quantity of this habitat current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Near Threatened for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AB.H4U1: Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by meiofauna.


Habitat Type Name:
38 Epifaunal communities on Baltic infralittoral muddy sediment

Habitat Description:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the photic zone where at least 90% of the substrate is muddy sediment according to the HELCOM HUB classification. No perennial attached erect group, perennial unattached algae or annual algae cover more than 10% of the substrate but there is at least 10% coverage by sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic polychaetes. This habitat is found in low to moderate energy exposure classes. Three associated biotopes have been identified where the dominant species constitute at least 50% of the biomass of the epibenthic bivalves. These are; ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Mytilidae’ (AA.H1E1) ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)’ (AA.H1E2); and  ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by valve snails (Valvata spp.)’ (AA.H1E3).
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 fauna are potential indicators of quality.
Characteristic species: 
Mytilus spp., Hediste diversicolor, Gammarus spp., Dreissena polymorpha (depending on the biotope).

Classification:
EUNIS: 
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is A5.31 Sublittoral mud 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:
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 mud
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow muds
 
IUCN:
9.6. Subtidal muddy
 
Other relationships:
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013): 
AA.H1E–Baltic photic muddy sediment characterised by epibenthic bivalves.This habitat has three biotopes on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Mytilidae’ (AA.H1E1), ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)’ (AA.H1E2); and ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by valve snails (Valvata spp.)’ (AA.H1E3).  
AA.H1V–Baltic photic muddy sediment characterized by mixed epibenthic macrocommunity.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Large areas of muddy sediments covered by bivalves such as Mytilus edulis, and/or Modiolus modiolus are a typical habitat in the Baltic Sea.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is common throughout the Baltic Sea except for the northern parts of the Bothnian Bay. It is considered to have been stable in certain areas while in others there have been either decreases or increases of approximately 10% during the past 50 years. There is no quantitative data on which to determine historic trends and no estimates of future trends.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information on which to determine current status and trends in quality of this habitat although it is subject to impact from demersal fisheries. A recent analysis of the fishing intensity of EU trawlers (bottom otter, beam and mid-water trawls) using Automatic Identification System (AIS) ship tracking data over one year (September 2014 -2015) shows high coverage in all European coastal waters and over the continental shelf. When combined with the modelled distribution of EUNIS marine habitat types it is possible to examine the extent of likely impact on a particular benthic habitat.  For example, over this time period nearly 40% of deep infralittoral fine sand and infralittoral muddy sand areas in the Baltic Sea (including the Kattegat) were subject to such fishing pressure.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins therefore does not have an intrinsically restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
Demersal fisheries are known to be a pressure on habitats of infralittoral muddy sediment resulting in modification of species composition.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the regulation of fishing activities which damage or disturb seabed communities, including through the estabishment of marine protected areas.

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 (2013) have assessed AA.H1E1 and AA.H1E2

Summary:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins. It is a benthic habitat in the photic zone where the predominant substrate is muddy sediment. No perennial attached erect group, perennial unattached algae or annual algae cover more than 10% of the substrate but there is at least 10% coverage by sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic polychaetes. Demersal fisheries are known to be a pressure on habitats of infralittoral muddy sediment resulting in modification of species composition. Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the regulation of fishing activities which damage or disturb seabed communities, including through the estabishment of marine protected areas.

Criterion A Text:
This habitat is considered to be stable overall although in certain areas there are considered to have been either decreases or increases of approximately 10% during the past 50 years. There is no quantitative data on which to determine historic trends and no estimates of future trends. This habitat is therefore assessed as Least Concern under Criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is known and although it has been recorded in all the sub-basins quantitative data on the area covered is not available. There is also a lack of quantitative data on current status and changes in extent and quality for the entire Baltic over the last 50 years but expert opinion is that overall it is considered to have been stable. 
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 associated biotopes AA.H1E1 and AA.H1E2 as Least Concern (A1). A further two biotopes AA.H1E3 and AA.H1V were not evaluated. With no additional data available the current expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
52 Epifaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral 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. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic communities, including those dominated by bivalves, cover at least 10% of the seabed. It is typically found at depths below approximately 30 m in high energy exposure areas. One associated biotope has been described (AB.J1E1) which is characterised by a large representation of Mytilidae. These make up at least 50% of the biomass of the epibenthic bivalves present.
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 amount of sediment covering the hard surfaces and the diversity, abundance and biomass of associated fauna are potential quality indicators for this habitat. 
Characteristic species: 
Mytilus spp., Hediste diversicolor

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 (2013) classification: 
AB.J1V Baltic aphotic sand characterised by mixed epibenthic macroscopic community
AB.J1E– Baltic aphotic sand characterised by epibenthic bivalves, this habitat has one biotope on HUB level 6; ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by Mytilidae’ (AB.J1E1).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is extensive and typical of areas of soft sediment in the Baltic Sea.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is present in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins. Although poorly studied the current trend is considered to be stable. There are no data on historic trends nor any estimates of future trends.

Trends in Quality:
The trends in quantity of this habitat are unknown.

Summary:
This is a Baltic Sea benthic habitat in the upper circalittoral where at least 90% of the substrate is sand. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic communities, including those dominated by bivalves, cover at least 10% of the seabed. It is typically found at depths below approximately 30 m in high energy exposure areas. No specific pressures, threats, conservation or management measures have been identified for this habitat.

References:
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 138, Helsinki Commission.

Criterion A Text:
Habitat quantity is considered to have been stable over the last 50 years and there is no information on historic or future reductions. This habitat is therefore assessed as Least Concern under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is present in all Baltic Sea basins therefore EOO exceeds 50,000km2 . The AOO is unknown. The habitat is believed to have been stable over the past 50 years, therefore there is no continuing decline in extent. Quality trends are unknown. This habitat is Least Concern under criteria B1a and B1b and Data Deficient under all other criteria. Overall it is Data Deficient under criteria B.

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

Synthesis:
This habitat is known to occur in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins although quantitative data on the area covered is not available. It is believed to have been stable over the last 50 years with no change expected in 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 biotope AB.J1E1 as Least Concern (A1). Biotope AB.J1V was not evaluated.  On the basis of these assessments and expert opinion, this habitat is assessed as Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+, since it has a large geographic distribution, the trends in quantity have been stable in the past 50 years, and there are no known plausible threats that may induce the habitat to collapse in the near future.


Habitat Type Name:
54 Infaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral sand not dominated by bivalves

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on Baltic aphotic bottoms with at least 90% coverage of sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Sessile/semi-sessile epibenthic macrofauna are generally not present while the biomass of infauna is typically dominated by polychaetes, crustaceans, or insect larvae. This habitat is encountered in sand typically at depths below 30m in moderate to high energy exposure areas. Three associated biotopes have been identified variously characterised by infaunal polychates (Pygospio elegans, Marenzelleria spp. and Hediste diversicolor), crustaceans (Monoporeia affinis and Saduria entomon) or midge larvae (Chironomidae). These species groups constitute at least 50% of the biomass.
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 overtime. 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 fauna are potential indicators of quality.
Characteristic species:
Pygospio elegans, Marenzelleria spp., Hediste diversicolor, Ophelia spp., Travisia forbesii, Monoporeia affinis, Saduria entomon and insect larvae (Chironomidae).

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is 
 
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 (2013) classification: 
AB.J3M  Baltic aphotic sand characterized by infaunal polychaetes
AB.J3N Baltic aphotic sand characterized by infaunal crustaceans.
AB.J3P Baltic aphotic sand characterized by infaunal insect larvae
Level 6 of the HELCOM HUB classification:
‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species: Pygospio elegans, Marenzelleria spp. and Hediste diversicolor’ (AB.J3M4).
 ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated Monoporeia affinis and Saduria entomon’ (AB.J3N1).
 ‘Baltic photic sand dominated by midge larvae (Chironomidae)’ (AA.J3P1).

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is typical of upper circalittoral sand communities throughout the Baltic although one of the biotopes (where midge larvae dominate) is more typical of Bothnian Bay and large lagoons in the southern parts of the Baltic.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is mostly considered to have been stable over the last 50 years although there has been some increase in the extent of the biotope which is dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species such as Pygospio elegans, Marenzelleria spp. and Hediste diversicolor and decrease in areas dominated by Monoporeia affinis. There are no historic data and no future estimates.

Trends in Quality:
The quality of the two associated biotopes (of three) which have been studied appears to be good. There are no quantitative historical data and no estimated future trends.

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

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

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

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

Summary:
This habitat is typical of upper circalittoral sand communities throughout the Baltic although one of the component biotopes (where midge larvae dominate) is more typical of Bothnian Bay and large lagoons in the southern parts of the Baltic.  No specific pressures and threats or conservation management measures have been identified for this habitat.

References:
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138.

Criterion A Text:
This habitat occurs in all the Baltic Sea sub-basins and, based on expert opinion, is that it considered to have been mostly stable over last 50 years. It has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
A lack of a comprehensive of quantitative data on the area covered by this habitat in the Baltic means that precise figures for EOO and AOO could not be calculated however as it is present in all Baltic sea sub-basins and is common throughout the Baltic the EOO is likely to exceed 50,000km2 and AOO exceed 50. Future rends are unknown although as it is currently considered to be stable in terms of quantity. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B for both the EU 28 and Eu 28+.

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is well known. It occurs in all the sub-basins and is mostly considered to have been stable over the last 50 years although there has been some increase in the extent of the biotope which is dominated by multiple infaunal polychaetes such as Pygospio elegans, Marenzelleria spp. and Hediste diversicolor, and some decrease where Monoporeia affinis dominates.
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 three biotopes AB.J3M4, AB.J3N1 and AB.J3P1 as Least Concern (A1). Current expert opinion is that because the habitat is considered to be stable and has a wide geographical distribution it should be assessed as Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
53 Infaunal communities of Baltic upper circalittoral sand dominated by bivalves

Habitat Description:
This Baltic Sea benthic habitat occurs in the aphotic zone in high energy exposure areas with at least 90% coverage of sand according to the HELCOM HUB classification. Typically no macrovegetation or epibenthic macrofauna are present and infaunal bivalves make up at least 10% of the biomass.  
Seven associated biotopes with different dominant species (at least 50% of the biomass) of macrofauna have been identified. These include the Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica) the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) and the sand gaper (Mya arenaria).The dominance structure might vary considerably between stations and the substrate contains different proportions coarse or medium sand, but may also contain finer or coarser sediment fractions. The associated biotopes may also have some differences in distribution. For example ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp.’ (AB.J3L11) is restricted to the Belt Sea (sandbanks) and parts of the ‘submerged belt’ of the Arkona Basin in the western Baltic Sea; the biotope ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp.’ (AB.J3L10) is encountered in the western Baltic Sea, from the Kiel Bight to Isle of Fehmarn, and might occasionally occur from Mecklenburg Bight to the Darss Sill. 
Characteristic species:
Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica, Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte spp. In the case of ‘Baltica photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp.’ (AB.J3L10) Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp. and Spisula spp., additionally other marine bivalves like Thracia spp, Phaxas pellucidus and Arctica islandica. In the case of ‘Baltica photic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species (AB.J3L11) the dominating bivalve species Arctica islandica and Astarte spp. are characteristically accompanied by polychaete species like Ophelia rathkei, Ophelia limacina, Travisia forbesii and Streptosyllis spp.
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 overtime. 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 fauna my be indicators of quality for this habitat.

Classification:
EUNIS:
The closest correspondence in EUNIS (2004) level 4 is 
 
Annex 1:
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 biotopes on HUB level 6, 
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.
AB.J3L11 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii 
AB.J3L7 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by striped venus (Chamelea gallina), is only encountered in the Kattegat and is thus excluded from the Baltic Sea list of the European Red List of Habitats.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Common, widespread and typical habitat of Baltic sandy bottoms.

Trends in Quantity:
Different trends in quantity have been estimated for the 6 associated biotopes which occur in this regional sea area. No signs for a decline were reported for Baltic aphotic sand dominated by Baltic tellin (Macoma balthica) (AB.J3L1), Baltic aphotic sand dominated by sand gaper (Mya arenaria) (AB.J3L4) and Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Cerastoderma spp., Mya arenaria, Astarte borealis, Arctica islandica, Macoma balthica (AB.J3L9). The biotope Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (AB.J3L3) was inferred to have declined by more than 30% during the past 50 years and the quantity of biotope Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp. (AB.J3L10) and Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species including Ophelia spp. and Travisia forbesii (AB.J3L11) are inferred to have declined by 25-30% during the past 50 years. There are no quantitative historic data or estimates of future trends.

Trends in Quality:
Areas dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)’ are considered to have declined in quality over 10-20% of their extent over the last 50 years and the biotope Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., Spisula spp. (AB.J3L10) is believed to have suffered a decline in quality over 20% of its area. No information on changes in quality is available for the other associated biotopes.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Overall no but the associated biotopes Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (AB.J3L3), Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: Macoma calcarea, Mya truncata, Astarte spp., S

Justification of Restricted Area:
Sandy bottoms are common in the aphotic zone of the Baltic, but the biotopes Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) (AB.J3L3), Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal bivalve species: (AB.J3L10) and Baltic aphotic

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is threatened by eutrophication (increase in N, P and organic matter) and contaminant pollution as well as activities which cause direct damage to the seabed. These include sand extraction, oil and gas exploration and extraction and bottom trawling. All of these are also envisaged to be future threats.

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. The aphotic sandy substrates may increasingly be used for mineral extraction. Restricting or prohibiting sand extraction from some areas will support the persistence of this habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
For the biotope with the highest threat category (VU, A1), AB.J3L3 ‘Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)', the habitat forming species is the most long-lived species in the world and has a long generation time. It is likely to be difficult to undertake a re-establishment programme for this species as this would require a commitment of more than 50 years. No information exist on the capacity for recovery of the other associated biotopes.

Summary:
This habitat is common throughout the Baltic Sea occuring in all the sub-basins although some of the asociated biotopes have a more restricted distribution. It is threatened by eutrophication (increase in N, P and organic matter) and contaminant pollution as well as activities that cause direct damage to the seabed. The latter include sand extraction, oil and gas exploration and extraction, and bottom trawling, all of which are also envisaged to be future threats. Beneficial conservation management would include measures to reduce the diffuse run off of nutrients from agricultural land and tackling point source pollution by installation of waste water treatment plants, as well as restricting and prohibiting sand extraction from some locations.

References:
HELCOM. 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138.
Krause, J. Ch. 2000. Der Einfluss von Sand- und Kiesabbau auf bestandsgefährdete Makrofauna - Populationen in der südlichen Ostsee. PhD thesis University of Rostock.
Moen, F.E. and Svensen, E. 2004. Marine fish & invertebrates of Northern Europe. KOM, Kristiansund. 608pp.
Schiewer, U. 2008. Ecology of Baltic Coastal Waters. p. 12. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Trutschelt, K. and Samtleben, C. 1988. Shell growth of Astarte elliptica (Bivalvia) from Kiel Bay (Western Baltic Sea). Marine Ecology progress Series 42: 155–162.
Zettler, M. 2002. Ecological and morphological features of the bivalve Astarte borealis (Schumacher 1817) in the Baltic Sea near its geographical range. Journal of Shellfish Research 21: 33-40

Criterion A Text:
Expert opinion is that there have been significant declines in the extent of some of the associated biotopes and an overall reduction of more than 25%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
A lack of a comprehensive of quantitative data on the area covered by this habitat in the Baltic means that precise figures for EOO and AOO could not be calculated however as it is present in all Baltic sea sub-basins the EOO is likely to exceed 50,000 km2. Future trends have not been predicted. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The presence of this habitat type in the Baltic is well know.n It occurs in all the sub basins but quantitative data on the area covered are not available. There have been declines in both quantity and quality of this habitat particularly for those areas dominated by Arctica islandica.
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 AB.J3L4 as Least Concern  (A1), AB.J3L10 and AB.J3L11 as Near Threatened (A1) and AB.J3L3 as Vulnerable (A1). Biotopes AB.J3L1 and AB.J3L9 were not evaluated. Expert opinion is that there have been significant declines in the extent of some of the associated biotopes and an overall reduction of more than 25%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
AB.J3L3 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) AB.J3L10 Baltic aphotic sand domniated by multiple infaunal bivalve species
AB.J3L11 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by multiple infaunal polychaete species includin


Habitat Description:
Low to medium-sized scrub in the arid and semiarid South Mediterranean areas in southeast Spain, south Sicily, the southern Aegean islands, and south Cyprus, further in lowland Mediterranean North Africa and the Near East. They often form dense or sometimes more widely spaced, frequently spiny shrub patches. Open ground in between supports numerous xerophilous herbaceous plants and subshrubs. Sclerophyllous species are dominant (e.g., Pistacia lentiscus, Periploca angustifolia) as well as deciduous shrubs (e.g., Zizyphus lotus) and dwarf palms (Chamaerops humilis). Depending on the region and aspect of the vegetation, formations have been referred to as retamal (dominated by broom shrubs; mainly covered by habitat F3.1c), palmetto (dwarf palm), tomillar (dominated by needle-leaved or otherwise microphyllous Labiatae) or garrigue (dominated by Cistus, Pistacia and other shrubs). Most types of thermo-Mediterranean arid scrub are 2-3 metres tall, and they occur abundantly along the arid to semiarid North African Mediterranean coasts, being represented only in a few areas in Europe. Woodlands of Tetraclinis and Ziziphus reach 5-6 m.
Thermo-Mediterranean arid scrub occurs on a wide variety of bedrock and exclusively on dry soils. Rocky calcareous or dolomitic lithosols, sandy soils or eroded marly, gypsum and argillite sites are most common. On marly and argillaceous soils it is often affected by soil flow-off. The scrub is frequently wind-exposed, sometimes moderately halophytic if on sea cliff tops. Some subtypes of thermo-Mediterranean scrub may be replaced by woodland in the course of succession but scrub of the most arid and most exposed sites tends to be stable under current conditions and is considered natural or seminatural vegetation, particularly in SE Spain (Murciano-Almeriense province). Some stands are hardly accessible and thus only little affected by human influence. Many of the stands are however browsed by domestic animals (goats), sometimes severely.
Due to the extremely variable species composition and wide geographical range, thermo-Mediterranean scrub forms numerous plant associations and alliances and is part of several phytosociological classes. Dominant plants are Periploca angustifolia, Tetraclinis articulatus, Gymnosporia europaea and Zizyphus lotus, but in all the cases the shrubland is extremely dense, inextricable and spiny, being practically impenetrable. It produces abundant organic matter which favors the soil formation, being a valuable habitat type for soil protection and against erosion. Among the widespread plant communities occurring in this habitat are some of those dominated by Pistacia lentiscus (throughout the South Mediterranean), and most stands of Euphorbia dendroides (from the Balearic Islands to the East Mediterranean) and Periploca angustifolia (from Spain and Northwest Africa to the South Aegean). Many other habitat-specific shrubs, dominant or not, are restricted to single islands or island groups, such as Euphorbia melitensis dwarf shrublands on Malta, Cytisus aeolicus in Sicily, Genista ephedroides in Sardinia and Genista majorica on the Balearic island of Mallorca.
Indicators of good quality:
Absence of greenhouse farming
No construction or building works, garbage dumping, solar panels, traffic, or other serious habitat impact.
No evidence of overgrazing
Absence of alien species such as Oxalis pes-caprae (the latter recognizable above ground only in early spring)

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Ampelodesmos mauritanicus, Asparagus abus, Asparagus horridus, Calicotome intermedia, Chamaerops humilis, Cytisus aeolicus, Euphorbia dendroides, Euphorbia melitensis, Genista ephedroides, Genista majorica, Maytenus europaeus, Periploca angustifolia, Osyris quadripartita, Pinus halepensis, Pistacia lentiscus, Retama raetam subsp. gussonei, Rhamnus angustifolius, Tetraclinis articulatus, Zizyphus lotus.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F5.5 Thermo-Mediterranean arid scrub
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Asparago albi-Rhamnion oleoidis Rivas Goday ex Rivas-Mart. 1975
Periplocion angustifoliae Rivas-Mart. 1975
Annex 1:
5220 * Arborescent matorral with Zyziphus
5330 Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-desert scrub
Emerald:
F5.171 Iberian arid zone Ziziphus matorral
F5.52 Euphorbia dendroides formations
F5.53 Ampelodesmos mauritanica -dominated garrigues
F5.54 Chamaerops humilis brush
F5.55 Mediterranean pre-desert scrub
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.8 Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This type is one of the most specific habitats of the Mediterranean region arid and semi-arid areas, particularly in North Africa but also in some small areas of soutgern Europe sich as SE Spain, southern Sicily and Cyprus, where aridity is higher.

Map Description:
The map is incomplete for some of the Mediterreanean Islands, especially the Aegean Islands. Data sources: EXP, ART17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
Considering the estimations provided, this habitat is currently suffering a severe decline in general terms due to modern greenhouse farming and tourism. In the past this maquis suffered a substantial decrease due to high human pressure: grazing by goats, fire and firewood harvesting.

Trends in Quality:
In general it can be detected a certain decrease in quality due to the uses of the land with waste production and the introduction of ruideral exotic species

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat is widely distributed in the Maghreb countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. An estimated 7% of the total habitat is found within the EU28.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has been severely reduced by grazing, firewood harvesting and currently by greenhouse farming and by the development of touristic resorts.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a narrow natural range in the EU28 area as climatic arid-semiarid thermomediterranean areas are small in Europe

Pressures and Threats:
The process of urbanization for touristic resorts and housing is one of the important pressures together with the development of greenhouse and irrigation intensive agriculture. In a lower extent, another threat are the invasive non-native species as well as the expansion of conifer and eucalypt plantations. Some recreational activities, such as outdoor sports and leisure activities (mountain bike, etc.) can also be counted among the threats. Grazing and firewood harvesting have been historically important activities causing a decrease of this habitat in the past.

Conservation and Management:
Preventing from being urbanized and occupied by intensive agriculture resorts (greenhouses). Preventing from pine and eucalypt plantations. If a well dveloped type is desired, then no disturbance should be assured, particularly repeated fires, firewood extraction and grazing. Including in protected areas.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1 types 5220, 5330. Overall 2 U2, 1 FV.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The recovery speed of these shrublands is slow due to the climatic  arid or semi-arid conditions of the area, provided sufficient period of time without disturbance taking place.

Summary:
This habitat comprises scrub, the mature stages of succession in the most arid areas of southern Europe, the Near East and Mediterranean North Africa. Sclerophyllous and deciduous shrubs and, in South Spain and Northwest Africa, dwarf palms predominate, often forming a patchy cover, with herbs and subshrubs between forming a matrix of xerophile garrigue. The bedrocks are diverse but the soils are always dry. It develops in the absence of disturbance, and is sensitive to fire, firewood harvesting and goat grazing, which were the main causes of the retreat of this habitat in the past.  Now it needs protection from intensive agriculture, afforestation and urbanisation.

References:
Alcaraz, F. (1999).- The vegetation of the Murcian area. Itinera Geobot. 13: 89-97.
Alcaraz, F., Díaz, T. E., Rivas-Martínez, S. & Sánchez Gómez, P., 1989. Datos sobre la vegetación del sureste de España: Provincia Biogeográfica Murciano-Almeriense. Itinera Geobotanica, 2: 1-133.
Peinado, M., Alcaraz, F. & Martínez-Parras, J. M., 1992. Vegetation of Southeastern Spain. Flora et Vegetatio, Mundi 10: 1-487. Berlin: J. Cramer.
Rivas-Martínez, S., 1975. La vegetación de la clase Quercetea ilicis en España y Portugal. Anales del Instituto Botánico Cavanilles, 31(2): 205-259.

Criterion A Text:
The current trend is a substantial decrease due to the urban development for tourism, urban areas and greenhouse-irrigation farming.

Criterion B Text:
The EOO is larger than 50000, and AOO larger than 50, so this habitat should be assessed as LC on the ground of criterion B1.

Criterion C/D Text:
The reduction in quality is caused by human intervention and exotic species introduction.

Synthesis:
The habitat has been assessed to be Vulnerable (VU) due to the decline reported from its main area in Spain. The areas reported from Sicily are also declining, while Cyprus accounts for a stable trend. These latter areas are smaller, but represent insular versions of this habitat which need special conservation concern, because of the phytogeographical and evolutionary significance. This habitat deserves a clear conservation effort in the sense of implementing a sound conservation policy in order to preserve its biodiversity.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The insular areas, Sicily, the South Aegean and Cyprus, are distant from each other and the main area of SE Spain and deserve particular conservation concern, also considering that in Sicily a remarkable reduction in quantity was reported.

Contributors:
Habitat definition: J. Loidi & E. Bergmeier
Territorial data: E. Agrillo, F. Attorre, S. Bagella, L. Casella, C. Christodoulou, P. Dimopoulos, C. Giancola, D. Gigante, G. Giusso Del Galdo, J. Loidi, C. Marcenò, S. Sciandrello, D. Viciani
Working Group Heathlands: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. Carni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Type Name:
A1.1xx Pontic exposed lower mediolittoral barren rock

Habitat Description:
In the Black Sea the lower mediolittoral rock is a narrow zone located just below the swash zone and is covered by water most of the time. This habitat is comprised of all exposed barren rock. Typically these areas are scoured by sand and rock resulting in areas lacking both faunal and floral communities.
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include; the presence of characteristic species and those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face, water quality parameters, levels of exposure to particular pressure as well as 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:
Due to the barren nature of this habitat no characteristic species are present.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of 'pontic littoral rock' (A1.1)
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine- Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient knowledge and information on this habitat to state whether it is an outstanding example of this biogeographic region.

Map Description:
There is insufficient data to produce a map of the distribution of this habitat.

Pressures and Threats:
No pressures or threats have been identified for this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
No current or future conservation measures have been identified for this habitat.

Summary:
The habitat is present in the Black Sea on areas of mediolittoral substrate.  It is not present in the Sea of Marmara. The high level of exposure means there are no faunal and floral communities associated with the habitat. No pressures or threats have been identified for this habitat and no current or future conservation measures have been identified.

References:
Anon. 2006. The northwestern part of the Black Sea: biology and ecology. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 701pp.
Bacescu, M.C., Muller G.I., Gomoiu, M-T. 1971.  Cercetari de ecologie bentica in Marea Neagra (analiza cantitativa, calitativa si comparata a faunei bentice pontice). Ecologie Marina vol. IV. Editura Academiei R.S.R., Bucuresti, 357 pp.
Bacescu, M. 1977. Les biocenoses benthiques de la Mer Noire.  Biologie des eaux saumatres de la Mer Noire, Premiere partie: 128-134
Konsulov, A. 1998. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Bulgaria. Volume 5 of Black Sea environmental series. United Nations Publications, New York, USA.
Marinov, T. 1990. The zoobenthos from the Bulgarian Sector of the Black Sea. Publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, pp 195 (in Bulgarian).
Micu, D.,  Zaharia, T., Todorova, V., NiÅ£Äƒ, V. 2007. Romanian Marine Habitats of European Interest. Punct Ochit Publishers, ConstanÅ£a, Romania.
Micu, D. 2008. Open Sea and Tidal Areas. In: Gafta D. and Mountford J.O. (eds.) Natura 2000 Habitat Interpretation Manual for Romania. EU publication no. EuropeAid/121260/D/SV/RO, 101pp. ISBN 978-973-
751-697-8.
Micu, D., Zaharia, T., Todorova, V. 2008. Natura 2000 habitat types from the Romanian Black Sea. In: Zaharia T, Micu D, Todorova V, Maximov V, NiÅ£Äƒ V. The development of an indicative ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas in Romania. Romart Design Publishing, Constanta, Romania.
Moncheva, S., Todorova, V. (eds). 2013. Initial assessment of the marine environment. Article 8, MSFD 2008/56/EC and NOOSMV (2010). 500p
Petranu, A. 1997. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Romania. Volume 4 of the Black Sea Environmental Series. United Nations Publications, New York, USA.
Prodanov, B., Kotsev, I., Keremedichiev, S., Todorova, V., Dimitrov, L. 2013. Initial assessment of the technogenic pressure in the mediolittoral zone of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Second European SCGIS Conference “Conservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage for Sustainable Development: GIS-Based Approach”, 2013: 4-13.
Todorova, V., Panayotova, M. 2011. Black mussels and/or barnacle communities on mediolittoral rocks. Red book of Republic of Bulgaria, Vol. III, Natural habitats, Eds. BAS & MOEW. [ISBN 978-9549746-23-5].
Vershinin, A. 2007. Life in the Black Sea. Maccentr, Moscow, Russia.
Zaika, V.E., Boltachev, A.R., Zuev, G.V., Kovalev, A.V., Milchakova, N.A., Sergeeva, N.G. 2004. Floristic and faunistic changes in the Crimean Black Sea shelf after 1995 – 1998, Marine Ecological Journal, 3(2), p. 37- 44.
Zaitsev, Y. P., Alexandrov, B. G. 1998. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Ukraine. Volume 7 of the Black Sea Environmental Series. United Nations Publications, New York, USA.

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking. Information on the quantity and quality of this habitat including historical or recent trends is unknown. For the purposes of Red List assessment this habitat is considered to be Data Deficient.


Habitat Description:
Open scrub on gypsum-rich substrata growing in dry to semiarid Mediterranean climate, mostly distributed in the central and south-eastern Iberian Peninsula and with small representations in some Mediterranean islands (Sicily and Cyprus). It develops on sedimentary evaporitic bedrocks rich in gypsum (gypsisols in the FAO soil classification), locally called aljezares (from Arabic aljez = gypsum) of Triassic, Oligocene and Miocene ages. Many of the species of this type are linked to this particular edaphic conditions, being called gypsohytes or gypsophilous species. Many of them are narrow endemics of Iberian or even more restricted distribution, particularly among the scrub species, but also some of the annuals. A few of them are also present in North Africa (Helianthemum squamatum, Lepidium subulatum, Ononis tridentata) or in other countries in the Mediterranean Europe (Chaenorhinum exile, Ctenopsis gypsicola). The richness of endemics is higher in the centre and the south of the Iberian Peninsula than in the northern part of the habitat’s range (Ebro Depression), being highest in the southeast (Almeria, Murcia and Alicante). In addition to the gypsophytes, a number of basiphilous scrub plants of wider distribution and ecology occur, such as Rosmarinus officinalis and Thymus species. Remarkably, also among the lichens, one endemic exists: Diplotomma rivas-martinezii. Other lichen species of the habitat have a wide distribution over the Middle East and Central Asian arid territories, suggesting an old connection with these areas during the desiccation of the Mediterranean Sea in the Messinian episode (Upper Miocene). The EU28 area of this type is restricted to parts of peninsular Spain where gypsum outcrops occur under severe dry climatic conditions and tiny representations in Cyprus and Sicily. It occurs also in some areas of North Africa.
The typical structure of this habitat is formed by three main elements: (1) a chamaephytic scrub of low height (5-60 cm) and low cover in a dispersed formation, (2) a hard lichen crust covering the soil in between the shrubs, and (3) an ephemeral therophytic community appearing in rainy springs, populating the space between shrubs in early summer. This state is quite stable and natural succession is slowed down because of the extreme conditions of soil, slope and severe drought. A moderate sheep grazing pressure is compatible with an optimal state for preventing succession towards shrubland (maquis with Juniperus and Quercus coccifera) and perennial grassland (Machrochloa tenacissima, Brachypodium retusum). The appearance of this habitat, humble, dry and open, entails an idea of poverty and aridity largely extended in the mentality of most of the human society. For that reason, very often those gypsum scrubs have been despised and its area used as landfills, for wind turbines, for quarrying gypsum, and other uses, even after the approval of the Habitat Directive by the European Union in which they were declared as a Priority Habitat. In addition to this and despite its importance, many attempts have been made to perform restoration of woodlands, mostly with pines (Pinus halepensis), which have mostly failed due to the severe soil and climate conditions.
Indicators of good quality:
The following characteristics may be considered as indicators of good quality, but these indicators differ in different regions:
• Presence of gypsophytes, particularly endemics, including threatened species
• Scrub of low height and low cover
• High cover of open soil covered by lichen crust
• Low to moderate cover of vascular plant vegetation, particularly chamaephytes
• Low cover of encroaching tall grasses and shrubs
Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Gypsophytes: Astragalus castroviejoi (**), Boleum asperum (**), Brassica repanda subsp. gypsicola (**), Brassica villosa subsp. tinaei (**), Campanula fastigiata (t), Centaurea hyssopifolia (**), Chaenorhinum exile (t), Chaenorhinum grandiflorum subsp. grandiflorum (t**), Chaenorhinum reyesii (t**), Coris hispanica (**), Ctenopsis gypsicola (t), Diplotaxis harra subsp. crassifolia, Erysimum metlesicsii (**), Euphorbia minuta subsp. moleroi (**), Ferula loscosii (**), Gypsophila struthium subsp. struthium (**), Gypsophila struthium subsp.hispanica (**), Hedysarum boveanum subsp. palentinum (**), Helianthemum alypoides (**), Helianthemum marifolium subsp. conquense (**), Helianthemum squamatum, Herniaria fruticosa (**), Koeleria vallesiana subsp, castellana (**), Lepidium subulatum, Limonium aragonense (**), Limonium lobetanicum (**), Limonium mansanetianum (**), Limonium viciosoi (**), Narcissus pachybolbus, Ononis tridentata subsp. angustifolia var. angustifolia, Ononis tridentata subsp. angustifolia var. edentula (**), Ononis tridentata subsp. crassifolia (**), Ononis tridentata subsp. tridentata, Orobanche georgii-reuteri (on Lepidium subulatum **), Orobanche gypsogena (**), Orobanche resedarum (**), Reseda stricta subsp. funkii (t**), Reseda stricta subsp. stricta (t), Reseda suffruticosa (t**), Santolina viscosa (**), Sedum gypsicola, Teucrium balthazaris (**), Teucrium lepicephalum (**), Teucrium libanitis (**), Teucrium pumilum (**), Teucrium turredanum (**), Thymus lacaitae (**).
t = therophytes, ** narrow endemics.
Frequent non gypsophytes: Brachypodium retusum, Genista scorpius, Helianthemum syriacum, Lithodora fruticosa, Rosmarinus officinalis, Thymus vulgaris.
Mosses: Aloina aloides, Crossidium crassinerve, Riccia crustata, Tortula revolvens var. obtusata, Trichostomum crispulum. Lichens: Acarospora placodiiformis, Acarospora reagens, Buellia zoharyi, Diploschistes diacapensis, Fulgensia desertorum,Lecidea gypsicola, Lepraria isidiata, Psora decipiens, Squamarina lentigera, Teloschistes lacunosus, Toninia sedifolia.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F6.7 Mediterranean gypsum scrubs
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Lepidion subulati Bellot et Rivas Goday in Rivas Goday et al. 1957
Thymo-Teucrion libanitidis Rivas Goday in Rivas Goday et al. 1957 nom. mut.
Sedo-Ctenopsion gypsophilae Rivas Goday et Rivas-Mart. ex Izco 1974
Annex 1:
1520* Iberian gypsum steppes
Emerald:
F6.7 Mediterranean gypsum scrubs
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.8. Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Gypsum scrub occurs only under severe Mediterranean conditions (high summer drought) on substrates rich in gypsum. If rainfall surpasses a certain threshold, the physiological effect of the gypsum-rich soil water solution vanishes and no specialized plants occur. For that reason, this habitat needs to have a severe Mediterranean climate together with the existence of the gypsum outcrop.

Map Description:
Map is complete for Spain, but the indicated small occurrences on Sicily and Cyprus are lacking in the map. Data source: NAT, EVA.

Comment EU28:
Almost all of this area is concentrated in Spain

Comment EU28+:
Almost all of this area is concentrated in Spain

Trends in Quantity:
The trend is slight reduction due to quarrying and to pine plantations in some areas.

Trends in Quality:
The quality of the habitat has been basically stable in the recent past with a slight decline due to the abandonment of the traditional land use with grazing and fire. Pine (Pinus halepensis mainly) plantations are a threat in some areas.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Probably about 80% will be within the limits of the EU. A non estimated quantity occurs in Mediterranean North Africa.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Regression has been not very severe and the range of the habitat is maintained in a major part

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is widely represented in Spain.

Pressures and Threats:
Forestry: pine (Pinus halepensis mainly) and other species afforestation has been a cause of important retreat in some areas. The recreational and sport uses (paths, tracks, cycling tracks, motorcycles, quad-bikes) have increased in the recent time ang gypsum quarries are locally a destructive circumstance. Building of roads, urban areas, etc. also has affected this habitat locally.

Conservation and Management:
The best conservation policy for this habitat is “hands off” and maintaining a low sheep grazing pressure. The abandonment of traditional land use has meant the release of sheep grazing and the secondary succession in many areas occupied by this habitat. This entails a degradation of the quality and a retreat of the occupancy of these gypsum scrubs; a moderate disturbance regime, mostly by means of sheep grazing, is necessary to keep this habitat in a stable high quality situation. Control of pine plantations, development of urban areas and gypsum quarrying is also necessary.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As it is a scrub accompanied by annual communities in the open gaps, the recovery after severe damage is relatively quick and spontaneous if seed sources are available.

Summary:
This highly distinctive open scrub is confined to gypsum-rich substrata occurring in a dry to semiarid Mediterranean climate, mostly distributed in the central and south-eastern Iberian Peninsula and with small outliers in Sicily and Cyprus. Basiphilous plants predominate, many of them gypsophytes, with numerous narrow endemics, there is a hard lichen crust and an ephemeral grassland element that develops after spring rains. Natural succession is slow on such a peculiar substrate and moderate sheep grazing can be borne. The habitat is used for quarrying, as landfill and windfarm sites, for reacreation, misguided restoration of woodlands and urbanisation. Legal protection with no intervention is the best conservation approach.

References:
Di Martino, A., Marcenó, C. & Raimondo, F.M.. (1977) Nota preliminare sulla vegetazione gipsofila della Sicilia centro-meridionale. Giornle Botanico Italiano 111: 369-370.
Loidi, J. & M. Costa (1998).- Sintaxonomía de los matorrales gipsícolas españoles. Fitosociologia 32: 221-227.
Mota, J.F., M.E. Merlo, L. Rodríguez-Tamayo, J. Peñas, F. Pérez & E. Dana (1998).- Examen de la vegetación de los aljezares ibéricos con especial atención a la provincia de Almería. Investigación y Gestión 3: 142-158.
Mota, J.F., P. Sánchez-Gómez & J.S. Guirado (eds.) (2011).- Diversidad vegetal de las yeseras ibéricas. El reto de los archipiélagos edáficos para la biología de la conservación. ADIF-Mediterráneo Asesores Consultores. Almería. 636 pp.
Rivas-Martínez, S. & M. Costa (1970).- Comunidadesgipsícolas del centro de España. Anales Inst. Bot. Cavanilles 27: 193-224.

Criterion A Text:
The retreat in quantity has been slight.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat has a large occupancy over a large area of occurrence where gypum outcrops occur under severe Mediterranean conditions.

Criterion C/D Text:
The quality decline has been relatively moderate to moderately severe with the exception of the areas affected by quarries and urbanisation.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available that estimates the probability of collapse of this habitat type

Synthesis:
The gypsaceous hills in central and eastern Spain constitute the main proportion of this habitat in the EU 28 and EU 28+ and also encompass its highest quality areas. These hills have been traditionally used for grazing by sheep and goats and nowadays are being simply abandoned. Some of them have suffered artificial pine plantations and there are gypsum quarries in a few places and some areas have suffered from urbanisation, but the majority of those areas are are conserved in good conditions. Only the effects of the release of the grazing pressure could, in a medium-long term, lead to an evolution towards tall shrub or forest habitats due to succession. So far there is no danger of severe reduction of this habitat and its threat category is Least Concern but it is recommended to include these habitat into protected areas in order that an apprpriate policy for conservation could be applied. The habitat representations of Sardinia, Sicily and Cyprus should deserve more concern in conservation effort due to their isolation.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
No relevant sub-habitats are considered.

Contributors:
Habitat description: J. Loidi
Territorial data: P. Dimopoulos, G. Giusso Del Galdo, J. Loidi, C. Marcenò, S. Sciandrello
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Description:
In this type we have included not only the halo-nitrophilous but also the nitrophilous (with a lower content of salt) communities dominated by perennial plants, often ligneous or hemicriptophytes with large size, frequent in ruderal environments (nearby human dwellings, borders of tracks and ways, etc.) in dry to arid regions in the Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian and North Saharo-Arabian regions. Some botanical groups are highly represented in its flora such as Chenopodiaceae, Artemisia, Santolina and in many areas the grass Lygeum spartum is also abundant. Soluble nitrates and phosphates resulting from organic matter decomposition remain on the soil for long time, due to the scarcity of rainfall. This permits the life of long-living nitrophilous plants, such as shrubs, and thus, the development of a nitrophilous scrub. Such conditions of aridity also favor accumulation of salt in the soils, and many of these formations are adapted to a certain salt tolerance (halo-nitrophilous). Characteristic species are often archeophytes and neophytes native to other Mediterranean areas or even from tropical countries. The habitat type is present in the center and south of the Iberian Peninsula, in S- Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and the Aegean islets (Greece), as well as on the Canaries and Madeira archipelagos. Its diversity is highest in the arid and semi-arid thermo and infra Mediterranean areas of the Iberian Peninsula. In agrarian landscapes of the Mediterranean region submitted to a long historic human pressure, this habitat contributes substantially to the local biodiversity and landscape quality, being often also grazed by the local sheep and goat races.
Indicators of good quality:
In nitrophilous habitat good quality entails the degree of disturbance and of human influence necessary to maintain populations of the ruderal and nitrates depending species.
Characteristic species:
Flora, Vascular plants:
Continental Europe: Artemisia arborescens, Artemisia barrelieri, Artemisia campestris subsp. glutinosa, Artemisia herba-alba subsp. herba-alba, Artemisia herba-alba subsp. valentina, Artemisia lucentica, Atriplex glauca, Atriplex halimus, Ballota hirsuta, Camphorosma monspeliaca, Capparis spinosa var. canescens, Carthamus arborescens, Commicarpus africanus, Euphorbia matritensis, Fagonia cretica, Frankenia thymifolia, Hammada articulata, Haplophyllum linifolium, Hohenackeria polyodon, Ipomoea indica, Ipomoea purpurea, Krascheninnikovia ceratoides, Launaea arborescens, Lycium barbarum, Lycium europaeum, Lycium intricatum, Marrubium alysson, Mercurialis tomentosa, Nicotiana glauca, Peganum harmala, Plumbago europaea, Ricinus communis, Ruta angustifolia, Salsola genistoides, Salsola oppositifolia, Salsola vermiculata, Santolina canescens, Santolina chamaecyparissus subsp. squarrosa, Santolina impressa, Santolina oblongifolia subsp. obtusifolia, Santolina pectinata, Santolina rosmarinifolia subsp. ceratophylla, Santolina rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia, Santolina rosmarinifolia subsp. semidentata, Senecio malacitanus, Sideritis hirsuta subsp. danielii, Solanum linneanum, Suaeda mollis, Withania frutescens, Withania somnífera, Zygophyllum fabago.
Canaries and Madeira: Argyranthemum broussonetii, Argyranthemum frutescens subsp. frutescens, Argyranthemum frutescens subsp. succulentum, Artemisia ramosa, Artemisia thuscula, Atriplex glauca subsp. ifniensis, Bosea yerbamora, Ceballosia fruticosa, Calendula maderensis, Chenolenoides tomentosa, Cheirolophus canariensis, Convolvulus caput-medusae, Descurainia millefolia, Forsskaolea angustifolia, Frankenia capitata, Gonospermum fruticosum, Herniaria canariensis, Lavandula canariensis, Lavandula pinnata, Lavatera acerifolia, Lobularia canariensis subsp. marginata, Lotus glaucus, Lotus sessilifolius var. pentaphyllus, Nicotiana paniculata, Plantago arborescens, Rumex lunaria, Salsola brevifolia, Salsola portilloi, Salsolab vermiculata subsp. frankenioides, Salsola tetrandra, Salvia canariensis, Schizogyne glaberrima, Schizogyne sericea, Suaeda ifniensis, Withania aristata.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F6.8 Mediterranean halo-nitrophilous scrubs
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Salsolo vermiculatae-Peganion harmalae Br.-Bl. et O. de Bolòs 1954
Haloxylo tamariscifolii-Atriplicion glaucae Rivas Goday et Rivas-Mart. ex Rigual 1972
Salsolo oppositifoliae-Suaedion fruticosae Rigual 1972
Lycio europaei-Ipomoeion purpureae O. de Bolòs 1988
Artemision arborescentis Géhu et al. 1986
Atriplici halimi-Suaedion verae Géhu et al. ex Bergmeier et Dimopoulos 2003
Medicagini citrinae-Lavaterion arboreae O. de Bolòs et Vigo in O. de Bolòs et al. 1984
Artemisio glutinosae-Santolinion rosmarinifoliae Costa 1975
Santolinion pectinato-canescentis Peinado et Martínez-Parras 1984
Nicotiano glaucae-Ricinion communis Rivas-Mart., Fernández-González et Loidi 1999
Chenoleion tomentosae Sunding 1972
Artemisio thusculae-Rumicion lunariae Rivas-Mart. et al. 1993
Launaeo arborescentis-Schizogynion sericeae Rivas-Mart. et al. 1993
Argyranthemo suculenti-Calendulion maderensis Capelo et al. 2000
Annex 1:
1430 Halo-nitrophilous scrubs (Pegano-Salsoletea)
Emerald:
F6.8 Xero-halophile scrubs
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.8. Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
A perennial ligneous vegetation which develops under nitrophilic (accumulation of nitrogen compounds) and salty (accumulation of salt) soil conditions in a higher or lower degree happens basically under mediterranean conditions with a long and severe summer drought which prevents such compounds from being diluted.

Map Description:
The map seems to provide the complete distribution of the habitat. Data sources: Art17.

Comment EU28:
Widespread in arid and semi-arid Mediterranean area

Comment EU28+:
Widespread in arid and semi-arid Mediterranean area

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat is promoted by the human activity with the accumulation of wastes and nitrogen-rich materials to the edges of the fields and tracks. Historically it has been maintained in good conditions, only dessication of endorrhoeic basins have reduced its halophilic variant, not affecting the general trend that is stable.

Trends in Quality:
No decrease in quality observed, only drainage of endorrhoic basins are reducing the halophilic variant.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The major part of the habitat lies outside of the EU, in North Africa and in Western Asia (Irano-Turanian and Saharo-Arabian regions); perhaps a 20% of the total extent of this habitat (as it has been defined) is found in the EU.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is present in most of the Mediterranean countries, and is broadly represented in the Iberian Peninsula.

Pressures and Threats:
The transformation into arable land with dessication of endorheic basins has reduced a part of the halophilic variant of this type. Housing and construction of infrastructures has been also a noticeable factor of decrease.

Conservation and Management:
Preventing from draining the inland wet saline areas (endorheic basins).

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As a ruderal one, this habitat has a high resiliency, recovering quickly after severe damage.

Summary:
This essentially weedy habitat is typical of disturbed situations in dry to arid parts of the Mediterranean, related to severe disturbance by herders and farmers adding large amounts of nitrified compounds to the soil. Salinity often develops where the bedrock contains abundant soluble salts and there is a severe drought period. Particularly abundant in the vicinity of villages, in cropfield margins, on roadsides and in areas much influenced by herds, the vegetation is dominated by woody and bulky nitrophilous and halo-nitrophilous perennials. In ancient agrarian landscapes, the vegetation contributes diversity and is also sometimes grazed by local sheep and goat breeds. There has been some drainage of moist inland saline areas to transform them into croplands and other threats include expansion of settlements and infrastructure developments.

References:
Biondi E., 1988. Aspetti di vegetazione alo- nitrofila sulle coste del Gargano e delle isole Tremiti. Arch. Bot. e Biogeog. Ital., 64 (1-2), 198:19-33.
Biondi E., Allegrezza M. & Filigheddu R., 1988. Su alcune formazioni ad Artemisia arborescens L. della Sardegna settentrionale. Boll. Soc. Sarda Sci. Nat. 26: 177-185.
Biondi E., Blasi C., Brugiapaglia E., Fogu M. C. & Mossa L., 1994. La vegetazione nitrofila della città di Cagliari (Sardegna). Allionia 32: 303-323.
Braun-Blanquet, J. & O. de Bolòs (1958).- Les groupements végétaux du bassin moyen de l’Ebre et leur dynamisme. Anales Estac. Exp. Aula Dei 5: 1-266.
Brullo S., Giusso del Galdo G., Guarino R., Minissale P., Sciandrello S. & Spampinato G., 2012. Syntaxonomic survey of the class Pegano harmalae-Salsoletea vermiculatae Br.-Bl. & O. Bolos 1958 in Italy. Plant Biosystems: 1-26.
Farris E., Pisanu S., Secchi Z., Bagella S., Urbani M., Filigheddu R., 2007. Gli habitat terrestri costieri e litorali della Sardegna settentrionale: verifica della loro attribuzione sintassonomica ai sensi della Direttiva 43/92/CEE “Habitat”. Fitosociologia 44(1): 165-180.
Peinado, M. & J.M. Martínez-Parras (1984).- Sobre la clase Pegano-Salsoletea: Helichryso-Santolinetalia ord. nov. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 40(2): 437-444.
Peinado, M., J.M. Martínez-Parras, C. Bartolomé & F. Alcaraz (1989).- Síntesis sintaxonómica de la clase Pegano- Salsoletea en España (1). Doc. Phytosoc. 11: 283-301.

Criterion A Text:
No significant reduction in quantity observed, nor in the past nor expected in the future.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large distribution, both in the EU28 and in the EU28+, far higher than the thresholds for applying Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
Quality is slightly reduced by drainage of endorheic basins, however with rates of extent and severity that don't meet the thresholds for Criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
There is no concern about this habitat as it is a ruderal one, strongly linked to human activity. Only some areas in which the endorhoeic basins are being drained for several purposed (transformation into arable land, housing, etc.) report a certain decrease of the subhalophilic variant of the habitat, however with rates of extent and severity that don't meet any threat category.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Some attention should be paid to the halophylic variant of this habitat with Atriplex halimus.

Contributors:
Type description: J. Loidi
Territorial data: E. Agrillo, F. Attorre, S. Bagella, L. Casella, P. Dimopoulos, G. Giusso Del Galdo, J. Loidi, C. Marcenò, S. Sciandrello, D. Viciani
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Description:
Open scrub on calcareous substrata formed by ligneous plants of Mediterranean floristic character which represent degradation seral stages in the supra levels of the Mediterranean region. They replace basically Quercus rotundifolia, Quercus ilex, Quercus faginea and Juniperus thurifera forests. This habitat type is found in the base-rich mid elevation terrains in the Baetic mountains, central Iberian high plateau (meseta), Pyrenees piedmonts, southern France and southern Alps piedmonts, Apennine. It is present also in Portugal and Greece. These garrigues have been historically expanded by fire, a common practice of traditional sheepherding which has been the main land use along centuries. This is in apparent contradiction with the abundance of narrowly distributed species, but this is probably due to the fact that, in their primary stations, the patches of this habitat were isolated and distant from each other, favoring speciation. After the arrival of the Neolithic period (about 8 to 7000 years BP in western Mediterranen areas), humans transformed the landscape completely reversing the relative abundance of the previously existing habitats as they needed open large areas for their herds causing that the formerly restricted scrub areas became general in the landscape. Nowadays, with the abandonment of traditional sheepherding, of firewood collection and charcoal fabrication, forests and woodlands are recovering and this habitat, some decades ago extensively represented, is in clear regression, although still far from being in danger. Structural similar communities in siliceous sites of the supramediterranean zones of the mountains of Sardinia and Corse, with Genista salzmanni as an important species, are considered part of the oro-mediterranean hedgehog heaths of habitat F7.4b.
Indicators of good quality:
Optimal conditions for this type entail that the typical structure of the vegetation to be represented, i.e. scrub of low height and low cover in a matrix of open soil. The following characteristics may be considered as indicators of good quality, but these indicators differ in different regions:
• Presence of dwarf ligneous plants, particularly endemics, including threatened species
• High to medium cover of vascular plant vegetation, particularly chamaephytes
• Low cover of encroaching tall grasses and shrubs
• Absence of nitrophilic and alien species indicating heavy human influence
Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Allium chrysonemum, Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. arundana, Aphyllanthes monspeliensis, Arenaria arcuatociliata, Arenaria vitoriana, Artemisia alba, Aster willkommii subsp. catalaunicus, Astragalus bourgaeanus, Astragalus clusianus, Astragalus turolensis, Carthamus araneoasus subsp. macrocephalus, Carex halleriana, Carthamus araneosus subsp. pseudomitissimus, Centaurea alba subsp. costae, Centaurea alba subsp. maluqueri, Centaurea boissieri, Centaurea emigrantis, Centaurea gadorensis, Centaurea monticola, Centaurea resupinata subsp. prostrata, Cephalaria linearifolia, Coronilla minima, Crocus nevadensis subsp. marcetii, Dianthus algetanus, Dianthus anticarius subsp. subbaeticus, Dianthus costae, Echinospartum boissieri, Erysimum favargeri, Erysimum fitzii, Euphorbia spinosa, Fumana ericifolia, Genista cinerea, Genista elias-sennenii, Genista hispanica, Genista pseudopilosa, Genista pumila, Genista salzmanii, Genista scorpius, Genista lobelii, Genista pulchella subsp. villarsii, Genista teretifolia, Helianthemum appeninum, Helianthemum oelandicum subsp. italicum, Helianthemum rossmaessleri, Hippocrepis commutata, Hippocrepis rupestris, Hippocrepis scorpioides, Hypericum coris, Knautia arvensis subsp. collina, Knautia subscaposa, Lavandula angustifolia subsp. angustifolia, Lavandula angustifolia subsp. pyrenaica, Lavandula latifolia, Leucanthemum favargeri, Leucanthemum pallens, Leucanthemum vulgare subsp. monserratianum, Linum campanulatum, Linum suffruticosum subsp. differens, Nepeta hispanica, Onobrychis argentea subsp. hispanica, Onobrychis reuteri, Phlomis crinita subsp. composita, Plantago discolor, Ptilostemon hispanicus, Ranunculus malessanus, Salvia blancoana, Salvia lavandulifolia subsp. lavandulifolia, Salvia lavandulifolia subsp. pyrenaeorum, Salvia lavandulifolia susbp. vellerea, Salvia oxyodon, Salvia phlomoides subsp. boissieri, Salvia phlomoides subsp. phlomoides, Salvia pseudovellerea, Satureja intricara subsp. gracilis, Satureja montana, Scabiosa macropoda, Scorzonera hirsuta, Scorzonera reverchonii, Sideritis flaviflora, Sideritis laxespicata, Sideritis pungens, Stachys heraclea subsp. valentina, Staehelina dubia, Teucrium aragonense, Teucrium leonis, Teucrium lucidum, Teucrium luteum subsp. contortostylum, Teucrium luteum subsp. similatum, Teucrium webbianum, Thymelaea pubescens, Thymus clandestinus, Thymus fontqueri, Thymus funkii subsp. burilloi, Thymus mastigophorus, Thymus membranaceus, Thymus orospedanus, Thymus tenuifolius, Thymus vulgaris, Veronica tenuifolia.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F6.6 Supra-Mediterranean garrigues
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Lavandulo latifoliae-Genistion boissieri Rivas Goday et Rivas-Mart. 1969
Sideritido incanae-Salvion lavandulifoliae (Rivas Goday et Rivas-Mart. 1969) Izco et Molina 1989
Helianthemo italici-Aphyllanthion monspeliensis Díez et al. 1998
Plantagini discoloris-Thymion mastigophori Molina et Izco 1989
Lavandulo angustifoliae-Genistion cinereae Barbero et al. 1972
Polygalo-Seslerion insularis Arrigoni ex Arrigoni et Di Tommaso 1986
Artemisio albae-Saturejion montanae Allegrezza et al. 1997
Genistion lobelii Molinier 1934
Annex 1:
-
Emerald:
F7 Spiny Mediterranean heaths (phrygana, hedgehog-heaths and related coastal cliff vegetation)
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
3.8. Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This vegetation is characteristic of the medium- and high-altitude areas of the Mediterranean region submitted to cold winters. It can also be found in some areas of the southern mountain piedmonts of the Alpine region: Cantabrian Range, Pyrenees, southern Massif Central, western Alps.

Map Description:
This map is only good for Spain and southern France, but the Italian range is underestimated since the habitat occurs not only in the Alps, but also in the Apennines and the main islands, while data from Greece and Portugal are missing. Data sources: EVA, NAT.

Comment EU28:
Largely distributed in central and nortehrn Spain, southern France and W Italy

Comment EU28+:
Largely distributed in central and nortehrn Spain, southern France and W Italy

Trends in Quantity:
As other garrigue vegetation in countries under Mediterranean climate, this habitat has been extensively increased in the past by means of the severe disturbance regime established by humans, particularly fire and grazing. With the abandonment of that management, a reversed tendency started which is now in the point of stability but shifting to reduction, which in the fiture will be the general tendency, but at a slow pace. Modern types of land use, especially artificial pine plantations, represent a threat for this habitat.

Trends in Quality:
Quality is relatively stable in this type. A slow succession towards forest types takes place nowadays due to the rural abandonment and the release of traditional land use systems and their associated disturbance regimes.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
About 60%. This habitat also occus in north Africa, particularly in the mountanious regions of Algeria and Morocco.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat is broadly represented nowadays and has not suffered substantial reduction yet.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is natural in vast areas in the Iberian Peninsula (central Meseta) and in the mountains of Mediterranean France, Italy and Greece.

Pressures and Threats:
The abandonment of traditional land use has led to the progression of succession towards more developed forms of vegetation. Pine plantations also constitute a relevant threat for this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Maintaining traditional grazing systems, prescribed fires of low frequency. Preventing from pine and other conifers plantation.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
As it is a seral stage in succession, it recovers easyly after severe damage.

Summary:
This open scrub dominated by woody shrubs has been derived by degradation of Quercus and Juniperus woodlands on base-rich bedrocks across vast areas of the highlands of the western Mediterranean. It has been historically expanded by fire, a common practice of traditional sheepherding which has been the main land use for centuries and has suffered from many changes in farming practice and shifts in land-use, for example to forest plantations. Conservation demands low intensity management.

References:
Allegrezza M., Biondi E., Formica E., Ballelli S., 1997. La vegetazione dei settori rupestri calcarei dell’Italia centrale. Fitosociologia, 32: 91-120
Arrigoni P.V., Di Tommaso P.L., 1991. La vegetazione delle montagne calcaree della Sardegna centro-orientale. Boll. Soc. Sarda Sci. Nat., 28: 201-310.
Izco, J. & A. Molina (1989).- Ensayo sintaxonómico y nomenclatural sobre los matorrales calcifilo-continentales incluibles en la nueva alianza Sideritido incanae-
Salvion lavandulifoliae. Doc. Phytosoc. N.S. 11: 95-109.
Izco, J., A. Molina & F. Fernández-González (1982).- Veronico jabalambrensis-Thymetum mastigophori (Aphyllanthion s.a.) ass. nova. Lazaroa 4: 53-61.
Molina, A. (1984).- Estudio de los matorrales de Xero-Aphyllanthion Rivas Goday & Rivas-Martínez 1969 (Sideritido-Salvion Izco & Molina al nova). PhD Universidad Complutense. Madrid.
Molina, A. & J. Izco (1989).- Nomenclature and syntaxonomy of castellano-cantabrian Thymus mastigophorus communities. Lazaroa 11: 180-182.
Rivas Goday, S. & S. Rivas-Martínez (1968).- Matorrales y tomillares de la Península Ibérica comprendidos en la clase Ononido-Rosmarinetea Br.-Bl. 1947. Anales Inst. Bot. Cavanilles 25: 1-297.

Criterion A Text:
A moderate loss of area due to the natural succession towards mature steges and pine plantations has taken place.

Criterion B Text:
The habitat covers a large area in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Greece, and the AOO and EOO are much larger than thresholds for criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The decrease in quality is due to the natural succession towards other more mature stages but this process is slowed by the hard climatic conditions: low temperatues for a long period in the year, and summer drought. Thus, the qualitetive decrease is slow.

Synthesis:
There is no concern about this habitat type, due to its extension and to its current situation. However a certain traditional management (grazing) should be maintained in areas where it exists in order to prevent a future stronger decrease.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
No subtypes relevant for further assessment are recognized.

Contributors:
Type description: J. Loidi
Terrestrial data: E. Agrillo, F. Attorre, S. Bagella, L. Casella, C. Giancola, D. Gigante, G. Giusso Del Galdo, C. Marcenò, S. Sciandrello, D. Viciani, J. Loidi, O. Argagnon
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Type Name:
B1.6a Atlantic and Baltic coastal dune scrub

Habitat Description:
A broad habitat type, covering more or less all low to high scrub in dry dunes and wet dune slacks in the Baltic and Atlantic coastal regions. The species composition differs over climatic regions. In north-western Europe and the southern Baltic Hippophae rhamnoides and Salix repens ssp. arenarius are mainly dominating in dry dunes, while Ulex europaeus, Cytisus scoparius and Rubus ulmifolius are important species in dry dunes of the warmer parts of the Atlantic coasts. In wet dune slacks, typically Salix scrub is found, especially Salix repens, Salix cinerea, Salix atrocinerea and Salix rosmarinifolius. In the Baltic region Salix repens ssp. arenarius and Salix rosmarinifolius grow together with boreal heather species, while along the Portuguese coast in wet dunes Salix repens and Salix atrocinerea are accompanied by some Atlantic-Mediterranean species, like Scirpus holoschoenus. Salix repens ssp. arenarius is found in drier parts of the dunes as well. In mesic dune slacks it is typically accompanied by Monotropa hypopitys, living saprophytic on Salix-specific ectomycorrhizal fungi, and by Pyrola minor and Pyrola rotundifolia, forming the association Pyrolo-Salicetum. This association is known for many rare fungi, of which some live in symbiosis with Salix repens. Very low Salix repens-scrub (mowed or grazed) forming a component in fen or grassland communities is not included in this habitat, but considered under dune slacks (B1.8a) or dune grasslands (B1.4a). The same goes for relatively low scrub of Rosa spinosissima (sometimes known as R. pimpinellifolia), forming a component of grasslands.
The habitat is especially well developed in dry, calcium-rich dunes, where it reaches several meters of height and may form a dense formation, relatively rich in shrub species. Besides the already mentioned species Rhamnus cathartica, Ligustrum vulgare, Berberis vulgaris, Euonymus europaeus, Sambucus nigra, Crataegus monogyna and several species of Rosa and Rubus contribute to the biodiversity. The many berries produced by the shrubs play an important role as a food source for birds, especially during the migrating season in late summer and autumn. A typical accompanying species is the climbing Bryonia cretica.
The dune shrublands have been classified in the order Salicetalia arenariae, in which three alliances are distinguished: Salicion arenariae, Ligustro-Hippophaeion, and Holoschoeno australis-Salicion arenariae, the latter being restricted to the warmest parts of the Atlantic coast. Additional the communities of Salix cinerea (alliance Salicion cinereae.) are included in the habitat. The Pyrolo-Salicetum is sometimes classified in the Empetrion nigri.
In some places also Juniperus species form coastal scrub. Juniperus communis is known from temperate coasts, for example calcareous dunes of north-western Jutland. In the Mediterranean coasts several other Juniperus species are found, and some of them northwards reach the warmer Atlantic dunes.
Indicators of good quality:
Dense and high structure of scrub
Diversity in shrub species
Absence of non-native species, like Rosa rugosa, Eleagnos spp., Cornus spp., ...
Low cover of trees
Presence of breeding birds
Food supply for migrating birds in autumn
Presence of rare fungi

In some parts of the range (for example England) dune shrubs have been planted and form a threat to dune grasslands and other more species-rich habitats.
Characteristic species:
Flora: Berberis vulgaris, Calamagrostis epigejos, Carex arenaria, Cornus sanguineus, Crataegus monogyna, Cytisus scoparius, Euonymus europaeus, Hippophae rhamnoides, Juniperus communis, Ligustrum vulgare, Monotropa hypopitys, Pyrola minor, Pyrola rotundifolia, Rhamnus catharticus, Rosa rubiginosa, Rosa spinosissima, Rubus thallasarctos, Rubus caesius, Rubus ulmifolius, Salix cinerea, Salix repens ssp. arenarius, Sambucus nigra, Ulex europaeus
Birds: Nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos)

Classification:
EUNIS:
B1.6 Coastal dune scrub
EuroVegChecklist:
Salicion arenariae Tx. ex Passarge in Scamoni 1963
Ligustro-Hippophaeion Géhu et Géhu-Franck 1983
Holoschoeno australis-Salicion arenariae Neto et al. 2004 ?
Salicion cinereae T. Müller et Görs ex Passarge 1961
Empetrion nigri Schubert ex Westhoff et Den Held 1969 (association Pyrolo-Salicetum)
Annex I:
2160 Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides
2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)
Emerald:
B1.6 Coastal dune scrub
MAES-2:
Heathland and shrub
IUCN:
13.3 Coastal Sand Dunes

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The habitat is best represented, both in area and diversity, in the relatively broad dune systems of the Atlantic coast.

Map Description:
The map is rather complete, with maybe some gaps in the Baltic region. Data sources: Art17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
Different countries report very different trends. The countries with the largest area (France, Netherlands, Belgium) report a positive trend, mainly caused by expansion of Hippophae rhamnoides scrub. Denmark however, reports a stronge decrease. Also many of the countries with small extents reported a decrease of the quantity. On average the trend is more or less stable. The data does not include figures from outside the EU28.

Trends in Quality:
The countries with largest occurrences report stable trends in quality, but on average the trend is slightly negative. Only 7% of the total area has a declined quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
95% of the habitat type is within the EU28.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat is found everywhere along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Baltic Sea.

Justification of Restricted Area:
Within dune systems the area of dune scrub varies from being rather limited to occupying large areas.

Pressures and Threats:
Most important threats to this habitat, besides destruction by urbanisation (Spain), are (1) succession towards forest, (2) expansion of alien species, like Rosa rugosa and Prunus serotina, (3) intensification of agricultural practices, including overgrazing, and (4) trampling by recreation and outdoor activities. For wet examples of the habitat changes in hydraulic conditions cause deterioration. Finally atmosferic deposition may be a problem for the habitat, but - on the other hand - the shrubs may profit from it as well, by overgrowing dune grasslands. Notable is that the characteristic species Hippophae rhamnoides is considered as a non-native problematic species in large parts of the UK.

Conservation and Management:
Along the Atlantic coast, in the larger dune areas, expansion of the habitat is considered a threat to other, more open and more species-rich habitats, like dune grasslands and dune slacks. This is especially the case in large parts of the UK, where Hippophae rhamnoides is considered as a non-native species. On the other hand the habitat has an important function for animals, by providing food (berries) and shelter. In optimal situations there is a balance between dynamic conditions causing rejuvenation of dunes and succession towards dune scrub and forest, and no specific management is needed. Many dune areas however are relatively small and often the focus of management will be on the more open habitats, which may be maintained by extensive grazing. In such cases the preservation of at least some patches of shrubland is important and will increase the overall diversity and species-richness of the dunes.
Specific measures relate to the removal of invasive non-native species, which are able to dominate dune shrublands.

Conservation Status:
Annex I:
2160: ATL FV, CON U2
2170: ATL U1, BOR U1, CON U1

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The habitat can spontaneously restore when dunes stabilise. Succession towards shrubland can occur within short periods (10-20 years).

Summary:
This habitat includes a wide diversity of scrub types dominated by low to tall shrubs on stabilised dry dune sands and in wet dune slacks along the Atlantic and Baltic coasts, most extensively on the north French and North Sea coasts.  The composition and structure vary according to regional climate and ground conditions with dry dunes tending to support taller and more species-rich vegetation. It provides shelter and food for birds and is part of a dynamic dune succession but its spread over more open dune grasslands is itself seen as a threat in some places. Further succession to dune woodland, eutrophication and spread of nitrophilous weeds and destruction for coastal development all endanger this habitat but overall its situation is of least concern.

References:
Boerboom, J.H.A. 1960. De plantengemeenschappen van de Wassenaarse Duinen. PhD Thesis Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen.
Delelis-Dussollier, A. and Géhu, J.H. 1974. Apport à la connaissance phytosociologique de fourrés d'argousier du littoral français de la Mer du Nord et de la Manche. Documents Phytosociologique 6: 27-42.
Géhu, J.M. and Géhu, J. 1979. Presentation synthetique des fourres littoraux antlantiques. Colloques phytosociologoques VII: 247-354.

Criterion A Text:
The trend in area in the last ca. 50 years is more or less stable, ranging from -1.6% to +3.7% when using minimum and maximum reported values. Therefore the habitat is assessed as Least Concern under criterion A1. No data on future trends are available, while long historical trends have been reported for only 13% of the present area.

Criterion B Text:
The AOO and EOO are both much larger than the thresholds for the criteria B1 and B2, there is no continuous decline or future threat, and also the number of locations is very high. These figures lead to the category Least Concern for criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
In the last 50 years the negatively affected extent of this habitat is very small, less than 10%. Within this area the severity of quality decrease is slight to moderate. There is no historic information about the reduction in quality or in the future. Thus this habitat is assessed as Least Concern under criteria C/D.

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

Synthesis:
As the habitat type is widely distributed and has a stable trend in quantity and a slightly negative trend in quality, the habitat is assessed as Least Concern.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
The habitat is broadly defined and several sub-habitats may be distinguished. A main further split would be in a dune scrub on dry soil, dominated by thorn shrubs, and one in moist or wet dune slacks, being dominated mainly by Salix species.</

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


Habitat Type Name:
A1.2_PT9: Seaweeds on moderately exposed shores

Habitat Description:
This habitat is a calcareous turf on areas of intertidal rock exposed to wave action. It includes the biotope characterised by Chondracanthus acicularis which occurs on horizontal and vertical surfaces where it forms an extremely dense herbaceous stratum together with other species such as Chondracanthus teedei, Gelidium spinosum, Pterosiphonia complanata, Plocamium cartilagineum and Corallina elongata.These help prevent desiccation during the emersion periods. The fronds of the algae also provide habitat for several polychaetes, amphipods and molluscs.
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.  Indicators which have been developed for the assessment of ecological quality of coastal water bodies for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that are relevant to this habitat include a consideration of macroalgae species richness, proportions of different taxa of algae present, and the abundance and coverage of the rocky surfaces by typical species. 
Characteristic species: 
Corallina elongata,  Chondracanthus acicularis, Ceramium spp., Laurencia spp., Haliptilon virgatum.  Several epibionts occur on C. acicularis, such as the bryozoans Aetea anguina, Scrupocellaria reptans, Celleporella hyalina and Walkeria uva, and the cnidarian Laomedea flexuosa. These species are also present on the thalli of C. teedei, together with Fenestrulina malusii, Haplopoma bimucronatum and Beania mirabilis. H. bimucronatum and the foraminifere Miniacina miniacea occur on C. elongata. 
The encrusting stratum as well as the rock are perforated by several organisms while others occupy the existing cavities. These are mainly sponges: Cliona celata, Pione vastifica and Stelletta hispida, polychaetes: Dipolydora cf. coeca and Dodecaceria concharum, molluscs: Lithophaga lithophaga, Rocellaria dubia, and sipunculids: Phascolosoma (Phascolosoma) granulatum and Aspidosiphon (Aspidosiphon) muelleri muelleri. The fronds of the algae provide habitat for several polychaetes, amphipods and molluscs, from which Barleeia unifasciata, Hiatella arctica, Musculus costulatus and juveniles of Mytilus galloprovincialis are the commonest ones. The sponge Hymeniacidon perlevis, serpulid polychaetes such as Spirorbis sp. and Spirobranchus spp., and the cirriped Balanus perforatus, occur attached on the rock together with C. acicularis.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Proposed new level 4 to accommodate level 5 seaweed units on moderately exposed eulittoral rock. A sub-habitat of ‘Moderate energy littoral rock’ (A1.2). 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock & biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Turfs are important features of warm temperate rocky shores but there is insufficient information to determine whether this habitat is an outstanding example of typical characteristics of this regional sea.

Map Description:
This map has been generated using EMODnet data from modelled/surveyed records for the North East Atlantic (and supplemented with expert opinion where applicable) (EMODnet 2010). There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat or for calculation of EOO and AOO.

Comment EU28:
Insufficient records for reliable estimate.

Comment EU28+:
Insufficient records for reliable estimate.

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature.There is insufficient data on which to make an assessment of historical, recent or future trends in quantity of this habitat at the present time.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature. There is insufficient data on which to make an assessment of historical, recent or future trends in quality of this habitat at the present time.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat is present on the mainland coast of Portugal. It is believed to occur around the Azores. If that is the case it does  not have a small natural range however no data are currently available to confirm this distribution.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is present on the mainland coast of Portugal. It is believed to occur around the Azores. If that is the case it does  not have a small natural range however no data are currently available to confirm this distribution.

Pressures and Threats:
There are few studies on the pressures and threats to this habitat. Trampling and pollution have been identified as potential threats but there is insufficient information to assess the significance of these threats at the present time.

Conservation and Management:
No specific management measures have been identified for this habitat due to a lack of information on potential pressures and threats.

Summary:
This intertidal rocky habitat in areas exposed to wave action is characterised by a calcareous turf and colonised by seaweeds on both horizontal and vertical surfaces. These seaweeds can form a dense cover with the fronds of the algae as well as overhangs, cracks and crevices in the rock providing a habitat for mollucs, amphipods, polychaetes and sponges. Little is known about potential pressures and threats to this habitat. Trampling and pollution have been identified as possible issues of concern but there is insufficient information to assess the significance of these threats or to identify specific management measures.

References:
Henriques, V., Guerra, M.T., Mendes, B., et al. 2013. Map of seabed habitats and associated communities in the Luiz Saldanha Marine Park, Portugal according to the EUNIS classification. [online] Lisboa: Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera (IPMA). Available at: www. searchMESH.net/geonetwork. (Accessed: 18/08/2014). 
Monteiro, P., Bentes, L., Oliveira, F., et al. 2013. Atlantic Area EUNIS Habitats. Adding new habitat types from European Atlantic coast to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Technical Report No.3/2013. Faro: MeshAtlantic, CCMAR-Universidade do Algarve, p.72.
Wallenstein, F.M., Terra, M.R., Pombo, J. and Neto, A.I. 2009. Macroalgal turfs in the Azores. Marine Ecology 30 (1): 113-117.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quanitity of this habitat. This habitat is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat most probably has a large range occuring along the mainland coast of South West Portugal as well as in the Macaronesian islands of the Azores but records from the Azores and other Macaronesian islands are currently lacking. Significant shortcomings in available mapping data mean that reliable figures for EOO and AOO cannot be derived at the present time. There is also a lack of information on trends. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Synthesis:
There is a lack of information on the extent of this habitat and on any trends in quantity or quality over the last 50 years. For the purposes of Red List assessment it is therefore considered to be Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F.Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders and H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.12: Robust fucoid and/or red seaweed communities on wave-exposed Atlantic littoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on extremely exposed to moderately exposed upper to lower shores with seaweeds that are able to tolerate the extreme conditions of exposure. The physical stresses caused by wave action often results in dwarf forms of the individual seaweeds. The strong holdfasts and short tufts structure of the wracks Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana allow these fucoids to survive on extremely exposed shores. Another seaweed able to tolerate the wave-wash is the red seaweed Corallina officinalis, which can form a dense turf on the mid- to lower shore. The olive brown wrack Pelvetia canaliculata positioned at the highest points of the intertidal shore, can withstand long periods of exposure. The wrack Himanthalia elongata occurs on the lower shore and can extend on to moderately exposed shores. The red seaweed Mastocarpus stellatus is common on both exposed and moderately exposed shores, where it may form a dense turf (particularly on vertical or overhanging rock faces. Very exposed to moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock can support a pure stand of the red seaweed Palmaria palmata. It is found either as a dense band or in large patches above the main sublittoral fringe.
Two biotopes associated with this habitat are characterised by extensive areas or a distinct band of Osmundea pinnatifida in areas exposed to moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock, and outcrops of fossilised peat in the eulittoral that are soft enough to allow a variety of piddocks, such as Barnea candida and Petricola pholadiformis, to bore into them.
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. Long term loss of the characteristic fucoids and/or red algae would indicate a deterioration in quality. Indicators which have been developed for the assessment of ecological quality of coastal water bodies for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that are relevant to this habitat include a consideration of macroalgae species richness, proportions of different taxa of algae present, and the abundance and coverage of the rocky surfaces by typical species. 
Characteristic species:
The characteristic species of fucoids and red algae that may be present in this habitat include Fucus distichus, Fucus spiralis f. nana, Fucus guryii, Corallina officinalis, Himanthalia elongata, Lomentaria articulata, Ceramium spp., Mastocarpus stellatus and Palmaria palmata depending of the degree of exposure, latitude and rock orientation. On the lower margins Laminaria digitata. The green seaweeds Enteromorpha intestinalis, Ulva lactuca, Ulva rigida and Cladophora rupestris are occasionally present. The sponge Halichondria panicea, the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides and Megabalanus azoricus, the limpet Patella vulgata, the mussel Mytilus edulis and the whelk Nucella lapillus may present but never dominant.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405).
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.1).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is very typical of exposed rocky shores in the North East Atlantic region including the Macaronesian Archipelagos.

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.
This habitat has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to quantify any historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity. There has been some loss, for example associated with coastal development, but expert opinion is that overall there unlikely to have been any significant changes (>25%) in the extent of wave exposed littoral rock over the last 50 years. The quantity of this habitat is therefore most likely stable.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.
This habitat has been studied in detail in some localities and there have been reductions in quality e.g. following oil spills, as well as recovery. This is a pattern which is likely to continue however there is insufficient information to determine historical, recent and possible future trends in quality.

Pressures and Threats:
This is a relatively robust habitat as it develops on wave exposed rocky shores although it is vulnerable to a number of pressures. The two which are mostly likely to have an impact are pollution incidents, such as oil spills, and climate change. In the latter case it has been suggested that climate change may not lead to a simple poleward shift in the distribution of intertidal organisms on rocky shores but could cause localised extinctions in a series of hot-spots due to the inability of species to spread to suitable habitats. Coastal development including coast protection works which can alter the degree of exposure, shore collection, trampling and nutrient enrichment due to run-off from the land are also potential pressures but likely to be less of an issue than for more sheltered rocky shores.

Conservation and Management:
There are limited opportunities and need for specific conservation and management measures directed at this habitat. More general beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, survey and monitoring programmes, raised public awareness of their ecological value and vulnerability, representation in marine protected areas and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Generally, the effects of chronic impacts on this habitat are reversible provided the disturbance is stopped. Recovery from acute impacts is also possible but may take much longer depending on the scale and type of impact.

Summary:
This habitat occurs on extremely exposed to moderately exposed upper to lower shores with seaweeds that are able to tolerate the extreme conditions of exposure. It is naturally resiliant but also subject to considerable natural variability. Although relatively robust the associated communities are vulnerable at a local level to pollution incidents such as oil spills. The habitat is also likely to be affected at a regional sea level by climate change because of predicted sea level rise and increased air and water temperatures.
There are limited opportunities and need for specific conservation and management measures to be directed at this habitat. More general beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, representation in marine protected areas and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

References:
Burrows, M.T., Mieszkowska, N. & Hawkins, S.J. 2014. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Indicators for UK rocky Shores Part 1: Defining and validating the indicators JNCC Report, No. 522, SAMS/MBA/NOCS for JNCC, JNCC Peterborough.
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 12/08/2014).
Hill, J.M. 2005. Fucus distichus and Fucus spiralis f. nana on extremely exposed upper shore rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsbasicinfo.php?habitatid=234&code=2004. (Accessed: 11/08/2014). 
Tempera, F., Atchoi, E., Amorim, P., Gomes-Pereira, J. and Gonçalves, J. 2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Horta: MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, p.126.
Tyler-Walters, H., Marshall, C., Hiscock, K., et al. 2005. Description, temporal variation, sensitivity and monitoring of important marine biotopes in Wales. Report to Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru/Countryside Council for Wales from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK.
Wallenstein, F.M., Neto, A.I., Patarra, R.F. et al., 2013. Indices to monitor coastal ecological quality of rocky shores based on seaweed communities: a simplification for wide geographical use. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 13(1):15-25.

Criterion A Text:
The general distribution of this habitat is well known and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas). There are studies showing short and long term trends, for example following oil spills, in some locations but no assessment of overall trend in quantity for the North East Atlantic. Expert opinion is that the quantity of habitat is not considered likely to have declined by more than 25% over the last 50 years and has most likely been stable. This habitat 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 North East Atlantic region extending from the Canaries and Azores in the west to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east.  EOO >50,000 km2, AOO >50. The extent is considered to have been stable over the last 50 years, trends in quality are unknown. The nature and size of threats to this habitat and the distribution data which are available suggest that known threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region, extending from the Canaries and Azores in the west to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east. Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits such as temperature and/or ice cover. 
There are studies showing short and long term trends in extent and quality in some locations, for example following natural events such as severe weather conditions or pollution incidents such as oil spills however expert opinion is that the extent of this habitat has most likely been stable over the last 50 years. Trends in quality are unknown. The nature and size of threats to this habitat, and the distribution data which are available, suggest that known threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+


Habitat Type Name:
A1.15: Fucoids on tide-swept Atlantic littoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat is characterised by fucoid seaweeds in tide-swept conditions on sheltered to extremely sheltered mid-eulittoral to lower eulittoral rocky shores, such as narrow channels in sea lochs and estuaries. It occurs below the band of Fucus spiralis and F. vesiculosus on the shore but above the kelp dominated zone in the sublittoral fringe. The middle shore can be dominated by the wrack Ascophyllum nodosum, while Fucus serratus is dominating the lower shore. The high levels of water movement encourages a rich associated fauna including several filter-feeding groups. In the Macaronesian Islands, Cystoseira spp. are the dominant fucoid.
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.  Indicators which have been developed for the assessment of ecological quality of coastal water bodies for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that are relevant to this habitat include a consideration of macroalgae species richness, proportions of different taxa of algae present, and the abundance and coverage of the rocky surfaces by typical species. 
Characteristic species:
Fucus serratus, Fucus vesiculosus, Enteromorpha intestinalis, Ulva lactuca, Ascophyllum nodosum, Cystoseira humilis.  Associated fauna include the sponges Grantia compressa, Halichondria panicea and Hymeniacidon perleve which frequently occur on steep and overhanging faces of boulders and bedrock. It also includes the sea squirts Dendrodoa grossularia and Ascidiella scabra, which occur on steep surfaces and beneath boulders. Hydroids such as the pink Clava multicornis can form colonies on A. nodosum while Dynamena pumila is more often found on Fucus vesiculosus or F. serratus.
Underneath the canopy formed by the brown seaweeds is a diverse community of the red seaweeds Gelidium pusillum, Chondrus crispus, Lomentaria articulata, Membranoptera alata and coralline crusts, but the green seaweeds Enteromorpha intestinalis, Ulva lactuca and Cladophora rupestris can be present. The filamentous red seaweed Polysiphonia lanosa can usually be found growing on A. nodosum. On the rock beneath are the limpet Patella vulgata and the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides, while the crab Carcinus maenas and a variety of winkles including Littorina littorea, Littorina mariae and Littorina obtusata can be found on or among the boulders. The whelk Nucella lapillus can be found in cracks and crevices.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405)
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.1).
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is often extensive in the northern part of the North East Atlantic biogeographical region.

Comment EU28:
Based on a limited data set. AOO is known to be an underestimate.

Comment EU28+:
Based on a limited data set. AOO is known to be an underestimate.

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. This habitat has been reported and studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity.

Trends in Quality:
Seaweed harvesting can affect the quality of this habitat. Studies have shown significant and persistent effects on shore ecology from harvesting seaweeds leading to a change in the balance of species composition, but also instances of no discernible effects in the long term.  Regular harvesting can also change the size distribution of the population and changes the growth form of algae associated with this habitat.    Overall there is insufficient information to quantify any historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity of this habitat.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a widespread distribution with examples present on the Atlantic coast of Spain, the west coast of Ireland, the Outer Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland and the Shetland Islands in the northern North Sea.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a widespread distribution with examples present on the Atlantic coast of Spain, the west coast of Ireland, the Outer Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland and the Shetland Islands in the northern North Sea.

Pressures and Threats:
Because this habitat is present in sheltered or extremely sheltered locations, such as narrow channels in sea lochs, it is vulnerable to changes in wave exposure and tidal flow. These may be the result of activities such as  coastal defence works, land claim, and dredging. There is also direct pressure associated with harvesting algae from these sheltered rocky areas, primarily Ascophyllum nodosum but also Fucus vesiculosus. Harvesting has been a long-standing activity in some parts of the region e.g. the west coast of Ireland, the Outer Hebrides and Brittany. The impact on the habitat depends on whether the algae are cut or uprooted with the latter technique requiring a longer recovery time. Studies have shown significant and persistent effects on shore ecology leading to a change in the balance of species composition, but also instances of no discernible effects in the long term. Regular harvesting can also change the size distribution of the population and changes the growth form of plants. 
On a local scale tramping may change the mosaic of species present, for example by decreasing fucoid cover, increasing bare space and increasing cover of the green algae Enteromorpha. and oil pollution can reduce fucoid cover and the number of associated species.

Conservation and Management:
The regulation of the harvesting of algae especially the methods used, location, intensity and frequency is an essential measure to safeguard the marine biotopes associated with this habitat. Controls on activities that change the hydrological regime, such as coast protection works and infilling are also relevant. These measures have been introduced where this habitat occurs both within and outside marine protected areas.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1160: MATL U2, MMAC FV
1170: MATL U2, MMAC FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
There is a significant difference in the longevity and recoverability of brown algae that make up the communities associated with this habitat. Ascophyllum nodosum is a slow growing species, with poor recruitment rates that limit recoverability. It has a long life span with individual fronds surviving for 10-15 years. Assemblages originating from a common holdfast are thought capable of living for decades or even longer. If not cut back to the rock A.nodosum can regenerate quickly from the basal portions, the rate depending on how much remains.  Annual growth rates of 8-15 cm have been recorded. It is slow to recruit if completely removed from an area with reported recovery times of more than 8 years in Britain and 3 -8 years in Norway. A study on the long term effects of removing the canopy of Ascophyllum nodosum on a sheltered rocky shore in the Isle of Man, reported major effects even after twelve years. This included changes in the understory community which showed no signs of reverting to its pre-disturbance state.
 Fucus spp have life spans of the order of 3-4 years and species such as F. vesiculosus and F. serratus recruit readily to cleared areas, especially in the absence of grazers.

Summary:
This habitat is present in locations sheltered from wave action but which are tide swept, such as narrow channels in sea lochs. The high levels of water movement encourages a rich associated fauna including several filter-feeding groups. The habitat is vulnerable to changes in wave exposure and tidal flow. These may be the result of activities such as coastal defence works, land claim, and dredging. There is also direct pressure associated with harvesting algae from these sheltered rocky areas, primarily Ascophyllum nodosum but also Fucus vesiculosus.
The regulation of the harvesting of algae especially the methods used, location, intensity and frequency is an essential measure to safeguard the marine biotopes associated with this habitat. Direct impacts of seaweed harvesting on the habitat and associated community can include the removal and damage of sedentary or encrusting invertebrates as well as the target seaweed species. Removal of seaweed cover can alter local hydrodynamic conditions and change wave exposure regimes which, in turn, can modify sedimentation rates. Controls on activities that change the hydrological regime, such as coast protection works and infilling are also relevant. These measures have been introduced where this habitat occurs both within and outside marine protected areas.

References:
Boaden, P. and Dring, M. 1980. A quantitative evaluation of the effect of Ascophyllum harvesting on the littoral ecosystem. Helegolander wissenshaftlikke Meeresunterschungen 33: 700-701.
Burrows, M.T., Mieszkowska, N. & Hawkins, S.J. 2014 Marine Strategy Framework Directive Indicators for UK Rocky Shores Part 1: Defining and validating the indicators JNCC Report, No. 522, SAMS/MBA/NOCS for JNCC, JNCC Peterborough.
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
Guiry, M.D. and Morrison, L. 2013. The sustainable harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum (Fucaceae, phaeophyceae) in Ireland, with notes on collection and use of some other brown algae. Journal of Applied Phycology 25: 1823-1830.
Holt, T.J., Hartnoll, R.G. and Hawkins, S.J. 1995 Sensitivity and vulnerability to man induced change of selected communities: intertidal brown algae shrubs, Zostera beds and Sabellaria spinulosa reefs. English Nature Research Report. No. 234.
Jenkins, S.R., Norton, T.A. & Hawkins, S.J., 2004. Long term effects of Ascophyllum nodosum canopy removal on mid shore community structure. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 84, 327-329.
Kelly, L., Collier, L., Costello, M.J. et al. 2001. Impact assessment of hand and mechanical harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum on regeneration and biodiversity. [online] Galaway: Marine Fisheries Services Division, Marine Institute, p.51. Availiable at: http://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/207. (Accessed: 11/08/2014). 
MarLIN. Ascophyllum nodosum, sponges and ascidians on tide-swept mid eulittoral rock.  http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/100/ascophyllum_nodosum_sponges_and_ascidians_on_tide-swept_mid_eulittoral_rock. (Accessed: 11/08/2014). 
Marshall, C.E. 2005. Fucus serratus, sponges and ascidians on tide-swept lower eulittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Availiable from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/42/fucus_serratus_sponges_and_ascidians_on_tide-swept_lower_eulittoral_rock. (Accessed: 11/08/2014).
Wallenstein, F.M., Neto, A.I., Patarra, R.F. et al., 2013. Indices to monitor coastal ecological quality of rocky shores based on seaweed communities: a simplification for wide geographical use. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 13(1):15-25.

Criterion A Text:
The range of this habitat is known and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas). There are studies showing short and long term trends, in some locations but insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity for the North East Atlantic region. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
Records for the occurence of this habitat indicate that it does not have a narrow geographical distribution (EOO >50,000km2). AOO records are recognised as incomplete and there are no data on trends. The distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at one. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B1 (c), B2 (c) & B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

Synthesis:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.
Survey information confirms that this habitat has a widespread distribution in the North East Atlantic. It has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to determine whether there have been any historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity or quality.
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of the lack of information on its extent and trends in quantity and quality.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F. Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders and H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.17: Low coverage of fauna and flora of mediolittoral rock and boulders

Habitat Description:
This habitat can be very extensive. It occurs in very exposed conditions, comprising rocks and boulders in upper, mid- and lower mediolittoral with lichens, barnacles, limpets, mussels and fucoids but not organised in communities. There is a high percentage of bare rock and a low species diversity.
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. Indicators which have been developed for the assessment of ecological quality of coastal water bodies for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that are relevant to this habitat include a consideration of macroalgae species richness, proportions of different taxa of algae present, and the abundance and coverage of the rocky surfaces by typical species. 
Characteristic species:
In the upper mediolittoral, the habitat is characterised by significant areas of bare rock, the rare presence of barnacles, including Chthamalus montagui and Semibalanus balanoides, limpets Patella vulgata and a few patches of the lichen Verrucaria maura and Lichina pygmaea. Few scattered patches of Pelvetia canaliculata and/or Fucus spiralis can also be observed. In the mid and lower mediolittoral zones, bare rock is also dominant and the same species of barnacles and limpets can be observed but lichens and fucoids characteristic of the upper eulittoral zone are replaced by patches of Fucus vesiculosus, Fucus serratus and the presence of mixed red algal turf Mastocarpus stellatus, Caulacanthus ustulatus, Osmundea pinnatifida. Damp cracks and crevices in the rock may provide a refuge for small individuals of the mussel Mytilus edulis, Nucella lapillus, Littorina littorea, Littorina saxatilis and a few individuals of Actinia equina. This habitat is characterized by its very low diversity but can cover large rock surfaces.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405)
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘High energy littoral rock’ (A1.1).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN: 
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is typical of very exposed rocky shores in the North East Atlantic region.

Map Description:
This map has been generated using EMODnet data from modelled/surveyed records for the North East Atlantic (EMODnet 2010). There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat or for calculation of EOO and AOO.

Trends in Quantity:
The extent of wave-exposed mediolittoral rock and boulders is unlikely to have changed significantly (>25%) in extent over the last 50 years however change is a key feature of the associated communities. For example even when considered stable, the abundance of the barnacles can fluctuate significantly within seasons and interannually, as well as spatially. Severe winters and extreme events such as El Nino result in the most rapid changes. There have been localised losses/damage to this habitat e.g. following oil spills, as well as recovery. This pattern is considered likely to continue.

Trends in Quality:
Change is a key feature of this habitat and even when considered stable. For example the abundance of the barnacle component can fluctuate significantly within seasons and interannually, as well as spatially. Hindcasting indicates shifts in one of the few associated species, the barnacle S. balanoides whose distribution shifted around 300 km northwards since the 1870s.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat is believed to have a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region but EOO cannot be calculated due lack of data.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat is believed to have a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region but EOO cannot be calculated due lack of data.

Pressures and Threats:
This is a relatively robust habitat as it develops on wave exposed rocky shores although it is vulnerable to a number of pressures. The two which are mostly likely to have an impact are pollution incidents such as oil spills and climate change. In the latter case it has been suggested that climate change may not lead to a simple poleward shift in the distribution of intertidal organisms on rocky shores but could cause localised extinctions in a series of hot-spots due to the inability of species to spread to suitable habitats.

Conservation and Management:
There are limited opportunities and need for specific conservation and management measures directed at this habitat.
More general beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, contingency plans to be followed in the event of major pollution incidents, and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
This is a very dynamic habitat with few associated species. Those which do occur are adept at colonising empty space hence it has a high capacity to recover. Timescales for recovery will depend on removal of the impact as well as the availability of larvae and successful spatfalls.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in very exposed conditions, on intertidal rocky shores. The rock surfaces are colonised by lichens, barnacles, limpets, mussels and fucoids but not organised in communities. There is a high percentage of bare rock and a low species diversity. This is a naturally resilient habitat but also subject to considerable natural variability (for example following storm damage) making trends difficult to distinguish. Although relatively robust it is vulnerable to pollution incidents such as oil spills on a local level and, on a regional sea level, to climate change. 
There are limited opportunities and need for specific conservation and management measures to be directed at this habitat. More general beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, contingency plans to be followed in the event of major pollution incidents, and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

References:
Burrows, M.T., Mieszkowska, N. & Hawkins, S.J. 2014 Marine Strategy Framework Directive Indicators for UK Rocky Shores Part 1: Defining and validating the indicators JNCC Report, No. 522, SAMS/MBA/NOCS for JNCC, JNCC Peterborough.
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 12/08/2014).
Hill, J.M. 2001. Barnacles and Patella spp. on exposed or moderately exposed, or vertical sheltered, eulittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/199/barnacles_and_patella_spp_on_exposed_or_moderately_exposed_or_vertical_sheltered_eulittoral_rock. (Accessed: 11/08/2014). 
Mieszkowska, N., Kendall, M.A., Hawkins, S.J., Leaper, R., Williamson, P., Hardman-Mountford, N.J. and Southward, A.J. 2006. Changes in the range of some common rocky shore species in Britain – a response to climate change? Hydrobiologia 555: 241–251.
Monteiro, P., Bentes, L., Oliveira, F. et al. 2013. Atlantic Area Eunis Habitats. Adding new habitat types from European Atlantic coast to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Technical Report No.3/2013. Faro: MeshAtlantic, CCMAR-Universidade do Algarve, p.72.    
Wallenstein, F.M., Neto, A.I., Alvaro, N.V. and Santos, C.I. 2008. Algae-based biotopes of the Azores (Portugal): spatial and seasonal variation. Aquatic Ecology 42: 547-559.       
Wallenstein, F.M., Neto, A.I., Patarra, R.F. et al., 2013. Indices to monitor coastal ecological quality of rocky shores based on seaweed communities: a simplification for wide geographical use. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 13(1):15-25.                                                                                 
Wethey, D.S. and Woodin, S. 2008. Ecological hindcasting of biogeographic responses to climate change in the European intertidal zone. Hydrobiologia 606:139-151.

Criterion A Text:
Expert opinion is that although there may have been some short term and cyclical changes in the extent of this habitat, it is most likely to have 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 most probably has a large range but significant shortcomings in available mapping data mean that reliable figures for EOO and AOO cannot be derived at the present time. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion B.

Synthesis:
This habitat is believed to have a large natural range but there are insufficient data for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO.  Expert opinion is that although there may have been some short term and cyclical changes in the extent of this habitat, it is most likely to have been stable over the last 50 years. For the purposes of Red List assessment it is therefore considered to be Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.21: Barnacles and fucoids on moderately wave-exposed Atlantic littoral rock

Habitat Description:
Rocky shores in the mid- and lower eulittoral zone moderately exposed to wave action, characterised by a mosaic of fucoids and barnacles on bedrock and boulders. The extent of the fucoid cover is typically less than the blanket cover associated with sheltered shores except on the lower shore where there may be dense Fucus serratus. There is typically a lichen zone above and a kelp-dominated community below in the sublittoral zone. Where the moderately exposed lower shore rock is sand-influenced it can be characterised by dense mats of Rhodothamniella floridula. The presence of boulders and cobbles on the shore can increase the micro-habitat diversity, which often results in a greater species richness (crabs, tube-forming polychaetes such as Pomatoceros triquiter, sponges and bryozoans).
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.  Indicators which have been developed for the assessment of ecological quality of coastal water bodies for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that are relevant to this habitat include a consideration of macroalgae species richness, proportions of different taxa of algae present, and the abundance and coverage of the rocky surfaces by typical species. 
Characteristic species:
In addition to the barnacles and fucoids, other species normally present in this habitat include the winkle Littorina littorea, the whelk Nucella lapillus and the red seaweed Mastocarpus stellatus. Beneath the band of yellow and grey lichens at the top of the shore is a zone dominated by the wrack Pelvetia canaliculata, scattered barnacles, while the black lichen Verrucaria maura covers the rock surface. Below, on the mid-shore the wrack Fucus vesiculosus generally forms a mosaic with the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides and the limpet Patella vulgata. Finally, the wrack Fucus serratus, dominates the lower shore, while a variety of red seaweeds can be found underneath the F. serratus canopy.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.2).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is very typical of moderatly exposed rocky shores in the North East Atlantic.

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. 
There is extensive historical data on intertidal rocky shore flora and fauna in Europe, in some cases dating back to the 1930's. This includes semi-quantitative broadscale surveys of rocky intertidal flora and fauna undertaken during the 1950's at approximately 400 sites around the coastline of Britain and Ireland,  and repeated at 300 of the sites in 2001-3. Nevertheless there is insufficient information specifically on this habitat type to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity of this habitat for the entire North East Atlantic region.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. This habitat has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quality

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region extending from the Atlantic coast of France in the west, to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range. It is present in the North East Atlantic region extending from the Atlantic coast of France in the west, to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east.

Pressures and Threats:
This is a relatively robust habitat as it develops on wave exposed rocky shores although it is vulnerable to a number of pressures. The two pressures which are mostly likely to have an impact are pollution incidents (e.g. oil spills) and climate change. In the latter case it has been suggested that climate change may not lead to a simple poleward shift in the distribution of intertidal organisms on rocky shores but could cause localised extinctions in a series of hot-spots due to the inability of species to spread to suitable habitats. Climate change is already believed to resulted in changes in the biogeographical range and abundance of some of the species typical of this habitat. 
Coastal development including coast protection works which can alter the degree of exposure, shore collection, trampling and chronic effects of chemical contamination (e.g. Tributyl tin) are also potential pressures but likely to be less of an issue than for more sheltered rocky shores.

Conservation and Management:
There are few specific conservation and management measures that can be directed at this habitat. 
More general beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, survey and monitoring programmes, raised public awareness of their ecological value and vulnerability, representation in marine protected areas and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Generally the effects of chronic impacts on this habitat are reversible provided the disturbance is stopped. Recovery from acute impacts is also possible but may take much longer depending on the scale and type of impact. Studies on recovery following an oil spill suggest that recovery can take 10-15 years.

Summary:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region extending from the Canaries and Azores in the west to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east. It is characterised by a mosaic of fucoids and barnacles on bedrock and boulders on the mid- and lower eulittoral zone, in areas moderately exposed to wave action.
There are few specific conservation and management measures that can be directed at this habitat. More general beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, representation in marine protected areas and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

References:
Burrows, M.T., Mieszkowska, N. & Hawkins, S.J. 2014 Marine Strategy Framework Directive Indicators for UK Rocky Shores Part 1: Defining and validating the indicators JNCC Report, No. 522, SAMS/MBA/NOCS for JNCC, JNCC Peterborough.
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed 11/08/2014).
Hill, J.M. 2000. Barnacles and fucoids (moderately exposed shores). Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsbasicinfo.php?habitatid=33&code=2004. (Accessed: 11/08/2014).  
Hiscock, K., Marshall, C., Sewell, J. & Hawkins, S.J. 2006. The structure and functioning of marine ecosystems: an environmental protection and management perspective.  English Nature Research Reports, No 699.
Tempera, F., Atchoi, E., Amorim, P., Gomes-Pereira, J. and Gonçalves, J. 2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Technical Report No. 4/2013. Hotra: MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, p.126. 
Wallenstein, F.M., Neto, A.I., Patarra, R.F. et al., 2013. Indices to monitor coastal ecological quality of rocky shores based on seaweed communities: a simplification for wide geographical use. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management 13(1):15-25.

Criterion A Text:
The general distribution of this habitat is well known and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas). There are studies showing short and long term trends, for example following oil spills, in some locations but insufficient information to determine any overall trend in quantity in the North East Atlantic region.  It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,000km2 and AOO >50, this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution. Trends are unknown. The distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B1(c) B2 (c) and B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

Synthesis:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.
The general distribution of this habitat is well known, it  is not considered to be restricted and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas and monitoring stations). There are studies showing short and long term trends in extent and quality, for example following natural events such as severe weather conditions or pollution incidents such as oil spills, but no overview of trends in quantity and quality across the North East Atlantic.  
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels given the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F. Otero, G. Saunders and H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.22: Mytilus edulis and fucoids on moderately wave-exposed Atlantic littoral rock

Habitat Description:
Mid- and lower eulittoral bedrock exposed or moderately exposed to wave action, often with nearby sediment, and which may be densely covered by large individuals of the mussel Mytilus edulis. Three biotopes have been described associated with this habitat: In the mid eulittoral, the mussels may form a band or large patches with scattered bladder wrack Fucus vesiculosus. In the lower eulittoral a range of red seaweeds including Mastocarpus stellatus and Palmaria palmata occur amongst the mussels (in higher abundance than the mid eulittoral). Clay outcrops in the mid to lower eulittoral may be bored by a variety of piddocks including Pholas dactylus, Barnea candida and Petricola pholadiformis, while the surface is characterised by small clumps of the mussel M. edulis, the barnacle Elminius modestus and the winkle Littorina littorea. Ephemeral green seaweeds such as Ulva intestinalis and U. lactuca commonly occur on the shells of the mussels. Barnacles are common on both the mussel valves and on patches of bare rock, where the limpet Patella vulgata is found as well, often at high abundance. The whelk Nucella lapillus and a range of littorinids also occur within the mussel bed. A dense M. edulis community may be found on more sheltered coasts on mixed substrata 
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. Indicators which have been developed for the assessment of ecological quality of coastal water bodies for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that are relevant to this habitat include a consideration of macroalgae species richness, proportions of different taxa of algae present, and the abundance and coverage of the rocky surfaces by typical species. The density and abundance of Mytilus edulis is also a potential indicator of habitat quality.
Characteristic species:
Mytilus edulis is the most frequently observed and abundant species associated with this habitat. The barnacle Semibalanus balanoides, the gastropod molluscs Patella vulgata, Littorina littorea and Nucella lapillus are also characteristic and the algae Fucus serratus, Ulva intestinalis, U.lactuca, Palmaria palmata and Corallinaceae.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405).
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.2).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD: 
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is widespread in the northern part of the North East Atlantic region where this substrate and exposure conditions exist.

Trends in Quantity:
Unknown but likely to vary from year to year depending on physical conditions, e.g. storm frequency. Some limited quantitative data, e.g. for Helgoland, Germany, as one parameter for assessments under the Water Framework Directive. In the latter case there has been around 40% reduction in extent using 1920-30 reference values.

Trends in Quality:
This habitat has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (e.g. Norway, Isle of Man, Channel Islands). The percentage hosted by the EU 28 is likely to be between 85-90% but there is insufficient information to establish the exact figure. It is also present on artificial substrates (sea walls, groynes) within EU 28 (e.g. in the Netherlands) but marine habitats associated with man-made structures are not considered in this assessment.

Pressures and Threats:
The two pressures which are mostly likely to have an impact are pollution incidents (e.g. oil spills) and climate change. In the latter case it has been suggested that climate change may not lead to a simple poleward shift in the distribution of intertidal organisms on rocky shores but could cause localised extinctions in a series of hot-spots due to the inability of species to spread to suitable habitats. Climate change is already believed to resulted in changes in the biogeographical range and abundance of some of the species typical of this habitat and storm frequency and magnitude is also known to have an impact on fucoid habitat area. Coastal development including coast protection works which can alter the degree of exposure, shore collection, trampling and chronic effects of chemical contamination (e.g. Tributyl tin) are also potential pressures but likely to be less of an issue than for more sheltered rocky shores.

Conservation and Management:
General beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, survey and monitoring programmes, raised public awareness of their ecological value and vulnerability, representation in marine protected areas and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The mussel component can come back within 10 years and fucoids over shorter time scales so recovery of the habitat mosaic within 10 years is possible if conditions are favourable (e.g. good spatfalls and low storm frequency).

Summary:
This habitat is widespread where this substrate and exposure conditions exists. It occurs in the mid and lower eulittoral zone on bedrock often with nearby sediment in areas exposed or moderately exposed to wave action. The surfaces may be densely covered by large individuals of the mussel Mytilus edulis. 
The two pressures which are mostly likely to have an impact are pollution incidents (e.g. oil spills) and climate change. Coastal development including coast protection works which can alter the degree of exposure, shore collection, trampling and chronic effects of chemical contamination (e.g. Tributyl tin) are also potential pressures but likely to be less of an issue than for more sheltered rocky shores.
General beneficial measures include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, survey and monitoring programmes, raised public awareness of their ecological value and vulnerability, representation in marine protected areas and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

References:
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 11/08/2014).
Kuhlenkamp, R., Schubert, P. and Bartsch, I. 2009. MMH-Report 12: Endbericht WRRL Monitoring Komponente Makroalgen HelgolandBerichte für das Amt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und laÌˆndliche RaÌˆume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (LLUR). [online] Schleswig-Holstein: unpublished report for the federal nature agency of Schleswig-Holstein. Availiable at: http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Fachinhalte/M/meeresschutz/Downloads/MacrophytenHelgoland_Bericht2008.pdf. (Accessed 12/08/2014). 
Marshall, C.E. 2008. Mytilus edulis and piddocks on eulittoral firm clay.Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Availiable at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/95/mytilus_edulis_and_piddocks_on_eulittoral_firm_clay. (Accessed: 27/07/2015).
OSPAR Commission. 2008. Case Reports for the OSPAR List of Threatened and-or Declining Species and Habitats. [online] Southampton: OSPAR Commission Biodiversity, Series 223. Availiable at: http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00358_case_reports_species_and_habitats_2008.pdf. (Accessed: 24/07/2014). 
Tyler-Walters, H. 2002. Mytilus edulis and Fucus vesiculosus on moderately exposed mid eulittoral rock.Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Availiable at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/46/mytilus_edulis_and_fucus_vesiculosus_on_moderately_exposed_mid_eulittoral_rock. (Accessed: 27/07/2015).
Tyler-Walters, H. (ed.), Wilding, C., Durkin, O., Adams, L., Lacey, C., Philpott, E., Wilkes, P.T.V., Seeley, B. and Neilly, M. 2011. Guidance and information on priority marine species and habitats in Scotland. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report (Project no. 25048) Unpublished report.
UK Biodiversity Group 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. BRIG. Maddock, A. (Ed.) 2008. (Updated Dec 2011). Availiable at: document.http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf. (Accessed: 11/08/2014).

Criterion A Text:
The range of this habitat is well known and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas). There are studies showing short and long term trends, in some locations but insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity for the North East Atlantic. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region extending from the Azores in the west to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,0002 and AOO >50, this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution. Trends are unknown but the distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at one. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B1(c) B2 (c) and B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

Synthesis:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. Survey information confirms that this habitat has a wide range in the North East Atlantic. It has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to determine whether there have been any historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity or quality. 
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B but is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels due to the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A1.223: Mytilus edulis and piddocks on eulittoral firm clay

Assessors:
E. Bastos, N. Dankers, K. Furhaupter, S. Gubbay, P. Somerfield and H. Tyler-Walters.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, S. Gubbay, R. Haroun, F.Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders and H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.31: Fucoids on sheltered Atlantic littoral rock

Habitat Description:
Dense blankets of fucoid seaweeds dominating sheltered to extremely sheltered rocky shores and/or in locally sheltered patches of rocky shore that are exposed/moderately exposed to wave action. The habitat is found in sheltered areas such as inlets and bays below the lichen dominated zone and above the kelp dominated zone in the sublittoral. It also occurs in sheltered patches on more wave exposed shores such as the north coast of Spain and Portugal.
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
Typically, the wrack Pelvetia canaliculata occurs on the upper shore, with the wrack Fucus spiralis below. The middle shore is dominated by vast areas of the wrack Ascophyllum nodosum or the wrack Fucus vesiculosus or a mixture of both. The wrack Fucus serratus covers lower shore bedrock and boulders.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405).
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.3).
 
Annex 1: 
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
MAES
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD 
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap 
Not mapped
 
IUCN 
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat is very typical of sheltered rocky shores on the mainland coasts of the North East Atlantic region

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. This habitat has been studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. In northern Spain, for example, there has been decrease in net primary production and shortening of growth period for intertidal algae between 1977 - 2007.
Although this habitat has been studied in detail in some localities there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (e.g. Norway, Isle of Man, Channel Islands). The percentage hosted by the EU 28 is therefore less than 100% but there is insufficient information to establish the proportion.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region extending from the northern Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal in the west, to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region extending from the northern Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal in the west,  to the Skagerrak coast of Sweden in the east.

Pressures and Threats:
Climate change through effects on sea temperature is a threat to this habitat, especially at the edge of its range. In northern Spain, which is at the southern edge of this fucoid dominated habitat, global warming has been suggested as a possible reason for decline in habitat quality for two main reasons; affecting the length and timing of the season growth and changes in nutrient availability, through decreasing intensity and seasonality of the summer upwelling along the north coast of Spain.
Pollution, for example resulting from oil spills, can have a localised detrimental  effect and contamination by chemical compounts such as Trybutyl tin used as a ship antifoulant, is know to have affected the reproductive success of dog whelks (Nucella lapillus) which are associated with this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
General conservation and management measures which would benefit this habitat include pollution control and regulation, development control and contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, survey and monitoring programmes, raised public awareness of their ecological value and vulnerability, and measure to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1160: MATL U2, MMAC FV
1170: MATL U2,  MMAC FV.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Thee effects of chronic impacts on this habitat are generally reversible provided the disturbance is stopped. Recovery from acute impacts is also possible but may take much longer depending on the scale and type of impact.

Summary:
This habitat is present in sheltered to extremely sheltered rocky shores and/or in locally sheltered patches on rocky shores exposed to moderately exposed to wave action. It is characterised by the presence of fucoid algae. Climate change through effects on sea temperature is a threat, especially at the edge of the habitats range, whilst pollution, for example resulting from oil spills may have a localised effect. General conservation and management measures which would benefit this habitat include contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident and measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise.

References:
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency, (2014) EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view . Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed 22/08/2014).
Lamela-Silvarrey, C., Fernández, C., Anadón, R. & Arrontes, J. (2012) Fucoid assemblages on the north coast of  Spain: past and present (1977-2007). Botanica Marina 55(3): 199-207.  
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira & J. Gonçalves (2013). Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Horta: MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, Horta, 126pp

Criterion A Text:
The range of habitat is well known and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas). There are studies showing short and long term trends, for example following oil spills, in some locations but no assessment of overall trend in quantity for the North East Atlantic. It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking but survey information reveals that it has a wide range and is not restricted to a few locations (e.g. present on the, Atlantic coasts of Portugal and Spain, the Channel coast of France, the UK and the Kattegat coast of Sweden). 
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. Where this habitat has been studied in detail some trends in quantity and quality have been reported over various time scales however, there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity and quality. 
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels due to lack of information on trends in quantity and quality.

Assessors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F.Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders and H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.32: Fucoids on variable salinity Atlantic littoral rock

Habitat Description:
Blankets of fucoid seaweeds, dominating sheltered to extremely sheltered rocky shores with variable salinity, such as sea loch or estuaries. The extent of rocky habitat in estuaries can range from a narrow strip restricted to the top of the shore to littoral reef structures extending to the subtidal, particularly in rias. The topography of estuarine rocky shores also varies from flat and gently sloping to rugged reefs and large boulders with many microhabitats.
Rocky habitats in estuaries are typically located in low wave energy environments with reduced salinity, and experience accelerated tidal streams with increased turbidity and siltation. The communities present are adapted to these conditions and consequently their composition and character is different to that found on similar substrata on the open coast.
Estuarine rocky habitats often display a transition of community types down the length of an estuary, reflecting the different environmental conditions, i.e. those at the upper ends of estuaries being specific to ultra sheltered and low salinity to communities similar to open coast rock communities towards the mouth of estuaries.  The wrack Pelvetia canaliculata occurs on the upper shore, with  Fucus spiralis  below. The middle shore is dominated by vast areas of  Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosus, or a mixture of both. Fucus serratus covers lower shore bedrock and boulders. Fucus ceranoides can be found on extremely sheltered shores with variable or low salinity as it is more tolerant of reduced salinity than the other fucoids, so tends to replace Fucus spiralis, Fucus vesiculosus and Ascophyllum nodosum towards the upper reaches of estuaries and sea lochs. This biotope may, however, still contain other fucoids, although Fucus ceranoides always dominates.
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. Dominance of fucoids (cover or biomass ratios of fucoids to other macroalgae) or penetration of fucoids along the salinity gradient is used in some countries as a Water Framework Directive parameter for assessing ecological status.
Characteristic species:
The variable salinity communities are species poor compared to those in full salinity or in tide-swept conditions as red seaweeds and sponges are usually absent. Underneath a canopy  of fucoids such as Pelvetia canaliculata, Fucus spiralis, Ascophyllum nodosum, and Fucus vesiculosus are a few green seaweeds including Ulva intestinalis and Cladophora spp. The red seaweed Polysiphonia lanosa can be found as an epiphyte on A.nodosum. On the rock and among the boulders are the winkles Littorina littorea and Littorina saxatilis, the crab Carcinus maenas, the barnacles Semibalanus balanoides and Elminius modestus and the occasional mussel Mytilus edulis.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405).
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.3)
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES: 
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN: 
9.10 Estuaries

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occurs across the North East Atlantic regional sea where there are suitable reduced salinity and hard substrate conditions, however reduced salinity conditions are much more typical for the Baltic Sea and Black Sea, where this habitat also occurs. Consequently it is not regarded as a typical characteristic of the North East Atlantic region.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. This habitat has been reported and studied in detail in some localities however there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quality.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat occurs in estuaries and sea lochs which are naturally sheltered but also subject to reduced salinity. They can be major areas of urban and industrial development with resulting pressures on intertidal habitat associated with deteriorating  water quality (through industrial contaminants and run off from agricultural land resulting in enhanced nutrient input and silt loading), coastal defence works, impoundments and the dredging of navigational channels. 
Sea level rise and increased storminess associated with climate change is an additional pressure. In the UK, for example it is considered likely to exacerbate the existing infilling of south and west facing estuaries, where eroded sediment is deposited within the estuary, gradually covering rocky outcrops.

Conservation and Management:
Conservation and management of this habitat need to be integrated into the management of the sheltered inlets in which it occurs. This includes the planning and regulation of activities like coastal works, the discharge of hazardous substances, the establishment of nitrate sensitive zones, specifications relating to the dredging of navigational channels and dredge spoil disposal.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
This habitat will not have any capacity to recover if the rocky substrate on which it depends is removed, permanently submerged or smothered with soft sediment. If not, and the pressures which caused the damage are removed, recovery times will depend on availability and suitable conditions for the settlement of the characteristic species of algae.

Summary:
This habitat is characterised by blankets of fucoid seaweeds, dominating sheltered to extremely sheltered rocky shores in areas of reduced salinity, such as sea lochs or estuaries. As these are often areas of urban and industrial development the main pressures are likely to be associated with deteriorating  water quality, coastal defence works, impoundments and the dredging of navigational channels. Sea level rise and increased storminess associated with climate change are additional pressures potentially leading to the submergence or smothering of this habitat. The regulation of potentially damaging activities for the conservation and management of this habitat need to be integrated into the coastal zone management and conservation programmes of the sheltered inlets in which it occurs.

References:
Budd, G.C. 2007. Fucus ceranoides on reduced salinity eulittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/271/fucus_ceranoides_on_reduced_salinity_eulittoral_rock. (Accessed: 11/08/2014). 
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed August 2014).
UK Biodiversity Action Plan. 2008. Priority Habitat Descriptions. Esutarine Rocky Habitats. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf. (Accessed: 11/08/2014).

Criterion A Text:
The range of this habitat is well known and its extent has been mapped in detail in some locations (e.g. some Marine Protected Areas). There are studies showing short and long term trends in some locations but no assessment of overall trend in quantity for the North East Atlantic. It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking but survey information reveals that it has a widespread distribution. Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.
Where this habitat has been studied in detail some trends in quantity and quality have been reported over various time scales however, there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity and quality.
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels due to lack of information on trends in quantity and quality.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A1.325 Ascophyllum nodosum ecad mackaii beds on extremely sheltered mid-eulittoral mixed substrata. This is a rare habitat characterised by a loose living form of the egg wrack.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter,  S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F. Otero, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A5.6x: Infralittoral biogenic habitats in the Mediterranean - corralligenous bioconcretions

Habitat Description:
Coralligenous habitats are hard bottoms of biogenic origin mainly produced by the accumulation of calcareous encrusting algae growing in dim light conditions. Although more extended in the circalittoral zone, they can also develop in the infralittoral zone, provided that light is dim enough to allow growth of the coralline algae that produce the build-up; therefore, infralittoral coralligenous concretions always develop in almost vertical walls, deep channels, or overhangs, and occupy reduced surfaces.
Coralligenous bioconcretions are always very complex in structure allowing the development of several kinds of communities including those dominated by living algae (on the upper part of the concretions), suspension feeders (upper and lower part of the concretions, wall cavities, and overhangs of the build-up), borers (inside the concretions), and even soft-bottom fauna (in the sediment deposited in cavities and holes).
This is a highly variable habitat that can be subdivided into different sub-habitats with different dominant species. For example coralligenous outcrops dominated;by Halimeda tuna and Mesophyllum spp. usually between 15 and 45 meters depth; by Peyssonnelia rosa-marina and other Peyssonneliaceae and Flabellia petiolata, in places with high sedimentation rates; on walls with Eunicella cavolini, in places with strong currents, between 15 and 40 meters depth; by Alcyonium acaule, in relatively shallow waters (15 to 45 meters depth) subjected to strong currents; and by Eunicella verrucosa, in places with high sedimentation rates.
Indicators of quality:                                                                                                         Several indicators have been proposed to assess the health of coralligenous habitats based on the composition and abundance of species (biotic cover and conspicuous species richness), the percent cover of different benthic assemblages (encrusting calcified Rhodophyta, non-calcified encrusting algae and fauna, turf forming algae, and sediment), boring species marks, percent cover of each species and the percentage of necrosis, bryozoa percent cover, sludge percent cover and the builder species percent cover.
Characteristic species:
Rhodophyta (red algae)- Mesophyllum expansum, Mesophyllum alternans, Mesophyllum macedonis, Lithophyllum stictaeforme, Lithophyllum cabiochiae, Neogoniolithon mamillosum, Peyssonnelia rosa marina, Peyssonnelia rubra, Peyssonnelia harveyana, Peyssonnelia bornetii, Peyssonnelia squamaria, Amphiroa beauvoisii, Aglaothamnion tripinnatum, Seirospora giraudyi, Gulsonia nodulosa, Balliella cladoderma, Eupogodon planus, Acrosorium ciliolatum, Erythroglossum balearicum, Erythroglossum sandrianum, Myriogramme tristromatica, Osmundaria volubilis, Rodriguezella pinnata, Rodriguezella bornetii, Rodriguezella strafforelloi, Gloiocladia furcata, Gloiocladia microspora, Gloiocladia repens, Leptofauchea coralligena, Lomentaria subdichotoma, Botryocladia chiajeana, Sebdenia monardiana, Sebdenia rodrigueziana, Cryptonemia lomation, Aeodes marginata, Halymenia floresii, Predaea ollivieri, Platoma cyclocolpum, Bonnemaisonia asparagoides, Schmitzia neapolitana, Rhodophyllis divaricata, Neurocaulon foliosum, Kallymenia feldmannii, Kallymenia lacerata, Kallymenia patens, Kallymenia requienii, Phyllophora crispa, Contarinia squamariae, Sphaerococcus rhizophylloides, Ptilophora mediterranea
Phaeophyta- Dictyopteris lucida, Dictyota sp., Halopteris filicina, Nereia filiformis, Zanardinia typus, Phyllariopsis brevipes, Laminaria rodriguezii, Cystoseira zosteroides, Dictyopteris polypodioides. 
Chlorophyta (green algae)- Palmophyllum crassum, Codium coralloides, Halimeda tuna, Flabellia petiolata, Microdictyon tenuius, Valonia macrophysa
Sponges- Agelas oroides, Aplysina cavernicola, Axinella cannabina, Axinella damicornis, Axinella polypoides, Axinella verrucosa, Clathrina clathrus, Crella elegans, Dysidea avara, Hemimycale columella, Hexadella topsentii, Petrosia ficiformis, Pleraplysilla spinifera, Raspaciona aculeata, Reniera fulva, Spirastrella cunctatrix, Spongia lamella.
Echinoderms- Anseropoda placenta, Hacelia attenuata, Ophiothrix fragilis, Antedon mediterranea, Astropartus mediterraneus, Holothuria forskali, Echinus melo. 
Cnidarians- Alcyonium acaule, Astroides calycularis, Corallium rubrum, Dendrophyllia ramea, Eunicella cavolini, Eunicella singularis, Eunicella verrucosa, Gerardia savaglia, Leptopsammia pruvoti, Paralcyonium spinulosum, Paramuricea clavata, Parazoanthus axinellae, Phyllangia mouchezii. 
Bryozoans- Adeonella calveti, Bugula calathus, Cellaria salicornioides, Chartella tenella, Hornera frondiculata, Pentapora fascialis, Smittina cervicornis, Schizomavella linearis, Schizomavella mamillata, Rhynchozoon neapolitanum, Reteporella grimaldii, Reteporella feuerbornii, Turbicellepora avicularis
Crustaceans- Homarus gammarus, Scyllarides latus, Palinurus elephas, Galathea strigosa, Pilumnus hirtellus.
Polychaetes- Salmacina dysteri, Serpula vermicularis, Protula tubularia, Filograna implexa
Molluscs- Bolma rugosa, Simnia spelta, Charonia lampas, Monoplex corrugatus, Felimare picta, Umbraculum umbraculum, Pleurobranchus testudinarius, Peltodoris atromaculata, Platydoris argo, Felimare villafranca, Felimida luteorosea, Felimida krohni, Felimida purpurea, Pteria hirundo, Spondylus gaederopus, Lithophaga lithophaga.
Tunicates- Aplidium conicum, Aplidium elegans, Aplydium pseudolobatum, Eudistoma banyulensis, Microcosmus sabatieri, Pseudodistoma cyrnusense, Pycnoclavella communis, Cystodytes dellechiajei.
Fish- Anthias anthias, Serranus cabrilla, Epinephelus marginatus, Sciaena umbra, Scyliorhinus canicula, Muraena helena, Conger conger, Phycis phycis, Zeus faber, Scorpaena scrofa, Pagrus pagrus, Coris julis, Labrus mixtus, Lappanella fasciata, Acantholabrus palloni, Gobius vittatus, Gobius kolombatovici.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of  A5.6 Infralittoral biogenic habitats. 
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
MAES: 
Marine – Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
 
Barcelona Convention (RAC/SPA):
III. 6. 1. 35. Facies and association of Coralligenous biocenosis 
IV. 3. 1. Coralligenous biocenosis

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Coralligenous habitat is a typical Mediterranean underwater seascape. The algal component of the coralligenous is largely constituted by mediterranean endemics, which quantitatively represent between the 33 and 48% of the total flora in this habitat.

Map Description:
This map has been generated using data from the IUCN based on Giakoumi S. et al. (2013) and supplemented with expert opinion. EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data presented in this map however these should be treated with caution as expert opinion is that this may not indicate the full distribution of the habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
While the given data on current trend in habitat quantity in the country information shows that it seems mostly stable/decreasing in most sites, trends in subhabitat coralligenous outcrops with gorgonians are most probably decreasing in many shallow coastal zones. However, there are many sites where the condition is unknown and declining trends are most probable in some areas due to fishing impacts, warming, turbidity and water quality, as described in the literature. It has to be taken into consideration that besides other impacts, several episodes of suspension feeders (e.g. gorgonians, sponges) mortality have been detected in the northwestern Mediterranean and some large-scale mortality events that affected shallow water assemblages (10–40 m depth) in some other areas of the central-western Mediterranean as well as Aegean Sea. Mass mortality of 2003 triggered necrosis in over 80 % of gorgonian colonies in some NW Mediterranean sites.
Long-term (>50 yr.) quantitative  analysis in some sites show a significant decline. In Mesco Reef (Italy, NW Mediterranean) significant declines have been reported since quantitative data is available (1961), gorgonian dominated sub-habitat has practically disappeared and the reported changes in species composition are driving loses in the main characterising species of this habitat (including declines in calcareous algae).
It has to be considered that in the near future the extent of this habitat might be seriously impacted by ocean acidification, which could cause the disappearance of this habitat due to drastic shifts in species composition as has been recently reported in natural CO2 vents (Columbretes Islands, Spain).
Mass mortalities are expected to continue as seawater warming and the frequency of extreme events are projected to increase in the future.

Trends in Quality:
Current quality of this habitat is compromised by the described impacts on some key species. Mass mortality events affecting benthic invertebrates inhabiting coralligenous assemblages have occurred recurrently during the past 15 years, affecting hundreds of kilometers of Mediterranean coast. This has significantly affected the quality of this habitat in many sites because of the high impact of warming on structuring species like gorgonians (e.g. Paramuricea clavata). Invasive species are impacting coralligenous communities in an increasing number of sites, compromising habitat quality. Other impacts causing reductions in quality are fishing activities (e.g. trawling) and water quality. Furthermore, synergistic effects among global stressor such as warming, invasive species and acidification as well between global and local stressors can cause drastic declines in quality.
In addition, ocean acidification must be considered a potential threat to this habitat as it has been reported that small changes in pH (as those reported for the end of the century) force drastic shifts in species composition in coralligenous assemblages, if not their complete disappearance.
Habitat quality reduction is expected to continue in the future.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Coralligenous outcrops are reported to occur primarily in the northern part of the Mediterranean basin, with few records from the eastern or southern basin. Nonetheless, there is very limited knowledge from the east and south Mediterranean.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range extending throughout the Mediterranean Sea and EOO exceeds 50,000km2.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The EOO exceeds 50,000km2 therefore this habitat does not show a small natural range although it is likely that some of the sub-habitats might have a more restricted natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
Pollution (e.g. wastewater discharge, aquaculture), which results in increased turbidity and sedimentation, has a severe impact on coralligenous outcrops where coralline algae are being substituted first by Mesophyllum alternans and lately by Peyssonnelia rosa-marina. Mechanical disturbance and re-suspension of nearby sediments, particularly by bottom trawling, is probably the most destructive human activity currently affecting coralligenous outcrops. The disturbance and breaks of the bioconstruction with increases of turbidity and sedimentation can also be observed. Fishing target species can affect the abundance of certain species (i.e. fish, lobsters) and overgrowth and pre-emption can be observed in invaded coralligenous outcrops by exotic algae, altering assemblages composition especially under high sedimentation rates. Other threats include artisanal and recreational fishing (e.g. fishnets, long-lines), coastal or offshore construction activities (including submarine cables), and unregulated diving activities and anchoring. Climate change (increase and unusual fluctuations of seawater temperature) and storms are also known to affect several key species that are part of coralligenous habitats. Some invasive algal species, such as Caulerpa cylindracea and Wormersleyella setacea, can also pose a severe threat to these communities, either by forming dense carpets (i.e. physical barriers) or by increasing sedimentation. Moderate ocean acidification, as the pH levels expected at the end of the century, might entail major shifts in the distribution and dominance of coralligenous outcrops. Ocean acidification must be considered as a potential threat to this habitat taking into consideration recent evidence of drastic species composition shifts (in CO2 vents) due to pH levels similar to those projected for the end of the century.

Conservation and Management:
Besides the designation of protected areas and fisheries reserves, specific measures aimed at protecting the coralligenous environment might include the following: Improvements in water quality, the prohibition of trawling in areas with coralligenous outcrops and their vicinity and management of traditional and recreational fisheries to prevent stock depletion of target fish and crustaceans.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1170: MMED XX 
Some of the species that form part of this environment are included in the Annex II (Astroides calycularis) and Annex III (Corallium rubrum) of the Barcelona Convention.
Key spe

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The effect of disturbances in coralligenous assemblages is poorly understood, and there are no data at all on the capacity of this environment to recover (with the exception of fish stocks after fishing ban). However, as the most abundant and structuring species of coralligenous habitats are long-lived and slow-growing species with limited recruitment rates, and native and non-native species can rapidily colonise the structures, local recover can be difficult and extremely slow.

Summary:
Coralligenous habitats are hard bottoms of biogenic origin mainly produced by the accumulation of calcareous encrusting algae growing in dim light conditions. They can develop in the infralittoral zone provided that light is dim enough to allow growth of the coralline algae that produce the build-up; therefore, infralittoral coralligenous concretions always develop on almost vertical walls, deep channels, or overhangs, and occupy reduced surfaces.
Many coralligenous habitats have already been affected by various stressors such as nutrient enrichment, overfishing, invasive species, increase of sedimentation, mechanical impacts as well as climate change, resulting in dramatic consequences for many species and even for the structure of the whole habitat. There are few spatio-temporal studies or baseline data at over large scales and limited information from the southern Mediterranean shores.
Besides the designation of protected areas and fisheries reserves, beneficial measures might include the following: Improvements in water quality, the prohibition of trawling in areas with coralligenous outcrops and their vicinity and management of traditional and recreational fisheries.

References:
Augier, H., Boudouresque, C.F. and Laborel, J. 1971. Végétation marine de l'île de Port-Cros (Parc National). VII.- Les peuplements sciaphiles profonds sur substrat dur. Bulletin Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille 20: 149-168.
Ballesteros, E. 1992. Els vegetals i la zonació litoral: espècies, comunitats i factors que influeixen en la seva distribució. Arxius Secció Ciències, 101. Institut d'Estudis Catalans. Barcelona. 616 pp.
Ballesteros, E. 2006. Mediterranean coralligenous assemblages: a synthesis of the present knowledge. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 44: 123-195.
Ballesteros, E. 2007. Proposal of a Work Programme on protecting the coralligenous and other calcareous bioconcretions in the Mediterranean. United Nations Environmental Programme, Mediterranean Action Plan. UNEP(DEC)/MED WG 308/9: 1-18. Tunis.
Belbacha, S., Semroud, S. and Ramos-Esplá, A. 2011. Rapport sur le coralligène du Parc National de Taza (E-Algèrie). Rapport WWF MedPO-Parc National de Taza, 88pp.
Bitar, G., Ocaña, O. and Ramos-Esplá, A. 2007. Contribution of the Red Sea alien species to structuring some benthic biocenosis in the Lebanon coast (Eastern Mediterranean). Rapp. Comm. int. Mer Medit. 38: 437.

Cebrian, E., Linares, C., Marschal, C. and Garrabou, J. 2012. Exploring the effects of invasive algae on the persistence of gorgonian populations. Biological Invasions 14: 2647–2656 DOI: 10.1007/s10530-012-0261-66.
Cerrano, C., Bavestrello, G., Bianchi, C.N., Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Bava, S., Morganti, C, Morri, C, Picco, P., Sara, G., Schiaparelli, S., Siccardi, A. and Sponga, F. 2000. A catastrophic mass-mortality episode of gorgonians and other organisms in the Ligurian Sea (North-western Mediterranean), summer 1999. Ecological letters, 284–293.
Claudet, J. and Fraschetti, S. 2010. Human-driven impacts on marine habitats: A regional meta-analysis in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Conservation 143(9): 2195-2206.
Curcó, A., Ferré, A., Font, J., Gesti, J., Vilar, L. and Ballesteros, E. 2008. Manual dels Hàbitats de Catalunya. Vol II. 1 Ambients litorals i salins. (Eds. J. Vigo, J. Carreras & A. Ferré). Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona. 312 pp.
Deter, J., Descamp, P., Ballesta, L., Boissery, P. and Holon, F. 2012. A preliminary study toward an index based on coralligenous assemblages for the ecological status assessment of Meditteranean French coastal waters. Ecological Indicators 20: 345-352.
Gamulin-Brida, H. 1965. Contribution aux recherches bionomiques sur les fonds coralligènes au large de l'Adriatique moyenne. Rapports et Procés-Verbaux des Réunions CIESMM, 18 (2): 69-74.
Garrabou, J., Coma, R., Bally, M., Bensoussan, N., Chevaldonné, P., Cigliano, M., Diaz, D., Harmelin, J.G., Gambi, M.C., Kersting D. K., Lejeusne, C, Linares, C., Marschal, C., Pérez, T., Ribes, M., Romano, J.C., Serrano, E., Teixidó, N., Torrents, O., Zabala, M., Zuberer, F. and Cerrano, C. 2009. Mass mortality in northwestern Mediterranean rocky benthic communities : effects of the 2003 heat wave. Global Change Biology 15: 1090-1103.
Gatti, G., Bianchi, C.N., Morri, C., Montefalcone, M. and Sartoretto, S. 2015.  Coralligenous reefs state along anthropized coasts: Application and validation of the COARSE index, based on a rapid visual assessment (RVA) approach. Ecological Indicators  52: 567-576.
Gatti, G., Bianchi, C.N., Parravicini, V., Rovere, A., Peirano, A., Montefalcone, M., et al. 2015. Ecological Change, Sliding Baselines and the Importance of Historical Data: Lessons from Combining Observational and Quantitative Data on a Temperate Reef Over 70 Years. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118581.
Giaccone, G. 2007. Coralligenous assemblage as underwater seascape: distribution off Italian coasts. Biol. Mar. Medit. 14(2): 124-141.
Giaccone, G., Alongi, G., Pizzuto, F. and Cossu, A. 1994. La vegetazione marina bentonica sciafila del Mediterraneo: III Infralittorale e Circalittorale. Proposte di aggiornamento. Boll. Accad. Gioenia Sci. Nat. Catania, 27: 201-227.
Giakoumi, S., Sini, M., Gerovasileiou, V., Mazor, T., Beher, J., Possingham, H.P., Abdulla, A., Cinar, M.E., Dendrinos, P., Gucu, A.C., Karamanlidis, A.A., Rodic, P., Panayotidis, P., Taskin, E., Jaklin, A., Voultsiadou, E., Webster, C., Zenetos, A. and Katsanevakis, S. 2013. Ecoregion-Based Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean: Dealing with Large-Scale Heterogeneity. Plos One 8(10): e76449. 
Hong, J.S. 1980. Étude faunistique d'un fond de concrétionnement de type coralligène soumis à un gradient de pollution en Méditerranée nord-occidentale (Golfe de Fos). Thèse de Doctorat . Université d'Aix-Marseille II. 134 pp.
Kersting, D.K. and Linares, C. 2006. Mortandad de Paramuricea clavata asociada a un evento de macroagregados mucilaginosos (llepó) durante el verano de 2004 en las Islas Columbretes. XIV SIEBM, Barcelona.
KruÅ¾iÄ‡, P. 2002 Marine fauna of the Mljet National Park (Adriatic Sea, Croatia). 1. Anthozoa. Natura Croatica. 11 (3): 265-292.
KruÅ¾iÄ‡, P., RodiÄ‡, P., PopijaÄ, A. and SertiÄ‡, M. 2015. Impacts of temperature anomalies on mortality of benthic organisms in the Adriatic Sea. Marine ecology. DOI: 10.1111/maec.12293.
Laborel, J. 1960. Contribution à l'étude directe des peuplements benthiques sciaphiles sur substrat rocheux en Méditerranée. Recueil Travaux Station Marine Endoume, 33(20): 117-174.
Laborel, J. 1961. Le concretionnement algal "coralligène" et son importance géomorphologique en Méditerranée. Recueil Travaux Station Marine d'Endoume, 23: 37-60.
Laubier, L. 1966. Le coralligène des Albères: monographie biocénotique. Annales Institut Océanographique de Monaco, 43: 139-316.
Linares, C., Cebrian, E. and Coma, R. 2012. Effects of turf algae on recruitment and juvenile survival of gorgonian corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 452:81-88.
Linares, C., Coma, R., Díaz, D., Zabala, M., Hereu, B. and Dantart, L. 2005. Immediate and delayed effects of a mass mortality event on gorgonian population dynamics and benthic community structure in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 305: 127-137.
Linares, C., Coma, R., Garrabou, J., Díaz, D. and Zabala, M. 2008. Size distribution, density and disturbance in two Mediterranean gorgonians: Paramuricea clavata and Eunicella singularis. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 688-699.
Linares, C., Kersting, Dk., Díaz, D., Hereu, B. and Zabala, M. 2010. Impactos recurrentes asociados al cambio climático afectan a la gorgonia Paramuricea clavata en las Islas Columbretes. XVI SIEBM, Alicante.
Linares, C., Vidal, M., Canals, M., Kersting, D. K., Amblás, D. and Aspillaga, E. 2015. Persistent natural acidification drives major distribution shifts in marine benthic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 282:20150587.
Lozano, F. and Ramos-Esplá, A. 2010. Presencia de Paramuricea clavata (Risso, 1826) en fondos rocosos próximos a la Reserva Marina de Tabarca (SE Península Ibérica). XVI Simposio Ibérico de Estudio de Biología Marina. 6-10 septiembre, Alicante.
Martin, C.S., Giannoulaki, M., De Leo, F., Scardi, M., Salomidi, M., Knitweiss, L., Pace, M.L., Garofalo, G., Gristina, M., Ballesteros, E., Bavestrello, G., Belluscio, A., Cebrian, E., Gerakaris, V., Pergent, G., Pergent-Martini, C., Schembri, P.J., Terribile, K., Rizzo, L., Ben Souissi, J., Bonacorsi, M., Guarnieri, G., Krzejl, M., Macic, V., Punzo, E., Valavanis, V. and Fraschetti, S. 2014. Coralligenous and maërl habitats: predictive modelling to identify their spatial distributions across the Mediterranean Sea. Scientific Reports, 4: 5073.
Molinier, R. 1960. Étude des biocoenoses marines du Cap Corse. Vegetatio 9: 120-192.
Ocaña, O., Teixidó, N., Ramos, A., Rodriguez-Correal, F. and Garrabou, J. 2014. Estudio, Monitoreo y Conservación del Coralígeno en la Región de Ceuta. Memoria Científico-Técnica final del proyecto para el MAGRAMA. 74 pp.
OcanÌƒa, O., Ramos, A.and Templado, J. 2009. Paisajes Sumergidos de la RegioÌn de Ceuta y su Biodiversidad. 254 pp., Edita Fundación Museo del Mar de Ceuta.
Pérès, J.M. and Picard, J. 1951. Notes sur les fonds coralligènes de la région de Marseille. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale 88: 24-38.
Pérès, J.M. and Picard, J. 1952. Les corniches calcaires d'origine biologique en Méditerranée Occidentale. Recueil Travaux Station Marine d'Endoume 4: 2-33.
Pérès, J.M. and Picard, J. 1958. Recherches sur les peuplements benthiques de la Méditerranée nord-orientale. Annales Institut Océanographique de Monaco 34: 213-291.
Pérès, J.M. and Picard, J. 1964. Nouveau manuel de bionomie benthique de la Mer Méditerranée. Recueil des Travaux Statione Marine d’Endoume 31(47): 3-137.
Piazzi, L., Gennaro, P. and Balata, D. 2012. Threats to macroalgal coralligenous assemblages in the 446 Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 2623-2629. 
Ramos, A. 1985. La reserva marina de la Isla Plana o Nueva Tabarca (Alicante). Publicaciones Ayuntamiento-Universidad de Alicante, 196 pp.
Ramos- Esplá, A., Seva, E., Taichi, L., Valle, C. and Ocaña, O. 2010. Tipificación y caracterización de las comunidades costeras y marinas del Norte de Marruecos (Cabo Espartel-Cabo Negro). Informe AECID-Universidad de Alicante, 90 pp.
Ramos, A. 1985. La reserva marina de la Isla Plana o Nueva Tabarca (Alicante). Publ. Ayuntamiento de Alicante-Universidad de Alicante, 196pp
Ramos-Esplá, A. and Valle, C. 2004. Marine Biodiversity Study of the Rosh Haniqra-Akhziv Nature Reserves (Israel) to the Establishment of a Management Plan (Action MP4). Final Report,Regional Project UE-MedMPA, UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 126 pp.
Ramos-Esplá, A., Bayle, J.T., Ben Mustapha, K., Bouajina, A., Guellouz, S., Liman, A., Rais, C., Sánchez-Jérez, P. and Valle, C. 2004. Elaboration du Plan de Gestion de la Partie Marine du Parc National de Zembra et Zembretta (Action MP3). Rapport global de prospection marina, Regional Project UE-MedMPA, UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 115 pp.
Ramos-Esplá, A., Bitar, G., Khalaf, G., El Shaer, H., Forcada, A., Liman, A., Ocaña, O., Sghaier, Y. and Valle, C. 2015. Ecological Characterization of Sites of Interest for Conservation in Lebanon. MedMPAnet Project, Tunisia, 168 pp.
Ramos-Esplá, A., Sáchez-Lizaso, J.l., Aranda, A. and Guillén, Je. 1993. Estudio bionómico de los fondos de la Isla de Benidorm (SE Península Ibérica). Publicaciones Especiales,  Instituto Español Oceanografía, 11: 339-347.
Ramos-Esplá, A., Argyrou, M., Bayle, J., Cebrián, D., Demetropoulou, A., Hadchristophorou, M., Rais, Ch., Sánchez-Jérez, P. and Valle, C. 2002. Development of Marine Protected Areas in Cyprus (Action PP1b). 2nd Report, Regional Project UE-MedMPA, UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 122 pp.
Sarà, M. 1969. Research on coralligenous formation: problems and perspectives. Pubblicazione Stazione Zoologiche di Napoli, 37: 124-134.
Sartoretto, S. 1996. Vitesse de croissance et bioérosion des concrétionnements "coralligènes" de Méditerranée nord-occidentale. Rapport avec les variations Holocènes du niveau marin. Thèse Doctorat d'Écologie, Université d'Aix-Marseille, II. 194 pp.
Sartoretto, S. et al. 2014. An integrated approach to evaluate and monitor conservation state of coralligenous bottoms: The Inter-cor method.  2nd Mediterranean Symposium on the conservation of coralligenous habitats and other bioconcretions, Portorov, Slovenia.
Templado, J., Ballesteros, E., Galparsoro, I., Borja, A., Serrano, A., Marín, L. and Brito, A. 2012. Guía interpretativa: Inventario español de hábitats marinos. Inventario español de hábitats y especies marinos. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. 229 pp.
Topçu, En. and Öztürk, B. 2015. Composition and abundance of octocorals in the Sea of Marmara, where the Mediterranean meets the Black Sea. Scientia Marina 79 (1): 123-135

Criterion A Text:
No information on quantity and its reductions have been reported for this habitat as a whole and country quantitative information is lacking. However, published information on the sub-habitat coralligenous outcrops with gorgonians in Western Mediterranean Sea shows that reductions of between 10 - 80 % have occurred during the last 15 years due to mass mortality events in shallow (<40m) coastal areas. Additionaly, long-term quantitative (>50 yr.) analysis in some sites show a significant decline. In Mesco Reef (Italy, NW Mediterranean) significant declines have been reported since quantitative data is available (1961), gorgonian dominated sub-habitat has practically disappeared and the reported changes in species composition are driving loses in the main characterising species of this habitat (including declines in calcareous algae).
While the given data on current trend in habitat quantity in the country information shows that it seems stable/decreasing in most sites, trends in sub-habitat coralligenous outcrops with gorgonians are most probably decreasing in many shallow coastal zones. There are many sites where the condition is unknown and declining trends are most probable in some areas due to fishing impacts, warming, turbidity and water quality, described in the literature and specially in coralligenous outcrops with gorgonians.
It has to be considered that in the near future the extent of this habitat might be seriously impacted by ocean acidification, which could cause the disappearance of this habitat due to drastic shifts in species composition.
Expert opinion is that overall there has been a decline in quantity of this habitat of upto 30% in the EU 28 over the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion A1, A2a and A2b for EU 28 and Data Deficient for EU 28+ .

Criterion B Text:
This habitat is present in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean basins. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO >50, this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution. There are predicted to be continuing declines in spatial extent and abiotic and biotic quality. The nature and size of threats to this habitat and the distribution data which are available suggest that no known threats are likely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The reduction in abiotic quality is reported (both in the country information and the literature) mostly due to water warming, more intense in the upper occurrence limits of this habitat (where it shoud be considered as 'intermediate severity') and to fishing related impacts. In some sites the reduction is also due to sedimentation, turbidity, eutrophication, pollution, diving activities, hipoxia and anchoring.
The reduction in biotic quality is reported (both in the country information and the literature) mainly in relation to species shifts and declines, invasive species, algal blooms (e.g. Acinetospora sp.) and mucilage (mucilaginous aggregates, both benthic and planktonic after sedimentation) events.
In some sites (e.g. Columbretes Islands) community composition in shallow limits of this habitat has been notably altered by the decline of structuring species like gorgonians (Paramuricea clavata) during the past 15 years, having almost completely disappeared in many sites. In Mesco Reef (Ligurian Sea, Italy) quantitative data since 1961 show an important shift in species composition, with an acceleration in declining trends since 1990. Until 1990 coraligenous assemblages in Mesco Reef were on average dominated by gorgonians and bryozoans, since 1996 the assemblages became dominated by filamentous algae (including invasive species like Wormersleyella setacea) and large hidroids. Many species that characterise this habitat have suffered a severe decline or have disappeared in sites like Mesco Reef.
It has to be noted that most of the reported impacts relate to gorgonians and corals, little information is available in relation to other groups.
Taking into account the evidence of warming-related impacts, in addition to others like invasive species, shown in the literature and warming predictions, abiotic and biotic quality is expected to continue decreasing in the future. Evidence reviewed in the literature shows that warming is expected to have a higher impact on the shallower limits of this habitat. Furthermore, synergistic effects among global stressor such as warming, invasive species and acidification as well between global and local stressors can cause drastic declines. In addition, ocean acidification must be considered a potential threat to this habitat as it has been reported that small changes in pH (as those reported for the end of the century) force drastic shifts in species composition in coralligenous assemblages if not their complete disappearance.
Based on all this information and assumptions on future trends, expert opinion is that there has been fairly substantial reduction in biotic and abiotic quality (around 45% of the extent having an intermediate decline). The habitat type is therefore assessed as Near Threatened under Criterion C/D1 for the EU 28 and Data Deficient for the EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This is a widespread habitat throughout the Mediterranean Sea. Country information and literature show an ongoing decline in quality due to warming, fishing activities, water quality and invasive species. There are no evidences of a general decline in quantity in the country information, however, taking into account the impacts this habitat is submitted to and further evidence and decreases decribed in the literature, it must be considered that quantity decreases have happened. Both quality and quantity decreases are expected to continue in the future. Taking into consideration the decline in habitat extent and quality the habitat is classified as Near Threatened for EU 28 and Data Deficient for EU 28+. 
Given the future climate change scenarios for the Mediterranean, the decline of some of the structural species and the ongoing impacts, it is suggested a revision of the assessment in 5-10 years time to provide more quantitative evidences as the habitat is close to Vulnerable status criteria.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Coralligenous outcrops with gorgonians. Most of the impacts are described on gorgonians, which seem to be a vulnerable component of this habitat.

Contributors:
O. Ocaña, A. Ramos, M. Sini, N. Eda Topçu, P. KruÅ¾iÄ‡, C. Jimenez, L. Hadjioannou, E. Ballesteros, S. Fraschetti & C. Linares.


Habitat Type Name:
A1.45 Ephemeral green or red seaweeds (freshwater or sand-influenced) on Atlantic littoral non-mobile substrata

Habitat Description:
This habitat type occurs across the intertidal zone and sometimes in the splash zone, including on cliff faces in such locations. It may also be present on upper shore hard substrata that is relatively unstable (e.g. soft rock), or which is subject to considerable freshwater runoff. A dense mat of green filamentous algae, often together with some red algae, is a characteristic feature.
On moderately exposed shores, the biotopes 'Enteromorpha spp. on freshwater-influenced or unstable upper shore rock ' or 'P. purpurea and/or Enteromorpha spp. on sand-scoured mid- to lower-eulittoral rock'  may be present, both of which tend to support a low species diversity.
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:
Dominant green seaweeds include Enteromorpha intestinalis, Ulva lactuca and the red seaweeds Rhodothamniella floridula and Porphyra purpurea. Winkles such as Littorina littorea and Littorina saxatilis, the limpet Patella vulgata and the barnacles Semibalanus balanoides can occur, though usually in low abundance. The crab Carcinus maenas can be found where boulders are present, while the barnacle Elminius modestus is usually present on sites subject to variable salinity. The relatively high number of species in the characterising species list is due to variation in the species composition from site to site, and because of high species richness at individual sites.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral rock’ (A1.4).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal.
 
MSFD:
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.1 Rocky shoreline

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. There is insufficient data on which to make an assessment of historical, recent or future trends in quantity of this habitat at the present time.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is complicated further because differences between localities are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to differences in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. There is insufficient data on which to make an assessment of historical, recent or future trends in quality of this habitat at the present time.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (e.g. Norway). The percentage hosted by the EU 28 is likely to be between 85-90% but there is insufficient information to establish the exact figure.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as its distribution includes locations on the east coast of Ireland and the Orkney Islands.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as its distribution includes locations on the east coast of Ireland and the Orkney Islands.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to substratum loss and smothering, for example from construction or coastal protection works. Abrasion, habitat destruction and any kind of physical disturbance, can lead to displacement of organisms and significant changes in the associated biodiversity. A decrease in wave exposure and any changes in the emergence regime, due to coastal modifications, can also have a detrimental impact on the habitat.  Smothering may prevent feeding and respiratory flows through associated communities and the species may not survive burial.  Pollution incidents, in particular oil  spills, can smother and lead to the loss of associated fauna and flora.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the regulation, zoning and limits on coastal development and on the construction of hard coastal defence structures where there is a risk of damage to the intertidal habitat.  Water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination or of nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication would also benefit this habitat.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1130: MATL U2, 
1160: MATL U2,  MMAC FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Unknown, although the ephemeral nature and salinity tolerance of the characterising algal species suggests an ability to recover rapidly after damage if a suitable substrate is retained.

Summary:
This habitat occurs across the intertidal zone and sometimes in the splash zone, including on cliff faces in such locations. It may also be present on upper shore hard substrata that is relatively unstable (e.g. soft rock), or which is subject to considerable freshwater runoff. A dense mat of green filamentous algae, often together with some red algae, is a characteristic feature. It is sensitive to substratum loss, abrasion, smothering, and changes in wave exposure and emergence regime for example from construction or coastal protection works and physical distrubance . Pollution incidents, in particular oil  spills, can also smother and lead to the loss of associated fauna and flora.
Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the regulation, zoning and limits on coastal development and the construction of hard coastal defence structures where there is a risk of damage to the intertidal habitat.  Water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination or of nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication would also benefit this habitat.

References:
Budd, G.C. 2004. Ulva spp. on freshwater-influenced or unstable upper eulittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsbasicinfo.php?habitatid=104&code=2004. (Accessed: 22/08/2014). 
European Environment Agency, 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 22/08/2014).
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network). 2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme.  Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats.php. (Accessed 118/11/15).

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quanitity of this habitat. This habitat is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient, both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of a lack of information on any trends in quantity and quality.

Contributors:
C. Karamita and the North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F.Otero-Ferrer, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter and N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.11 Marine Atlantic littoral shingle (pebble) and gravel

Habitat Description:
Shingle beaches occur on high energy wave dominated coasts where a sediment supply is available for reworking. The shingle (mobile cobbles and pebbles) or coarse gravel, is typically deposited as a result of onshore wave action and long-shore drift and the beach profile tends to be relatively steep. The particle size tends to increase along the shore in the direction of the long-shore drift. As the sediment is very coarse and often quite mobile, it typically supports little marine life, other than opportunist amphipods and oligochaete worms. Summer growths of ephemeral green algae (Enteromorpha spp.) may develop.
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:
This habitat tend to support virtually no macrofauna because of the very mobile and freely draining substratum. The few individuals that may be found are those washed into the habitat by the ebbing tide, including the occasional amphipod or small polychaete. Under conditions of moderate exposure there may be dense populations of the amphipod Pectenogammarus planicrurus.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405): 
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral coarse sediment’ (A2.1).
 
Annex 1:
No relationship
 
MAES:  
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.3 Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has been generated using EMODnet data from modelled/surveyed records for the North East Atlantic (and supplemented with expert opinion where applicable) (EMODnet 2010) and using Article 17 records for vegetated shingle which is adjacent to this habitat type. EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data presented in this map however these should be treated with caution as expert opinion is that this is not the full distribution of the habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
Shingle features constantly change morphologically as their finite sediment supply is reworked landward and alongshore. Trends need to be viewed in the context of natural accretion and erosion and reworking of the shingle. Changes have been studied in detail in some locations (e.g.Dungeness spit and Chesil Beach in the UK) however there is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat throughout the North East Atlantic region.

Trends in Quality:
Shingle features constantly change morphologically as their finite sediment supply is reworked landward and alongshore. Trends need to be viewed in the context of natural accretion and erosion and reworking of the shingle. There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quality.

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

Pressures and Threats:
This is a robust habitat. The greatest threat is removal or interruption of a reliable sediment supply as without sediment to pick up and deposit on the beach, the sea would simply erode shingle structures.  Any kind of development on shingle is likely to negatively affect it by reducing its ability to migrate in response to the sea . Water abstraction, nuclear power plants, housing and defence are all examples of development which occur on the habitat. Where the morphology of the shingle ridge has been altered by building and sea defence works to protect the infrastructure further inhibits its ability to behave naturally.
The sediment supply is compromised when it is extracted for aggregates, restricted by coastal defence structures or artificially redistributed around the site. Natural longshore drift is prevented by groynes while sea defence walls behind a feature stop shingle ridges rolling back landwards.

Conservation and Management:
Conservation and management of this habitat requires consideration of its geomorphological context and the coastal process that sustain it and may therefore need to be wide ranging. At a more local level useful measures are controls on coast protection works, on shore constructions and preventing the direct removal of  shingle, pebble and gravel from the beach.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
This is a very robust, species poor habitat so has the capacity to become re-established where the substrate and exposure conditions are suitable. The limiting factor is supply of shingle and gravel where this originates from relict glacial deposits.

Summary:
This habitat tends to support virtually no macrofauna because of the very mobile and freely draining substratum. The shingle (mobile cobbles and pebbles) or coarse gravel, is typically deposited as a result of onshore wave action and longshore drift and the beach profile tends to be relatively steep. 
This is a robust habitat, the greatest threat being the removal or interruption of a reliable sediment supply. This may be compromised when it is extracted for aggregates, restricted by coastal defence structures or artificially redistributed around the site. Natural along-shore drift is prevented by groynes while sea defence walls behind a feature stop shingle ridges rolling back landwards. Conservation and management of this habitat requires consideration of its geomorphological context and the coastal processes that sustain it and may therefore need to be wide ranging. At a more local level useful measures are controls on coast protection works, on shore constructions and preventing the direct removal of shingle, pebble and gravel from the beach.

References:
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view [online]. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp (Accessed: 26/11/2015).
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira & J. Gonçalves. 2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Horta: MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, p.126.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information available on which to determine any historical, recent or potential future trends in extent of this habitat. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,000km2 and AOO >50 (based on the distribution of vegetated shingle habitat)  this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution. Trends are unknown. The distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B1(c) B2 (c) and B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

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

Synthesis:
Shingle, gravel and pebble features in the intertidal zone constantly change morphologically as their finite sediment supply is reworked landward, offshore and alongshore. Trends therefore need to be viewed in the context of natural accretion and erosion and reworking of the sediment. Athough changes have been studied in detail in some locations (e.g. Dungeness Spit and Chesil Beach in the UK) there is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity or quality of this habitat throughout the North East Atlantic region. 
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO (based on the distribution of vegetated shingle), and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F.Otero-Ferrer, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R.Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.12 Estuarine Atlantic littoral coarse sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on shores of coarse sediments (shingle, gravels and coarse sand) and in the upper reaches of estuaries and other inlets (e.g. sea lochs) which are subject to variable and reduced salinity conditions. The outflow of riverine freshwater at the heads of the inlets results in the washing out of fine particulate matter, leaving coarse sediments.
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 overtime.
Indices developed to assess the ecological status of coastal waters, including estuaries, according to the Water Framework Directive, include physical indicators, water quality indicators and measures of benthic diversity, species richness and abundance. The latter group, which is particularly relevant to benthic habitats, includes a Benthic Quality Index, an Infaunal Trophic Index, a Marine Biotic index based on ecological groups, and the Benthic Opportunistic Polychaetes/Amphipods index.
Characteristic species:
Associated communities are typically species-poor and characterised by oligochaete worms.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral coarse sediment’ (A2.1).
 
Annex 1: 
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
9.1 Estuaries
12.3 Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Coarse sediment habitats are not characteristic of the intertidal zone of estuaries nor are estuarine shingles typical of the North East Atlantic.

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine trends in quantity.

Pressures and Threats:
Increasing human activities in the coastal zone create multiple stresses on estuaries that degrade water quality and damage the associated habitats. The pressures include wastewater inputs, chemical contaminants, freshwater diversions, draining and ditching of wetlands, reinforcement of shorelines, inlet stabilisation and trampling on the shore.

Conservation and Management:
Conservation and management schemes to benefit estuarine habitats have been applied at a number of scales ranging from whole estuary systems to small areas within an estuary. They include the removal of dykes, together with the introduction of water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination.
Other measures include spatial management, with zoning of activities as part of Integrated Coastal Zone Management Schemes, Marine Protected Areas that cover the entire estuary complex, and management of diffuse inputs from the water shed.

Summary:
This habitat is found on the upper reaches of estuaries and other inlets (e.g. sea lochs) which are subject to variable and reduced salinity conditions. The outflow of riverine freshwater at the heads of the inlets results in the washing out of fine particulate matter, leaving coarse sediments. Pressures and threats relevant to this habitat are pollution, change of hydrological conditions including wave exposure, infilling, trampling, coastal development and land reclamation. Conservation and management schemes include the removal of dykes, and water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination. Moreover, spatial management including zoning of activities as part of Integrated Coastal Zone Management Schemes,  Marine Protected Areas that cover the entire estuary complex, as well as control of diffuse inputs from the watershed.

References:
Borja, A., Franco, J. & Perez, V 2000 A Marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40(12):1100-1114.
Conley, D.J., Kass, H., Møhlenberg, F. et al. 2000. Characteristics of Danish Estuaries. Estuaries. 23(6):820-837.
European Environment Agency, 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed 22/08/2014).
Muxika, I., Borga, A. & Bald, J. 2007 Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status according to the European Water Framework Directive Marine Pollution Bulletin 55:16-29.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information  to determine any historical, recent or potential future trends of this habitat. It has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
There is insufficient information for calculation of EOO or AOO. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria B.

Synthesis:
There is a lack of information on the extent of this habitat and any trends in quantity or quality over the last 50 years. For the purposes of Red List assessment it is therefore considered to be Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Contributors:
C. Karamita and the North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F.Otero-Ferrer, J.A. Forde, K. Fürhaupter and N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.22: Barren or amphipod-dominated Atlantic littoral mobile sand

Habitat Description:
This intertidal habitat comprises shores of clean mobile sands (coarse, medium and some fine-grained), with little very fine sand, and no mud present. Shells and stones may occasionally be present on the surface. The sand may be duned or rippled as a result of wave action or tidal currents. The sands are non-cohesive, with low water retention, and thus subject to drying out between tides, especially on the upper shore and where the shore profile is steep. Mobile sand shores are typically situated along open stretches of coastline, with a relatively high degree of wave exposure. Bands of gravel and shingle may be present on the upper shore of exposed beaches. Where the wave exposure is less, and the shore profile more shallow, mobile sand communities may also be present on the upper part of the shore, with more stable fine sand communities present lower down. Mobile sand shores may show significant seasonal changes, with sediment accretion during calm summer periods and beach erosion during more stormy winter months. There may be a change in sediment particle size structure, with finer sediment grains washed out during winter months, leaving behind coarser sediments. Most of these shores support a limited variety of species, ranging from barren, highly mobile sands to more stable clean sands, supporting communities of isopods, amphipods and a limited number of polychaete species. 
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:
Species which can characterise mobile sand communities include Scolelepis squamata, Pontocrates arenarius, Bathyporeia pelagica, B. pilosa, Haustorius arenarius and Eurydice pulchra. A strandline of talitrid amphipods typically develops at the top of the shore where decaying seaweed accumulates.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral sand’ (A2.2).
 
Annex 1:
1140 Mudflats & sandflats not covered at low tide
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.2 Sandy Shorelines and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits etc.

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive accurate map of the distribution of this habitat. This map has been generated using EMODnet data from modelled/surveyed records for the North East Atlantic (and supplemented with expert opinion where applicable) (EMODnet 2010). EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data presented in this map however these should be treated with caution as expert opinion is that this is not the full distribution of the habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
Unknown, however this is a habitat in a very dynamic environment, where influencing conditions can fluctuate significantly within seasons and inter-annually, as well as spatially. Severe winters and extreme events such as El Nino result in the most rapid changes. There have been localised losses/damage to this habitat e.g. following oil spills, as well as recovery. This pattern is likely to continue.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine trends in quantity.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as northern Spain, the Orkney Islands and intertidal areas of the Netherlands.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as northern Spain, the Orkney Islands and intertidal areas of the Netherlands.

Pressures and Threats:
Wave action determines the slope and width of sandy intertidal areas and any modifications to degree of exposure through human intervention (construction works, coast protection works and dredging), may have considerable consequences on the communities that characterise the habitat. An increase in wave exposure would cause the substratum to  become progressively coarser, creating conditions outside many species’ habitat preference. Conversely, a decrease in the wave exposure would be likely to cause accretion of finer sands and opportunistic species may colonise the biotope.
Where this habitat occurs along  industralised and urbanised coastlines it may be exposed to effluent discharges which contain a variety of synthetic contaminants that have the potential to lead to a decline in associated species. Pollution incidents are another threat. Oil smothers sediments preventing oxygen exchange, producing anoxia and eventual death of infauna. Stranded oil penetrates the sediment, especially sands through wave and tidal action and destabilises the sediment. Microbial degradation of the oil increases the biological oxygen demand causing anoxia. Amphipods have been reported to be particularly intolerant of oil pollution.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat could include the regulation of activities which damage or disturb shore communities, regulation of coastal developments and of the construction of hard coastal defence structures. Additionally, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination would prevent degradation of the habitat.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1140: MATL U2,  MMAC XX
1160: MATL U2, MMAC FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Yes. This is a naturally dynamic habitat which is regularly subject to disturbance. The associated species groups, isopods, amphipods and a limited number of polychaete species, which occur under these conditions are likely to be able to recolonise disturbed areas relatively rapidly.

Summary:
This intertidal habitat comprises shores of clean mobile sands (coarse, medium and some fine-grained), with little very fine sand, and no mud present. Shells and stones may occasionally be present on the surface. Most of these shores are either barren, in the case of the highly mobile sands or, in the case of more stable clean sands, support a limited range of species, typically isopods, amphipods and a limited number of polychaete species.
This habitat is sensitive to removal of the substratum by coastal construction or coastal protection works and dredging activities. Additionally, changes in the water flow rate and wave exposure will change the sediment structure with subsequent effects on the community. There is also a sensitivity to hydrocarbon (oil) contamination, which can smother sediments and prevent oxygen exchange, resulting in anoxia and death of infauna. Beneficial management measures would include water quality improvement programmes, and the regulation, including limits, on the locations where dredging, coastal development and hard coastal defence structures are permitted.

References:
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp [accessed. (Accessed: 22/08/2014). 
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira & J. Gonçalves. 2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Horta: MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, p.126.

Criterion A Text:
Unknown, however this is a habitat in a very dynamic environment, where conditions that influence its extent can fluctuate significantly within seasons and inter-annually, as well as spatially. Severe winters and extreme events such as El Nino result in the most rapid changes. There have been localised losses/damage to this habitat e.g. following oil spills, as well as recovery. This pattern is likely to continue. This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat type has a widespread distribution in the North East Atlantic region, with examples known to be present in locations as widely separated as northern Spain and the coast of the Netherlands. It is present in a very dynamic environment, where conditions that influence its extent can fluctuate significantly within seasons and inter-annually, as well as spatially. There have been localised losses/damage to this habitat, for example following oil spills, as well as recovery. This pattern is likely to continue. 
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of  the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality.

Contributors:
C. Karamita and the North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F. Otero-Ferrer, J.A. Forde, K. Fürhaupter and N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.23 Polychaete/amphipod-dominated Atlantic littoral fine sand

Habitat Description:
This intertidal habitat is associated with shores of clean, medium to fine and very fine sand, with no coarse sand, gravel or mud present. Shells and stones may occasionally be present on the surface. The sand may be duned or rippled as a result of wave action or tidal currents. The degree of drying between tides is limited, and the sediment usually remains damp throughout the tidal cycle. Typically, no anoxic layer is present. Fine sand communities may be present throughout the intertidal zone on moderately exposed beaches, or they may be present on the lower parts of the shore with mobile sand communities present along the upper shore. They support a range of species including amphipods and polychaetes. A strandline of talitrid amphipods typically develops at the top of the shore where decaying seaweed accumulates.
Littoral sediment features are generally dynamic, and their  extent will vary on diurnal, lunar and seasonal cycles, driven by tidal regime, prevailing weather conditions, coastal and geomorphological processes. The associated habitats can therefore exhibit considerable natural variation. Fine sand shores may show seasonal changes, with sediment accretion during calm summer periods and beach erosion during more stormy winter months. There may be a change in sediment particle size structure, with finer sediment grains washed out during winter months, leaving behind coarser sediments.
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:
On the lower shore, and where sediments are stable, bivalves such as Angulus tenuis may be present in large numbers. Arenicola marina casts may be present on the sediment surface. An exceptionally rich fine sand community has been recorded from very sheltered reduced salinity shores in Poole Harbour, UK. Species recorded include Anaitides maculata, Hediste diversicolor, Scoloplos armiger, Pygospio elegans, Tharyx killariensis, oligochaetes, Gammarus locusta, Hydrobia ulvae, Cerastoderma edule and Mya truncata.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification . A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral sand’ (A2.2)
 
Annex 1:
1140 Mudflats & sandflats not covered at low tide
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.2 Sandy Shorelines and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits etc.

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is further complicated by differences between localities, which are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to variation in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. There have however been some substantial reductions in the extent of this habitat recorded in some parts of the North East Atlantic. In Germany, for example, most changes took place before 1700, especially within estuaries, where coastal defence developments (embankment, dyking, dredging) have been carried out up to 1950, with further deepening of shipping channels proposed in the near future.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. There is often considerable seasonal variability in biota, with the infaunal community subject to periodic redistribution by the erosion and accretion of the sediment. This is further complicated by differences between localities, which are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to variation in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover. There have, however, been some substantial reductions in the quality of this habitat recorded in some parts of the North East Atlantic. In Germany, for example a 10-30% decline has occurred since 1750 and a 30-70% decline before 1700. Shrimp and mussel fisheries are affecting substantial areas of intertidal sedimentary habitat, with additional changes being incurred through hydrological modification and climate change.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region. For example it occurs in the Waddensea in the eastern part of the region as far south as estuaries on the French, Portuguese and Spanish Atlantic coasts.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region. For example it occurs in the Waddensea in the eastern part of the region as far south as estuaries on the French, Portuguese and Spanish Atlantic coasts.

Pressures and Threats:
In broad terms, this habitat is subject to pressures and threats that extend across all intertidal sedimentary habitat types, with both natural- (storm, tidal) and anthropogenically-mediated change (groyne/sea wall construction urbanisation etc.) constituting the greatest modifying influence. 
Documented threats to sandflats include: substratum loss; changes in emergence, water flow and wave action; changes in nutrient levels and eutrophication; synthetic chemical, heavy metal and hydrocarbon contamination and harvesting of infaunal species. In addition, in the German Wadden Sea, this habitat is subject to shallow bottom trawling for shrimp and mussel.
In the longer term, this habitat is vulnerable to sea level change.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures include the regulation coastal developments and hard coastal defence structures, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and nutrient enrichment,  and control including restrictions on intertidal fisheries which affect the associated communities.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1140: MATL U2, MMAC XX
1160: MATL U2, MMAC FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Field study evidence suggests that intertidal sand communities have a strong capacity for natural recovery following chemical or physical disturbance via rapid recolonisation through bedload transport of juveniles and adults. This is particularly quick for polychaete-dominated assemblages, with community structure becoming re-established within a matter of months following the removal of the pressure.
As a consequence of this, the biological communities are highly resilient and are able to replenish and restore themselves after a major disturbance event over very short periods of time.

Summary:
This intertidal habitat is associated with shores of clean, medium to fine and very fine sand, with no coarse sand, gravel or mud present, supporting a range of species including amphipods and polychaetes.  Fine sand communities may be present throughout the intertidal zone on moderately exposed beaches, or they may be present on the lower parts of the shore adjacent to upper shore mobile sand communities. 
This habitat is subject to pressures and threats that extend across all intertidal sedimentary habitat types, with both natural- (storm, tidal) and anthropogenically-mediated change (groyne/sea wall construction urbanisation etc.) constituting the greatest modifying influence. Documented threats include: substratum loss; changes in emergence, water flow and wave action; changes in nutrient levels and eutrophication; synthetic chemical, heavy metal and hydrocarbon contamination and harvesting of infaunal species. In addition, in the German Wadden Sea, this habitat is subject to shallow bottom trawling for shrimp and mussel. In the longer term, this habitat is vulnerable to sea level change.
Beneficial management measures include the regulation coastal developments and hard coastal defence structures, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and nutrient enrichment, and control, including restrictions, on intertidal fisheries which affect the associated communities.

References:
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 22/08/2014).
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira & J. Gonçalves. 2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Horta: MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, p.126.
Tyler-Walters, H. (ed.), Wilding, C., Durkin, O., Adams, L., Lacey, C.; Philpott, E., Wilkes, P. T. V., Seeley, B. and Neilly, M. 2011. Unpublished Guidance and information on priority marine species and habitats in Scotland. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report (Project no. 25048).
Zajac, R.N. and Whitlatch, R.B. 2003. Community and population-level responses to disturbance in a sandflat community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 294: 101-125.

Criterion A Text:
Littoral sediment features are generally dynamic with the associated habitats exhibiting considerable natural variation. Continental coasts (e.g. Germany) have, however, historically undergone losses of this habitat due to coastal defence measures being carried out up to around 1950. Continuing threats occur from the deepening of shipping channels and other hydrographic modifications, together with nutrient/chemical contamination and bottom trawling.
While there are known historical reductions in extent of this habitat in specific North East Atlantic localities, there is insufficient information for entire region. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A.

Synthesis:
This habitat is relatively common where littoral sand flats are able to form and consequently has a considerable natural range throughout the North East Atlantic region. Littoral sediment features are generally dynamic, and change in extent is difficult to quantify due to the natural processes, such as current/drift, wave action and wind, but historical losses are known to have occurred.  The communities associated with this habitat are also naturally extremely variable often reflecting the shifting seasonal nature of the shore sediment, which is predominantly influenced by weather and tidal events. While there have been known losses as a result of human pressures, the scale of these losses are unknown when considered within a regional context. 
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels given the lack of information on its trends in quantity and quality.

Contributors:
C. Karamita and the North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N.Dankers, F.Otero-Ferrer, J.A. Forde, K. Fürhaupter and N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.24 Polychaete/bivalve-dominated Atlantic littoral muddy sand

Habitat Description:
This muddy or fine sand habitat often occurs as extensive intertidal flats on open coasts and in marine inlets. It is predominantly a habitat of the mid and lower shore though can span the entire intertidal. Where it occurs in marine inlets, the habitat may be subject to variable salinity conditions. Fine sand or mobile sand communities may be present on the upper shore with muddy sand communities present lower down. The sediment generally remains water-saturated during low water and has a high organic content resulting from settlement of organic detritus and growth of heterotrophic autotrophic micro-organisms. There is also typically a high microbial population and high sediment stability due to cohesion. An anoxic layer may be present below 5 cm of the sediment surface, sometimes seen in the worm casts on the surface.  
Muddy sand habitats tend to support a relatively poor diversity of species, which are usually found in high abundances. These are predominately sessile tube-dwelling polychaetes with bivalves also well represented, amphipods and gastropods. Some species characteristic of subtidal areas may also occur. This habitat is also important for wintering and passage birds for feeding and roosting.  
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:
The species most typically found in this habitat is the Baltic tellin Macoma balthica. Other commonly occurring species include Cerastoderma edule, Hydrobia ulvae, Pygospio elegans, Hediste diversicolor, Eteone longa, Scoloplos armiger and Arenicola marina.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral sand’ (A2.2).
 
Annex 1:
1140 Mudflats & sandflats not covered at low tide
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
12.4 Mud shoreline and intertidal mud flats

Trends in Quantity:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is further complicated by differences between localities, which are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to variation in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.
The extent of this habitat has been mapped in detail in some locations e.g. the Rias Baixas of North West Spain, but there is insufficient information to provide an accurate report of area and extent for the entire North East Atlantic regional sea. There have been some substantial reductions in the extent of this habitat in historic times for example in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK due to land claim, embankments, coastal development, and harbour construction works. In Germany, where most changes took place before 1700, especially within estuaries, as a result of coast protection and flood defence works (embankment, dyking, dredging) up to 1950, further deepening of shipping channels proposed in the near future which could reduce the extent of this habitat.
There is some continuing loss of this habitat but insufficient data to make an overall assessment of trend in quantity.

Trends in Quality:
Local and/or seasonal factors often exert a substantial influence on intertidal habitats making it difficult to distinguish any long-term trend across the region. This is further complicated by differences between localities, which are often linked to differences in geographical latitude and, therefore, to variation in climatic traits like temperature and/or ice cover.  Whilst there are studies showing changes over various time periods in quality (species composition/biomass) in some locations e.g. where there has been cockle harvesting, there is insufficient information to determine any historical or recent trends for the regional as a whole.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (e.g. Norway, Isle of Man, Channel Islands). The percentage hosted by the EU 28 is likely to be between more than 90% but there is insufficient information to establish the exact figure.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic, from the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Ireland, to the southern North Sea coasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic, from the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Ireland, to the southern North Sea coasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is subject to pressures and threats that extend across all intertidal sedimentary habitat types, with both natural- (storm, tidal) and anthropogenically-mediated change (groyne/sea wall construction urbanisation etc.) constituting the greatest modifying influence.
Documented threats include substratum loss due to coastal development, coast protection and flood defence works,  as well as synthetic chemical, heavy metal and hydrocarbon contamination. Organic enrichment can lead to increased coverage by opportunistic green macroalgae such as Ulva sp. and Enteromorpha sp. resulting in the formation of ‘green tide’ mats with anoxic conditions forming below the mats, reducing the diversity and abundance of infauna. Trampling/vehicle access and harvesting of infaunal species, particularly mechanical harvesting of cockles is known to result in large mortality of non-target invertebrates which in some situations have still been detected more than 80 days after harvesting.
In the longer term, this habitat is vulnerable to sea level change. The threat from accumulation of microplastics by infauna is unknown but may be significant in the future.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures include the regulation of activities such as coastal developments and hard coastal defence structures that can have a direct impact by reducing the area of this habitat, as well as indirect effects by altering sediment movement and the wave exposure regime. Water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and control, including restrictions on intertidal fisheries which affect the associated communities can also benefit this habitat.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Recovery is dependent on the return of suitable sediment and recruitment of individuals. Overall recovery will vary between site location or hydrographic regime and the community may not recover exactly the same species composition as existed prior to disturbance. Once suitable substratum returns, recolonisation is likely to be rapid, especially for rapidly reproducing species such as polychaetes, oligochaetes and some amphipods and bivalves. Recolonisation and hence recovery may be aided by bedload transport of juvenile polychaetes and bivalves.

Summary:
This  habitat is comprised of muddy sand or fine sand, often occurring as extensive intertidal flats on open coasts and in marine inlets.  Muddy sand habitats tend to support a relatively poor diversity of infaunal species, which are usually found in high abundances. These are predominately sessile tube-dwelling polychaetes with bivalves also well represented, amphipods and gastropods. This habitat is also important for wintering and passage birds for feeding and roosting.
This habitat is subject to pressures and threats that extend across all intertidal sedimentary habitat types, with both natural- (storm, tidal) and anthropogenically-mediated change (groyne/sea wall construction urbanisation etc.) constituting the greatest modifying influence. Documented threats include substratum loss due to coastal development, coast protection and flood defence works, changes in nutrient levels and eutrophication; synthetic chemical, heavy metal and hydrocarbon contamination; trampling/vehicle access and harvesting of infaunal species such as cockles. In the longer term, this habitat is vulnerable to sea level change. The threat from accumulation of microplastics by infauna is unknown but may be significant in the future.
Beneficial management measures include the regulation coastal developments and hard coastal defence structures, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and control, including restrictions on intertidal fisheries which affect the associated communities.

References:
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
Elliot, M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N. V., Read, S. J., Cutts, N. D. & Hemingway, K. L., 1998. Intertidal sand and mudflats & subtidal mobile sandbanks (Vol. II). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity for conservation management of marine SACs. Oban: Prepared by the Scottish Association for Marine Science for the UK Marine SACs Project.
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed 22/08/2014).
Ferns,P. N., Rostron, D. M. and Siman, H. Y. 2000. Effects of mechanical cockle harvesting on intertidal communities. Journal of Applied Ecology. 37: 464-474.
Hall, S. J. & Harding, M. J. C. 1998. The effects of mechanical harvesting of cockles on non-target benthic infauna. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring Report. No.86.
OSPAR Commission. 2008. Case Reports for the OSPAR List of Threatened and-or Declining Species and Habitats OSPAR Commission. Southampton: Biodiversity Series 219. 
Tyler-Walters, H. & Marshall, C. 2006. Polychaete / bivalve dominated muddy sand shores. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/21. (Accessed: 22/08/2014).
Tyler-Walters, H. & Marshall, C. 2006. Muddy sand shores. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Availiable at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats/detail/21/polychaete_bivalve_dominated_muddy_sand_shores. (Accessed: 27/07/2015). 
Tyler-Walters, H. (ed.), Wilding, C., Durkin, O., Adams, L., Lacey, C., Philpott, E., Wilkes, P. T. V., Seeley, B. and Neilly, M. 2011. Unpublished Guidance and information on priority marine species and habitats in Scotland. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report (Project no. 25048) report. 
UK Biodiversity Group. 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf. (Accessed: 27/07/2014). 
Vilas, F, Bernabeu, A.M.,  & Mendéz, G. 2005. Sediment distribution pattern in the Rias Baixas (NW Spain): main facies and hydrodynamic dependence. Journal of Marine Systems. 54:261-276.

Criterion A Text:
Littoral sediment features are generally dynamic with the associated habitats exhibiting considerable natural variation. There have been historical losses in the quantity of this habitat and some continuing loss but insufficient data to make an assessment under this criterion. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There are studies showing changes in habitat quality over various time scales as a result of human activities (e.g. cockle dredging) but no overview or quantitative data on reduction in abiotic and/or biotic quality of this habitat over the last 50 years.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic, from the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Ireland, to the southern North Sea coasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. While there have been known losses as a result of human pressures, the scale of these losses are unknown when considered within a regional context. The same limitations apply when trying to determine any historical and recent trends in quality.  Littoral sediment features are generally dynamic, and change in extent is difficult to quantify due to the natural processes, such as current/drift, wave action and wind, but historical losses are known to have occurred. The communities associated with this habitat are also naturally extremely variable often reflecting the shifting seasonal nature of the shore sediment, which is predominantly influenced by weather and tidal events. 
This habitat has a large EOO and AOO, and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B. However the habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of  a lack of information on the area covered and on any trends in quantity and quality.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A2.242 Cerastoderma edule and polychaetes in littoral muddy sand because of the pressures and impacts associated with cockle dredging.

Assessors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F. Otero, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.

Contributors:
P. Somerfield, E. Bastos and the North East Atlantic Working Group: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F.Otero-Ferrer, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.31 Polychaete/ bivalve-dominated mid-estuarine Atlantic littoral mud

Habitat Description:
Mid-estuarine shores of fine sediment, mostly in the silt and clay fraction though sandy mud (mostly very fine and fine sand) can also be a component of the substrate. Littoral mud typically forms extensive mudflats, though dry compacted mud can form steep and even vertical structures, particularly at the top of the shore adjacent to saltmarshes. Little oxygen penetrates these cohesive sediments, and an anoxic layer is often present within millimetres of the sediment surface. Most mid-estuarine muddy shores are subject to some freshwater influence, though at some locations more or less fully marine conditions may prevail. This habitat is mainly found along mid-estuarine shores and supports rich communities characterised by polychaetes, bivalves and oligochaetes. The mid-estuarine communities may also be present in sheltered inlets, straits and embayments which are not part of major estuarine systems, though there is usually some freshwater influence.
Indicators of quality:
Many indicators of quality have been used for this habitat with particular parameters 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. Indicators of quality of this habitat are frequently linked to those for the whole estuarine environment and therefore include morphological and physical characteristics, carrying capacity and water quality parameters. For the mudflat itself benthic indices, contaminant levels and productivity are some of the frequently used measures of quality.
Indices developed to assess the ecological status of coastal waters, including estuaries, according to the Water Framework Directive, include physical indicators, water quality indicators and measures of benthic diversity, species richness and abundance. The latter group, which is particularly relevant to benthic habitats, includes a Benthic Quality Index, an Infaunal Trophic Index, a Marine Biotic index based on ecological groups, and the Benthic Opportunistic Polychaetes/Amphipods index.
Characteristic species:
The infauna is characterised by the polychaetes Eteone longa, Hediste diversicolor (ragworm) and Pygospio elegans, oligochaetes (mostly Tubificoides benedii and T. pseudogaster), the crustaceans Corophium volutator and Crangon crangon, the spire shell Hydrobia ulvae and the baltic tellin Macoma balthica. The cockle Cerastoderma edule may be abundant, and the sand gaper Mya arenaria may be superabundant, though these species are not always present, or may be absent in core samples due to their large size. The polychaetes Arenicola marina, Polydora cornuta and Capitella capitata, the shrimp Crangon crangon, and the Mussel Mytilus edulis are sometimes present. Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva lactuca may form mats on the surface of the mud during the summer months, particularly in areas of nutrient enrichment or where there is significant freshwater influence.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405): 
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral mud’ (A2.3).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters.
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
9.10 Estuaries

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Estuarine mudflats are a characteristic coastal habitat of the North East Atlantic. They are present in all the sub-basins of this regional sea, except for Macaronesia, and are common because of the numerous rivers which discharge to the sea in a region where there is a significant tidal range (over 12 m). This also enables the development of some very large expanses of estuarine mudflat.

Trends in Quantity:
Historically there have been dramatic changes in quantity of this habitat with significant permanent loss, for example, as a result of the conversion of flood plains into polders in Germany and the Netherlands. Land claim has also been widespread, cumulative and piecemeal in the UK. It has affected at least 85% of British estuaries and has removed over 25% of intertidal land from many estuaries and over 80% in some such as the Tees and the Tyne. Whilst it is not possible to determine how much of this constituted mudflat habitat, the scale and extent of the land claim schemes suggests this has been significant.
In recent decades, the direct losses of  intertidal habitat in estuaries appears to have stabilised (in the German Wadden Sea an estimated loss of less than 10% within the last 50 years compared to over 70% loss over the last 250 years) although piecemeal losses continue to occur. 
Climate change, with predicted sea level rise and changes in storm surge levels and frequency is considered likely to lead to future habitat loss unless there is scope for inland migration of intertidal habitats within estuaries.

Trends in Quality:
There has been a significant historical decline in quality of this habitat. For example, in Germany this is estimated to have affected over 90% of the habitat to the extent where a "natural" hydrographic regime no longer exists for German North Sea estuaries. An estimated 70% has declined in quality over the last 50 years. Land claim has affected at least 85% of British estuaries, including areas of mudflat, leading to a decline in quality. Substanial nutrient inputs to Danish coastal waters, including estuaries, in the 1980s provide other well-documented examples of changes quality of this habitat. 
More recently activities such as dredging, discharge of effluents, development of anoxic conditions and eutrophication have affected the quality of mudflats in some estuaries but overall they are considered to be mostly stable.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (e.g. in sheltered locations at the head of inlets, estuaries and fjords in Norway, Isle of Man, Channel Islands). The percentage hosted by the EU 28 is likely to be between  more than 90% but there is insufficient information to establish the exact figure.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as far south as the Atlantic coast of southern Spain, along the western coasts of Ireland, around the British Isles, and on the mainland of northern Europe in France

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as far south as the Atlantic coast of southern Spain, along the western coasts of Ireland, around the British Isles, and on the mainland of northern Europe in France

Pressures and Threats:
Land claim for agricultural purpose, industrial use or port expansion, degraded water quality, bait digging and the spread of the cord grass Spartina anglia have all been factors contributing to declining quantity and quality of intertidal mudflat areas.  Other potential threats include pollution incidents such as oil spills from tanker accidents and the consequences of sea-level rise due to climate change.
These pressures operate in a variety of ways. Diffuse and point-source discharges from agriculture, industry and urban areas including polluted storm-water run-off can create abiotic areas or produce algal mats. Barrage schemes pose a threat to the integrity and ecological value of mudflats in estuaries and enclosed bays. Fishing and bait digging can have an adverse impact on community structure and substratum. For example, suction dredging for shellfish or juvenile flatfish bycatch from shrimp fisheries may have a significant effect on important predator populations. Higher sea level and increased storm frequency resulting from climate change may affect the sedimentation patterns of mudflats and estuaries.

Conservation and Management:
Conservation and management schemes to benefit this habitat have been applied at a number of scales ranging from whole estuary systems to small areas within an estuary. They include the removal of dykes, and managed retreat to reclaim areas of mudflat drained for agricultural land, and reconnecting sediment supplies to mudflats. Water quality improvement programmes have been introduced to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and of nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication 
Spatial management including zoning of activities as part of Integrated Coastal Zone Management Schemes and Marine Protected Areas and controls of discharges throughout the watershed, are also beneficial as they facilitate management of the entire estuary complex.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The establishment and maintenance of mudflats is closely linked to physical processes. If the "natural" hydrographic regime no longer exists recovery is unlikely. Where the underlying conditions are suitable there can be rapid recovery as demonstrated where dykes have been removed and in managed retreat projects. The determination of effort required is therefore contingent on the retention of a residual state that will allow reinstatement of the habitat.

Summary:
Mudflats are sedimentary intertidal habitats created by deposition in low energy coastal environments, particularly estuaries and other sheltered areas. They are intimately linked by physical processes to, and may be dependent on, other coastal habitats such as saltmarshes. In large estuaries, mudflats may be several kilometres wide and commonly form the largest part of the intertidal area.  Mudflats are characterised by high biological productivity and abundance of organisms, particularly infaunal polychaetes, bivalves and oligochaetes. They can also support large numbers of predatory birds and act as nursery areas for flatfish. 
Historically land claim has been the most significant pressure on this habitat leading to direct loss of estuarine mudflats. The discharge of toxic substances from industrial facilities and increases in nutrient levels associated with run-off from the land has also been significant with pressures leading to degradation. These pressures continue today although, land claim activities have diminished.  Other pressures on this habitat at a variety of scales result from coastal development, bait digging, pollution incidents and oil spills from tanker accidents. Sea-level rise due to climate change is another threat, the likely impact of which is dependent on whether there is scope for intertidal habitats to migrate inland in response to sea level rise.
Conservation and management schemes to benefit this habitat have been applied at a number of scales ranging from whole estuary systems to small areas within an estuary. They include the removal of dykes, reconnecting sediment supplies and managed retreat to reclaim areas of mudflat drained for agricultural land or allow inland movement of intertidal habitats. Water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination or nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication also benefit this habitat.

References:
Borja, A., Franco, J. & Perez, V 2000 A Marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40(12):1100-1114.
Conley, D.J., Kaas, H., Mohlenberg, F. et al. 2000. Characteristics of Danish estuaries. Estuaries 23 (6): 820-837. 
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC. [online] Peterborough: ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/04_05_introduction.pdf. (Accessed: 30/08/2014).
Davidson, N. C., Laffoley, D d’A, Doody, J. P. et al. 1991. Nature conservation and estuaries in Great Britain. Peterborough, Nature Conservancy Council.
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 22/08/2014).
Muxika, I., Borga, A. & Bald, J. 2007 Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status according to the European Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55:16-29.
OSPAR Commission. 2008. Case Reports for the OSPAR List of Threatened and-or Declining Species and Habitats. Southampton: OSPAR Commission Biodiversity Series 219.
OSPAR Commission. 2008. Assessment of the environmental impact of land reclamation. Southampton: OSPAR Commission Biodiversity Series, p.36. 
Rayment, W. J. 2001. Hediste diversicolor and Macoma balthica in sandy mud shores.Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. [online] Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Availiable at: http://192.171.193.127/habitatreproduction.php?habitatid=209&code=&code=. (Accessed: 27/07/2015). 
Riemann, B., Carstensen, J., Dahl, K., et al., 2016. Recovery of Danish Coastal Ecosystems after reductions in nutrient loading: A Holistic Ecosystem Approach. Estuaries and Coasts. 39:82–97.
Schekkerman, H., Meininiger, P. L., & Meire, P. M. 1994. Changes in the water bird populations of the Oosterschelde (SW Netherlands) as a result of large scale coastal engineering works. Hydrobiologica 282(3):509-524. 
Tyler-Walters, H. (ed.), Wilding, C., Durkin, O., et al. 2011. Unpublished Guidance and information on priority marine species and habitats in Scotland.Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report (Project no. 25048) report
UK Biodiversity Group. 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. Intertidal mudflats. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf. (Accessed:22/08/2014).

Criterion A Text:
Estuaries and their associated mudflats are naturally dynamic systems, therefore, trends in quantity need to be set within a wider understanding of accretion and deposition of this habitat type. There have been substantial historical losses of estuarine intertidal mudflat habitat. The full extent across the North East Atlantic has not been quantified but there are numerous studies detailing the losses in individual estuaries. Expert opinion is that, taken overall, the historical decline is likely to have been more than 70%. In the last 50 years the percentage decline is believed to be much reduced and probably less than 25%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criterion A3 for both the EU 28 an EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantc region. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,0002 and AOO >50, this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution. The habit may suffer a continuing decline in spatial extent or abiotic/biotic quality in the future, but the distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at one. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under Criteria B1, B2 & B3 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
There are numerous studies indicating declines in the abiotic quality of estuaries and their associated mudflats over the last 50 years as well as over longer time periods. This has been associated with diffuse and point-source discharges from agriculture, industry and urban areas, as well as pollution from oil, tar, and hazardous substances. Resultant degradation of the associated communities has also taken place and long term risks also exist, for example through resuspension of toxic materials within sediments. These trends are difficult to quantify but are considered to be substantial historically. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable under criteria C/D3 for both the EU 28 and the EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The majority of this habtiat in the North East Atlantic regional sea is hosted by the EU 28 countries. Historically, estuarine mudflats have suffered considerable declines in extent as a result of human activity. Whilst this no longer takes place on the scale practiced several centuries ago, piecemeal loss of areas of estuarine mudflat continues to occur. Declines in abiotic and biotic quality have also taken place, for example as a result of the discharge of industrial effluents and nutrient enrichment due to run-off from surrounding land, and this remains an issue in some estuaries.
 Because of the very substantial historical loss in quantity of this habitat, expert opinion is that this habitat should be assessed as Endangered for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Assessors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F. Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters.

Contributors:
North East Atlantic Working Group: N. Sanders, N. Dankers, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter,  S. Gubbay, R. Haroun Tabraue, F. Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters.


