# European Red List of Habitats Table

Habitat Type Name:
A2.32: Polychaete/ oligochaete-dominated upper estuarine Atlantic littoral mud

Habitat Description:
Upper estuarine sandy mud and muddy shore communities, in areas with significant freshwater influence. The littoral mud typically forms 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.
The upper estuarine mud communities support few infaunal species and are principally characterised by a restricted range of polychaetes and oligochaetes. There are three oligochaete dominated upper estuarine mud biotopes associated with this habitat. Of these three, the biotope characterised by Nephtys hombergii and Streblospio shrubsolii  occurs the furthest towards the mid estuary, and possibly lower on the shore than the other two. The biotope characterised by Tubificoides benedii and other is the most extreme upper estuarine biotope, occurring at the head of estuaries where there is no strong river flow and hence conditions are very sheltered, and there is a very strong freshwater influence. Further towards the mid estuary, this biotope may occur at the top of the shore.
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:
These include Hediste diversicolor, Nephtys hombergii, and Streblospio shrubsolii, the amphipod Corophium volutator, and molluscs Hydrobia ulvae and Scrobicularia plana. Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva lactuca may form mats on the surface of the mud during the summer months, particularly in areas of nutrient enrichment.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. 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
12.4 Mud Shoreline and Intertidal Mud Flats

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. 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.
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 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 a far south as the Atlantic coast of Spain, along the western coasts of Ireland, around the British Isles, and on mainland Europe, in France, The Netherlands, German

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

Pressures and Threats:
The most significant pressures on this habitat which occurs at the head of estuaries are land claim and coastal developments which change the tidal regime.  The storm surge barriers and dams on the Ossterschelde/Krammer-Volkerak in the Netherlands, built between 1982-87 are one example. This work resulted in 50 km2 of intertidal flats about 30% of the former intertidal area becoming freshwater lakes. A further 3% was lost through reduction in the tidal range.
The use of estuaries for industrial and urban purposes also has an effect on intertidal habitats in the upper reaches. These effects are associated with activities such as harbour construction and the dredging of navigation channels as well  as indirectly through the contamination of the sediment by heavy metals. Climate change and the associated rising sea levels, surge levels and wave climate as well as freshwater discharge will affect the estuarine environment including the intertidal areas although the precise effects will depend on the characteristics of the estuary.  
OSPAR has identified the scale of the threat to intertidal mudflats from waste/effluent discharge, invasion by alien species, pollution, reclaimation (localised) and climate change to be high, and from collecting, and shell fisheries as moderate. Disturbance, for example from recreational activities, is also a significant threat in some locations.

Conservation and Management:
Management of both terrestrial and marine activities will be important to control factors leading to the decline of quantity and quality of this habitat. Integrated Coastal Zone Management which includes spatial planning measures and limits land claim and other activities that alter the tidal regime in the upper reaches of estuaries are examples of beneficial measures. Other include the regulation of dredging, of coastal development, aquaculture, hard coastal defence structures and the control of invasive species
The water quality on mudflats has been regulated by a number of EC Directives including the the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. These commitments provide for the regulation of discharges to the sea and have set targets and quality standards covering many metals and pesticides, and other toxic persistent and bioaccumulative substances. National schemes, such as the Aquatic National Monitoring Programme in Denmark, provide data to indicate progress with implementation of such Directives.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1130 MATL U2 
 
Intertidal mudflats are on the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining habitats and species for OSPAR regions I, II, III & IV (Arctic Waters, Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, Bay of Bi

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Where the soft sediment habitat is no longer present restoration may be possible but involve substantive works. Some examples are the depolderisation projects and restoration schemes on  Elbe, Wesser, Scheldt, and Humber through sediment management, allowing development of natural tidal floodplains, and set back/managed realingment/depolderisation to restore intertidal mudflats within estuaries.

Summary:
This habitat is found on upper estuarine sandy mud and muddy shores, in areas with significant freshwater influence. The upper estuarine mud communities support few infaunal species and are principally characterised by a restricted range of polychaetes and oligochaetes. 
The most significant pressures on this habitat which occurs at the head of estuaries are land claim and coastal developments which change the tidal regime.  The use of estuaries for industrial and urban purposes also has an effect on intertidal habitats in the upper reaches. These effects are associated with activities such as harbour construction and the dredging of navigation channels as well  as indirectly through the contamination of the sediment by heavy metals. Climate change and the associated rising sea levels, surge levels and wave climate as well as freshwater discharge will affect the estuarine environment including the intertidal areas although the precise effects will depend on the characteristics of the estuary.  
Management of both terrestrial and marine activities will be important to control factors leading to the decline of quantity and quality of this habitat. Integrated Coastal Zone Management which includes spatial planning measures and limits land claim and other activities that alter the tidal regime in the upper reaches of estuaries are examples of beneficial measures. Other include the regulation of dredging, of coastal development, aquaculture, hard coastal defence structures and the control of invasive species

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.
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 11/08/2014).
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.
Schekkerman, H., Meininiger, P.L. and 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. 
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:
Land claim, coastal developments, and flood protection works have resulted in the decline in extent of this habitat but it  is not possible to quantify the amount for the entire North East Atlantic region. Historically losses are considered likely to be over 70% given that losses of estuarine land have amounted to more than 80% in places and that it is the upper reaches which are the most likely to have been affected. 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 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 theEU 28and EU28+.

Synthesis:
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 under criterion A3 for both the EU 28 andEU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.33: Marine Atlantic littoral mud with associated communities

Habitat Description:
Intertidal flats along the open coast and near tidal inlets consist mainly of medium to coarse sand. In sheltered areas and near tidal watersheds the sediment is finer and may entirely consist of fine mud. This habitat type can occur in patches or grade into intertidal flats dominated by other soft sediments. Similarly whilst intertidal mudflats in large bays may be considered fully marine, there can still be a river influence and therefore reduced salinities across some of the habitat depending on location and outflow levels. Mudflats in fully marine waters, periodically falling dry at low tide, subject to great amplitudes of temperature, light and salinity, and may be subject to high eutrophication and input of organic substances from rivers and the open sea. Free of vegetation, of higher plants and of macroalgae but mostly covered by thin layers of diatoms and bluegreen algae. In some situations they may be colonised by seagrass. Sediments consist mainly of fine particles, mostly in the silt and clay fraction (particle size less than 0.063 mm in diameter), though sandy mud may contain up to 80% sand (mostly very fine and fine sand), often with a high organic content. Little oxygen penetrates these cohesive sediments, and an anoxic layer is often present within millimetres of the sediment surface. Intertidal mudflats in fully marine open sea (coast) only develop under macrotidal conditions such as those found in the German Bight and Mont Saint Michel, France. Also they form part of a habitat complex on a landscape scale within bays, barrier systems and estuaries. The intertidal mudflats support communities characterised by polychaetes, bivalves, snails and oligochaetes. The species composition of the macrobenthic communities are likely to show zoning from high to lower intertidal levels. In the Dutch, German and Danish Waddens Sea, for example, the high coastal tidal flats are generally characterised by a low number of species with numerous small individuals that are deposit feeders. Typical examples are Corophium volutator and Hydrobia ulvae. Large-sized species become numerous below mean tide levels and below this the biomass is dominated by the deposit feeding Arenicola marina. At mudflats well below mean low water, large filter-feeding bivalves such as Cerastoderma edule, Mya arenaria, Mytilus edulis and Ensis directus make up a significant proportion of the total 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 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 recorded from sampling locations in the Wadden Sea in time-series studies include Polychaetes: Arenicola marina, Eteone longa, Pygospio elegans, Heteromastus filiformis, Capitella capitata, Lanice conchilega, Nereis diversicolor, Phyllodoce mucosa, and Scoloplos armiger, Crustaceans: Bathyporeia sp. Corophium volutator, Crangon crangon and Gammarus locusta, and Molluscs: Abra tenuis, Cerastoderma edule, Hydrobia ulvae, Macoma balthica, Mya arenaria and Retusa obtusa.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral mud’ (A2.3). Proposed new level 4 habitat to account for fully marine habitats in the Wadden Sea and elsewhere
 
Annex 1:
1140 Mudflats and 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:
9.10 Estuaries
12.4 Mud Shoreline and Intertidal Mud Flats
 
Other relationships:
One of the biotope types in the Trilateral Wadden Sea Area - under 05.01

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Large expanses of littoral mud are typical of much of the North Sea coastline of Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands. Examples from further south can be found in the Bay of Morbihan and the Bay of Oleron in France and further north in Morecambe Bay, UK.

Trends in Quantity:
Reduction in the area of intertidal mudflats has occurred in many parts of the region although the full extent of this habitat and its loss in extent over time is not fully documented for most Member States. The decrease has been dramatic over the last centuries (possibly as much as 80%) but it is more limited at the present time coinciding with coastal works such a harbour construction or channel dredging. De-polderisation or managed retreat schemes (e.g. through the partial or total removal of dykes) have been undertaken on a small scale to try and restore areas of intertidal mudflat habitat.

Trends in Quality:
Because of the significant loss in extent of this habitat in past centuries there has also been a historical reduction in quality. More recent studies have shown changes in relative abundance of typical benthic species (polychaetes, molluscs) as well as of invasive species. In the Waddensea for example biogenic structures disappeared in the 1930s and mussels and cockles decreased and almost disappeared around 1990. Since then recovery has slowly been taking place. Some introduced species have taken over part of the system with Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and the Razor clam (Ensis directus) now among the most abundant molluscs. In recent decades there is localised reduction in quality, for example in industrialised areas that are often subject to a variety of pressures such as degradation through high levels of pollution and waste discharge.
Overall the situation is probably stable and with conservation and preservation measures may improve in the future.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat does occur in the EU 28+ (e.g.Norway) therefore less than 100% is hosted by EU 28. A precise estimate is not possible but EU 28 is likely to host more than 90% given the large area of this habitat in the Wadden Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat occurs across a wide geographical area. Examples in the west of the region include the mudflats of Marennes-Oleron bay on the French Atlantic coast, in the north in Morecambe Bay, UK and the Wadden Sea off the coast of the Netherlands

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs across a wide geographical area. Examples in the west of the region include the mudflats of Marennes-Oleron bay on the French Atlantic coast, in the north in Morecambe Bay, UK and the Wadden Sea off the coast of the Netherlands

Pressures and Threats:
OSPAR has identified the scale of the threat to intertidal mudflats from  waste/effluent discharge, invasion by alien species, pollution, reclamation (localised) and climate change as high and from collecting, and shell fisheries as moderate. Disturbance, for example from recreational activities is also a significant threat in some locations. 
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 which may affect invertebrate communities. They can also remove embedded fauna and destabilise sediments thus making them liable to erode. The increased coverage of 'green tide' mats of opportunistic green macroalgae such as Ulva sp. and Enteromorpha sp. result in anoxic conditions below the mats. The release of refinery effluent to intertidal mudflats will result in anoxic sediments, a degraded infaunal community and changes to predator-prey relationships through a possible decrease in the palatability of prey.
Invasion by alien species has had ecological consequences through alternations of the habitat and associated communities. In the Wadden Sea around 50 non-indigenous species are present, but the main issues of concern are the pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), which has also spread in the Thames estuary and along French intertidal flats and the slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata). The introduction of new or non-native plant species also alters the habitat, for example the spread of cord-grass Spartina anglica which has vegetated some upper-shore mudflat areas with important ecological consequences in some areas.
Sea level rise is reducing the intertidal zone when sufficient sediment import is lacking. Higher sea level and increased storm frequency, resulting from climate change, may further affect the sedimentation patterns of mudflats. A further cause for concern is the phenomenon called ‘coastal squeeze’. As sea levels rise, coastal habitats such as saltmarsh, if in an entirely natural situation, would respond by moving landward or 'rolling back' to adjust their position. Fixed man made structures such as seawalls prevent or severely limit this landward movement.  The coastal habitats are therefore ‘squeezed out’ between rising sea levels and fixed defence lines. 
Mussel, cockle and shrimp fisheries have either directly (through overexploitation) or indirectly (through the effects of fishing equipment on the sea bottom) been considered detrimental to the benthic community. For example, a study on oyster culture practices on the intertidal mudflats of France's Atlantic coast shows that oyster farming alters intertidal macrozoobenthic assemblages moderately, and off-bottom cultures cause more disturbance than on-bottom cultures.  Hydrodynamics and seasons may interact with culture practices in smothering or strengthening biodeposition-mediated effects through dispersal/accumulation of biodeposits.

Conservation and Management:
Management of both terrestrial and marine activities will be important to control factors leading to the decline and threats to this habitat. The water quality on mudflats is regulated by a number of EC Directives including the the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. These commitments provide for the regulation of discharges to the sea and have set targets and quality standards covering many metals and pesticides, and other toxic persistent and bioaccumulative substances.
The designation of protected areas and management schemes has led to the introduction of measures to protect or improve the quality of this habitat. The largest of these, agreed by the governments of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark is the trilateral Wadden Sea Plan. Other management measures include the regulation of dredging, coastal developmet, aquaculture, hard coastal defence structures and the control of invasive species such as the cordgrass Spartina anglica and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas.

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

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Intertidal habitats pose special problems for restoration because (i) they are topographically and ecologically complex, (ii) they support many species of animals, some of which require specific habitats and linkages to other terrestrial or marine habitats, and (iii) they exist and evolve within dynamic coastal settings, subject to changing tidal levels, salinities and long term forcing factors associated with sea-level rise and climate change.
The littoral mudflat habitat is naturally resilient and can recuperate well from isolated physical and chemical disturbances, although they have been considered to be very sensitive to oil pollution as the oil enters lower layers of the mudflats where lack of oxygen prevents decomposition of the oil. Once the habitat disappears, due to agricultural land reclaim, infrastructure development or saltmarsh growth, the process is generally irreversible although since the 1980s there have been some intertidal habitat creation or restoration schemes (de-polderisation or managed retreat).

Summary:
Intertidal mudflats in fully marine open sea (coast) only develop under macrotidal conditions such as those found in the German Bight and Mont Saint Michel, France. Also they form part of a habitat complex on a landscape scale within bays, barrier systems and estuaries. Intertidal mudflats have a low species diversity but huge overall invertebrate productivity, resulting in an important and perpetually exploited food source for waders, waterfowl and fish as well as resting, pupping and feeding areas for seals and their young.  Intertidal areas with biogenic structures such a mussel beds, oyster reefs, seagrass meadows and saltmarsh, dissipate wave energy, thus reducing the risk of eroding saltmarshes, damaging coastal defences and flooding low-lying land. The mud surface also plays an important role in nutrient chemistry. In areas receiving pollution, organic sediments sequester contaminants and may contain high concentrations of heavy metals. This habitat occurs across a wide geographical area and includes the Wadden Sea which has largest unbroken system of intertidal sand and mudflats in the world (4,700 km2).
There are numerous threats and pressures on the intertidal mudflat habitat and its associated biotopes. They include waste/effluent discharge, invasion by alien species, pollution, land claim, climate change,  shell fisheries/aquaculture, bait digging and saltmarsh encroachment. Conservation and management measures include: restoring water quality, strengthening development and coastal protection planning policy to ensure where possible the maintenance of all active sediment sources that supply intertidal flats; monitoring the implementation of strong development control policies; raising public awareness of the ecological and socio-economic value of mudflats, and ensuring no further loss, particularly in areas already subject to high loss.

References:
Atkinson P.W., Crooks S., Grant A. and Rehfisch M.M. 2001. The success of creation and restorationschemes in producing intertidal habitat suitable for waterbirds. London: English Nature Research Reports, p.145.
Baptist, M.J., Dankers, N. and Smit, C. 2007. World Heritage Nomination. The Outstanding Universal Value of the International Wadden Sea: an Ecological Persective. Availiable at: http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/sites/default/files/downloads/WSD14/wadden-milestones-lowres.pdf. (Accessed: 22/08/2014). 
Bernem, van C. and Lübbe, T. 1997. l im Meer. Katastrophen und langfristige Belastungen Belastungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, p. 96.
Beukema, J.J. 2002. Expected changes in the benthic fauna of Wadden Sea tidal flats as a result of sea-level rise or bottom subsidence. Journal of Sea Resesarch 47: 25-39.
Beusekom van, J.E.E., Buschbaum, C., Loebl, M. et al. 2010.  Long-Term Ecological Change in the Northern Wadden Sea. Chapter 10. In: Muller, F. Long-Term Ecological Research: Between Theory and Application. (Eds). Springer: 145-154. 
Bouchet, V.M.P. and Suriau, P.G. 2008. Influence of oyster culture practices and environmental conditions on the ecological status of intertidal mudflats ithe Pertuis Charentais (SW France): A multi-index approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(11): 1898-1912. 
Compton, T.J., Holthuijsen, S., Koolhaas A. et al. 2013. Distinctly variable mudscapes: Distribution gradients of intertidal marofauna across the Dutch Wadden Sea. Journal of Sea Research 82: 103-116.
Elliott, M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N.V., Read, S.J., Cutts, N.D. and Hemingway, K.L., 1998. Intertidal Sand and Mudflats & Subtidal Mobile Sandbanks (volume II). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs, p.151.
Kraan, C., Dekinga, A. and Piersma, T. 2011. Now an empty mudflat: past and present benthic abundances in the western Dutch Wadden Sea. Helgoland Marine Research 65(1): 51-58.
OSPAR. 2005. Case Reports for the Initial list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats in the OSPAR Maritime Area, p.149.   
OSPAR. 2009. Background document for intertidal mudflats. Biodiversity Series, p.26.
Reise, K., Herre, E. and Sturm, M. 2008. Mudflat biota since the 1930s: change beyond return? Helgoland Marine Research 62: 13-22.
Ssymank, A. and Dankers, N. 1996. II Red List of Biotopes and Biotope Complexes of the Wadden Sea Area. Helgoland Meers 50: 9-37.
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:
There has been a very significant historical reduction in the extent of this habitat, possibly in the order of 80%. In more recent decades the situation has stabilised although there still localised losses taking place, for example, associated with coastal developments and channel dredging.  This habitat has been assessed as Endangered 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 with a substantial expanse in the southern North Sea along the coastline of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.  EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO >50, and it is not limited to a few locations. There have been historical declines in quantity and quality but the current situation is  considered to be largely stable. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been a historical reduction in the quality of this habitat as areas have been degraded and lost through primarily through land claim schemes for agricultural. Today there remains some localised reduction in quality, for example  associated with industrial effluents, shell fisheries and bait digging, but on a much smaller scale than in previous centuries. Changes have also been observed in the benthic communities, for example in the relative abundance of polychaetes and molluscs. In the Dutch Wadden Sea biogenic structures disappeared in the 1930s and mussels and cockles decreased and almost disappeared around 1990. Since then recovery has slowly been taking place although some introduced species have taken over part of the system as the Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) and the Razor clam (Ensis directus) now among the most abundant molluscs. 
The cyclical nature of recorded changes make it problematic to quantify the extent of reduction in quality of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. 
Because of the historical severe decline in quality affecting over 30% of this habitat it has been assessed as Vulnerable under criteria C/D3 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

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

Synthesis:
There has been a very significant decrease in the extent of this habitat over the last centuries (possibly as much as 80%). The current situation is more stable although some reduction in extent continues, for example coinciding with coastal works such a harbour construction or channel dredging.  Comparative studies have also recorded declines in quality in benthic communities of intertidal mudflats in the Waddensea for example biogenic structures disappeared in the 1930s and mussels and cockles decreased and almost disappeared around 1990. Since then recovery is slowly taking place.
Also relevant is the associated decline in the quality of habitat complexes (bays, barrier systems and estuaries) which include intertidal mudflats, but this is difficult to quantify. Localised reductions in quality are still taking place, for example in industrialised areas where the intertidal mudflat habitat may be degraded due to toxic contamination and elsewhere if run-off from the land leads to eutrophication. Invasive species such as the Pacific Oyster and razor clam have also modified the composition of the  associated benthic communities, particularly in parts of the Wadden Sea. De-polderisation or managed retreat schemes (e.g. through the partial or total removal of dykes) have been undertaken on a small scale to try and restore areas of intertidal mudflat habitat. Overall the current situation is probably stable and with scope to improve with appropriate conservation and preservation measures. Nevertheless, because of the significant historical reduction in extent of this habitat it is assessed as being Endangered for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.41 Hediste diversicolor dominated variable salinity Atlantic littoral gravelly sandy mud

Habitat Description:
Sheltered muddy gravel habitats occur principally in estuaries, rias and sea lochs, in areas protected from wave action and strong tidal streams. The infaunal community is dominated by abundant ragworms Hediste diversicolor with bivalves, polychaetes and crustaceans species also present depending on the characateristics of the sediment (mud, sand and gravel component) and position on the shore.
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 infaunal community is dominated by abundant ragworms Hediste diversicolor. Other species of infauna vary depending on the associated biotope. They include polychaetes such as Pygospio elegans, Streblospio shrubsolii, and Manayunkia aestuarina, oligochaetes such as Heterochaeta costata and Tubificoides spp., the mud shrimp Corophium volutator, the spire shell Hydrobia ulvae, the baltic tellin Macoma balthica and the peppery furrow shell Scrobicularia plana.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic mixed littoral sediment’ (A2.4).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
 
MSFD:
Littoral Sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Not mapped
 
IUCN:
9.5 Subtidal Sandy-Mud

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). 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. Only UK records for the distribution of this habitat were available from EMODnet. This habitat is likely to be much more widely distributed.

Trends in Quantity:
There extent of this habitat has been mapped in detail in some locations but there is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity of this habitat for the North East Atlantic.

Trends in Quality:
Any trends in quality of this habitat are unknown.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The full extent of this habitat is not known however existing records, which include the Severn Estuary in the UK , Cuskinny Bay in southern Ireland, and the Rias Baixas in North West Spain show that it does not have a small natural range. </

Justification of Restricted Area:
The full extent of this habitat is not known however existing records, which include the Severn Estuary in the UK , Cuskinny Bay in southern Ireland and the Rias Baixas in North West Spainshow that it does not have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
Threats to this habitat include: coastal development, including the construction of marinas and slipways; sediment extraction; the widening and dredging of channels; and the construction of sea defences such as barrages. Such activities may alter tidal flow patterns, affecting the sedimentary conditions across the gravel beds. Bait digging, especially where king rag Neanthes virens is common. Intertidal mollusc beds, including Venerupis senegalensis, have been the subject of small fisheries in the past. Organic enrichment, especially sewage pollution stress can be a significant issue: severe pollution can lead to anoxic conditions and a decrease in macrobenthic populations and species diversity. Other pressures include: persistent bio-accumulating chemicals (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls and tri-butyl tin), waste discharges containing heavy metals and chemicals. Introduction of the non-native species Crepidula fornicata can dominate the fauna, resulting in the smothering of the sediment surface and leading to anoxia in the sediment. This species is also considered a pest of oyster beds.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat occurs in some Marine Protected Areas and may therefore have measures specifically directed at its conservation. Integrated coastal zone management which includes spatial planning measures limiting land claim and other activities that alter the tidal regime would also be beneficial to this habitat. Other recommended management measures include the regulation of activities which damage or disturb seabed communities,  of coastal development and of construction of hard coastal defences. Water quality improvement programmes and management of urban and industrial waste to reduce the risk of organic enrichment and toxic contamination that may degrade this habitat are also important measures.  Lastly, control of invasive species should also be considered.

Summary:
This habitats occur principally in estuaries, rias and sea lochs, in areas protected from wave action and strong tidal streams. Although potentially limited in the area it covers, records from locations as widely separated as the UK (e.g. Severn estuary and Blackwater estuary), southern Ireland (e.g. Cuskinny Bay) and the Ria de Pontevedra and Ria de Vigo in North West Spain confirm that it does not have a narrow geographical distribution. The habitat consists of gravelly sandy mud dominated by abundant ragworms Hediste diversicolor. Coastal development, bait digging, organic enrichment, and the introduction of non-native species, are potential threats to  the structure and functioning of this habitat.
Management and conservation measures recommended for this habitat include: protection within Marine Protected Areas ; introduction of integrated coastal management ; water quality improvement programmes; regulation of fishing methods which damage, or disturb seabed communities; control of dredging and improved management of coastal development and construction of hard coastal defence structures. Control of invasive species should also be considered.

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)
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).
Moore, C. 2010. Intertidal Survey of Cuskinny Bay, Co.Cork. Availiable at: http://www.cuskinnynaturereserve.com/Cuskinny%20Seashore%20Survey%202010%20Claire%20Moore.pdf. (Accessed: 11/11/2015).
UK Biodiversity Group. 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions.Sheltered muddy gravels. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UKBAP_BAPHabitats-52-ShelteredMuddyGravels.pdf. (Accessed:11/08/2014).
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:
The extent of this habitat has been mapped in some locations however there is  a lack of  information on the overall quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region and no data on trends in quantity. It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

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 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:
This habitat has a widespread distribution (EOO >50,000 km2) and although not reported to occur in many locations (AOO <50) it is unlikely that the available data cover its full distribution. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels because of the lack of information on its extent and 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, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A2.42 Species-rich Atlantic littoral mixed sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat is characterised by sheltered mixed sediments, usually subject to variable salinity conditions. It is found on the mid- and lower shore and is an extension of a shallow sublittoral habitat. The infauna is very diverse, dominated by a range of polychaetes. 
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:
Polychaetes including Exogone naidina, Sphaerosyllis taylori, Pygospio elegans, Chaetozone gibber, Cirriformia tentaculata, Aphelochaeta marioni, Capitella capitata, Mediomastus fragilis, and Melinna palmata. The oligochaete worms Tubificoides benedii and T. pseudogaster are abundant, as is the cockle Cerastoderma edule. A large range of amphipods may occur, including Melita palmata, Microprotopus maculatus, Aora gracilis and Corophium volutator. The bivalves Abra alba and A. nitida may occur. The barnacle Elminius modestus may be abundant where the sediment has stones on the surface.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral mixed sediment’ (A2.4).
 
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 
9.5 Subtidal Sandy-Mud

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Unknown as data only available for the UK occurrence of this habitat on EMODnet.

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

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

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to substratum loss, mainly deriving from coastal construction and coastal protection activities, which might alter the hydrological conditions of the ecosystem. A potential increase in water flow rate and in wave exposure resulting from these activities will have a serious impact on the habitat.
Chemicals contamination (eg. heavy metals, TBT’s, PCB’s) released as a result of construction and maintenance processes, or any kind of pollution (oil spills, land run-off contamination), might lead to anoxic conditions or smothering of the benthic organisms and might favour the establishment of opportunistic species, which could subsequently lead to a change in community structure and a loss of habitat biodiversity
Climate change, sea temperature change and associated rising sea level, surge levels and wave climate as well as freshwater discharge, are likely to affect this habitat and its associate fauna and flora. Additionally, climate change may favour the establishment of invasive species, or may cause the displacement, or loss, of those unable to adapt.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat falls within some Marine Protected Areas. Integrated coastal zone management which includes spatial planning measures controlling land claim and other activities that may cause changes in hydrological conditions are examples of beneficial measures. Other management measures include the regulation of activities which damage or disturb shore communities, regulation of coastal developments and hard coastal defence structures, measures to reduce global warming and sea level rise; and controls on the potential introduction of invasive species.

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

Summary:
This habitat type occurs in the mid- and lower-shore as an extension of a shallow sublittoral biotope and consists of sheltered mixed sediments, usually subject to variable salinity conditions. It is sensitive to substratum loss, mainly deriving from coastal construction and coast protection activities, which might alter hydrological conditions. Additionally, chemical contamination, debris or other pollutants might lead to anoxic conditions or smothering of the benthic organisms, favouring the presence of opportunistic species. Climate change and sea temperature change will affect the associated fauna and flora or may favour the establishment and proliferation of invasive non-indigenous species.
Beneficial conservation management measures for this habitat, include protection within Marine Protected Areas and integrated coastal management schemes, water quality improvement programmes, regulation of coastal development and the construction and of hard coastal defence structures. Control of invasive species should also be considered.

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).
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).

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

Criterion B Text:
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 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
There is insufficient information to make an overall assessment of the distribution and trends in quality or quantity of this habitat over the last 50 years. This habitat is therefore assessed as 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. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders


Habitat Type Name:
A2.43: Species-poor Atlantic littoral mixed sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat is found in the littoral zone where the substrate is mixed and typically too mobile or disturbed to support a seaweed community. The overall species diversity associated with the habitat is low.
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 characterising species of this habitat are barnacles and winkles (Littorina spp.)

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

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

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is usually dominated by barnacles and Littorina spp, which are highly intolerant of substratum loss.  Epifaunal grazers such as Littorina littorea and Patella vulgata are also likely to be affected because although mobile they cannot move rapidly enough to avoid being removed with the substratum. Oil pollution is another threat as L. littorea and P.vulgata are considered to be intolerant of hydrocarbon pollution. Following a loss of grazers such as these, algae may flourish, particularly the opportunistic greens such as Ulva in the early stages, significantly changing the nature of the habitat. Collection of L. littorea for human consumption is another pressure. In some areas, notably Ireland, collectors have noted a reduction in the number of large snails available. Large scale removal of L. littorea may allow a proliferation of opportunistic green algae, such as Ulva, on which it feeds preferentially.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat would include the regulation of activities which damage or disturb seabed communities,as well as the regulation or avoidance of coastal developments and the construction of hard coastal defense structures where they are likely to impact the habitat.

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

Summary:
This habitat is found in the littoral zone where the substrate is mixed and typically too mobile or disturbed to support a seaweed community. The overall species diversity associated with the habitat is also low. The pressures and threats include substratum loss, smothering of sessile and sedentary organisms and hydrocarbon pollution which in the short term might favour the extensive growth of green algae such as Ulva spp., significantly changing the nature of the habitat. Harvesting of  key functional species such as Littorina littorea may also allow the proliferation of opportunistic green algae, on which it preferentially feeds.
Beneficial management measures for this habitat include some protection within Marine Protected Areas, water quality improvement programmes, the regulation of fishing methods which damage or disturb seabed communities, as well as regulation including restrictions on dredging, coastal development and hard coastal defence structures where they impact this habitat.

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).
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).

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region. The precise extent is unknown however as EOO >50,0002  this exceeds the threshold for a threatened category on the basis of criteria B1. 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 due to lack of information on trends and uncertainty over the figure for AOO which is known to be an underestimate.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a large EOO and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B1. AOO is uncertain. This  habitat is assessed as Data Deficient both at the EU 28 and EU 28+ levels given the lack of information on its extent and any  trends in quantity and quality.

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


Habitat Type Name:
A2.61 Seagrass beds on Atlantic littoral sediments

Habitat Description:
Mid and upper shore wave-sheltered muddy fine sand or sandy mud can have high densities of Zostera noltei (formerly known as Z.noltii or Z.nana) and/or Z.marina. Z.noltei forms stands with a cover of delicate trailing narrow leaves up to about 20 cm long. It survives the winter as rhizomes, therefore the locations remain stable over many years. It may occur monospecific, or with Z. marina or Ruppia spp. and occasional plants of lower salt-marsh species such as annual Salicornia spp. or Spartina anglica, as stands of Z. noltei may not only pass downshore to Z. marina but also to communities of the lower saltmarsh, notably the Salicornietum europaeae. Exactly what determines the distribution of Z. noltei is not entirely clear. It is most characteristic of situations where the substrate dries out somewhat on exposure and, on flats with a gentle bar/hollow topography where it forms distinctive mosaics with Z. marina. It can also occur in shallow standing water and so is often found in small permanently submerged lagoons and pools, and on sediment shores where the muddiness of the sediment retains water and stops the roots from drying out. An anoxic layer is usually present some 5cm below the surface of the sediment. 
There may be seasonal variation in the area covered by intertidal seagrass beds, as plants die back in winter. Intertidal seagrass beds may also be subject to heavy grazing by geese, which can reduce the extent of the plant cover significantly. The rhizomes of Z.noltei will remain in place within the sediment in both situations and plants towards the lower limit may remain winter-green.
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. Total area covered, density of the intertidal beds and species composition is, for example, used as a Water Framework Directive parameter for assessing ecological status. 
The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is dependent on the presence of Zostera spp. which creates the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated species depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of Zostera is therefore a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage. OSPAR defines Zostera beds as areas where plant densities should provide at least 5% coverage although, more typically they are greater than 30%. 
Characteristic species:
Zostera noltei in many areas is the dominant species of intertidal seagrass beds, Zostera marina also forms dense fields as in the German Wadden Sea and until recently in the Ems estuary. In brackish environments Ruppia maritima and/or R.cirrhosa can also occur. Z. angustifolia, which is often described in older literature is simply an ecotype of Z. marina which has narrower leaves and an annual life history strategy reproducing less by vegetative means in favour of seed production. This is an advantage in its less stable intertidal habitat. The subtidal variant of Z. marina which has longer and stronger leaves is perennial but was wiped out in nothern Europe by a disease in the 1930's. The intertidal annual form was also affected but able to recover more easily. 
The infaunal community of this habitat is characterised by polychaetes Scoloplos armiger, Pygospio elegans and Arenicola marina, oligochaetes, spire shell Hydrobia ulvae, and bivalves Cerastoderma edule and Macoma balthica. The green algae Ulva spp. may be present on the sediment surface.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral sand’ (A2.6).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
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:
9.10 Estuaries
12.2 Sandy shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits etc.
12.4 Mud Shoreline and Intertidal Mud Flats.

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occurs in all the sub-basins of the North East Atlantic. It can cover extensive areas where the tidal range, shelter and substrate are suitable (e.g. the Firth of Forth in Scotland, Wadden Sea). In other parts of the region, such as Macaronesia (Lanzarote) there are only fragmented populations of Z.noltei.

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). 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:
There has been a massive loss in the quantity of this habitat across the entire region over the last 150 years. This trend is based on information on reports, scientific literature and from sources such as aerial photos for the 1930's (in Germany) and survey data.
Over the last 50 years the trends have been variable with both increases and decreases as well as reports of the habitat being relatively stable. In Germany for example a decrease of 26% or even 40% (including later land claimed areas) has been reported since the 1930s' and in the Canary Islands it is no longer present (the last records were made in 1991/2). In the UK the changes recorded have ranged from -90% to +240%, whereas the habitat is reported as being relatively stable or increasing over the last 50 years in northern Spain. In the Netherlands there has been hardly any recovery although Z.noltei has come back in some saltmarsh areas.  In France the large intertidal beds in Arcachon Bay (the largest in Europe covering around 70km2) were nearly wiped out in the 1930s' following wasting disease. This was followed by a slow recolonization and then another decline, of 33% between 1988 and 2008, in recent years. This habitat is not currently present in Belgium.  
Outside EU 28 the habitat is recorded as being fragmented in Norway with decrease in number of localities of occurrence of the characteristic species, Z.noltei since the 1990s.

Trends in Quality:
There has been a substantial decline in quality of this habitat over the last 150 years as part of the massive reduction in its extent. The quality of remaining beds is also believed to be reduced for a variety of reasons. In Germany, for example, this is because following the large losses of intertidal beds, the hydrological conditions are believed to have changed and led to a reduction in the density of Zostera in the intertidal beds.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Intertidal seagrass beds are present in suitable conditions across the region. Whilst the majority is hosted by EU 28 (>95%), intertidal Z.noltei beds are rare but also present in southern Norway. The Norwegian Red List (2010) estimates than this amounts to less than 1% of the European population. They also occur in other parts of Europe (the Mediterranean and Black Sea) but are considered as separate habitats.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range, being reported from locations as widely separate as the Outer Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland and the southern North Sea coasts of Germany.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range, being reported from locations as widely separate as the Outer Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland and the southern North Sea coasts of Germany.

Pressures and Threats:
OSPAR consider that the widespread loss of seagrass is largely a combination of the direct and indirect impacts of the rapid growth in human activities in the coastal zone. Pollution, eutrophication leading to effects such as smothering by epiphytes and algal blooms, change of hydrological conditions including wave exposure, infilling, shellfish fisheries, trampling, coastal development, land reclamation, human intrusion for example driving across intertidal seagrass beds and bait digging are some of the anthropogenic pressures on this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
The protection of this habitat is often incorporated into legislation aimed at conservation of the seagrass beds e.g. local by-laws and regulations as well as cross border agreements covering large geographical areas as in the case of the Wadden Sea. It is also a characteristic feature of several habitat types listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive.The establishment of protected areas and zoning  as part of Integrated Coastal Zone Management plans has also been beneficial. These designations and plans can provide a framework under which specific measures such as restrictions on activities such as bait digging, clam raking and waste water management may be introduced. Transplantation experiments with seagrass have been attempted as a habitat restoration measure but with limited success to date.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1130 MATL U2
1140 MATL U2, MMAC XX
1160 MATL U2, MMAC FV
 
OSPAR
 "Zostera beds" are a threatened and/or declining habitat in OSPAR regions I, II, III & IV.</p

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Rapid recolonisation of damaged beds is possible if the disturbance causing the seagrass decline is limited in time and space and if seedlings originating from the sediment bank or from neighbouring populations experience suitable growth conditions the following year. If the seedlings die and recolonisation must rely on spreading from neighbouring populations, the process can be very slow. Partial recovery may take 10 years and full recovery may take 25 years.

Summary:
Intertidal seagrass beds consist of two species Zostera marina and Z.noltei of which the former may extend into the subtidal.  Whilst the majority of this habitat is hosted by EU 28 (>95%), intertidal Z.noltei beds are rare but present in southern Norway. Seagrasses stabilise the substratum as well as provide shelter and a substrate for many organisms. They are also very productive and a major source of food for wildfowl. Pressures and threats on this habitat result from pollution, eutrophication, leading to effects such as smothering by epiphytes and algal blooms, change of hydrological conditions, infilling, shellfish fisheries, trampling, coastal development, land reclamation, human intrusion for example driving across intertidal seagrass beds, and bait digging. 
The protection of this habitat is often incorporated into legislation e.g. local by-laws and regulations as well as cross border agreements covering large geographical areas as in the case of the Wadden Sea. It is also a characteristic feature of several habitat types listed in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive. Protected areas and  zoning for example as part of Integrated Coastal Zone Management plans can provide a framework under which specific measures such as  restrictions on activities like bait digging, clam raking and waste water management may be introduced. Transplantation experiments with seagrass have been attempted as a habitat restoration measure but with limited success to date.

References:
Adolph, W., Jaklin, S., Meemken, M. and Michaelis, H. 2003. Die Seegrasbestände der niedersächischen Watten (2000-2002). Available at: https://www.nationalpark-wattenmeer.de/sites/default/files/media/pdf/seegras_2003_bericht.pdf. (Accessed: 13/08/2015).
Auby, I. 1991. Contribution & I'etudedes herbiers de Zostera noltii dans le Bassin d'Arcachon: Dynamique, production et degradation, macrofaune associee. PhD Thesis, Bordeaux University 234.
Cardoso, P. G., Pardal, M. A., Lillebø, A. I., Ferreira, S. M., Raffaelli, D. and Marques, J. C. 2004. Dynamic changes in seagrass assemblages under eutrophication and implications for recovery. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 302(2): 233-248.
Cunha, A. H., Santos, R. P., Gaspar, A. P., and Bairros, M. F. 2005. Seagrass landscape-scale changes in response to disturbance created by the dynamics of barrier-islands: a case study from Ria Formosa (Southern Portugal). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64(4): 636-644.
Davison, D. M.  1997. The genus Zostera in the UK: A literature review, identifying key conservation, management and monitoring requirements. Belfast: Research and development seri Environment and Heritage Service.
Den Hartog, C. 1987. "Wasting disease" and other dynamic phenomena in Zostera beds. Aquatic Botany 27(1): 3-14.
Dolch, T., Buschbaum, C. and Reise, K. 2013. Persisting intertidal seagrass beds in the northern Wadden Sea since the 1930s. Journal of Sea Research 82: 134-141.
Folmer, E.O. 2015. Littoral Seagrass Development in the Tidal Basins of the Wadden Sea in Relation to Habitat Suitability and Eutrophication, Technical report, Programma naar een Rijke Waddenzee, Leeuwarden.
Fox, A. D., Yost, L. and Gilbert, G.1986. A preliminary appraisal of the intertidal sea-grass resource in the Moray Firth. Inverness: NCC Report, NW Region.
Jackson, E. L., Cousens, S. L., Bridger, D. R., Nancollas, S. J. and Sheehan, E. V. in prep. Essex Estuaries SAC baseline seagrass survey 2014. London: Natural England Commissioned Research Report.
Kålås, J.A., Viken, Å., Henriksen, S. and Skjelseth, S. (Eds.). 2010. The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Norway.
Marsden, A. L. and Chesworth, J.C. 2014. Inventory of eelgrass beds in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 2014. Hampshire: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. Availiable at: http://www.hiwwt.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/Marine/Section%201_Report_2014_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed: 11/11/2015). 
Martin, P. Sebastien, D., Gilles, T et al. 2010. Long-term evolution (1988-2008) of Zostera spp. meadows in Arcachon Bay (Bay of Biscay). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 87(2)357-366.
Pavon-Salas, N., Herrera, R., Hernandez-Guerra, A., & Haroun, R. 2000 Distribution pattern of seagrasses in the Canary Islands (Central-East Atlantic Ocean). Journal of Coastal Research 16(2): 329-335.
Portig, A. 2004. The distribution of intertidal Zostera spp. in Northern Ireland 2003. Environment and Heritage Service Research and Development Series. Available at: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/zosterasurvey_amended.pdf. (Accessed: 13/08/2015).
Reise, K. 2005. Coast of change: Habitat loss and transformations in the Wadden Sea. Helgoland Marine Research 59(1): 9-21.     
van Katwijk, M. M., Bos, A. R., De Jonge, V. N., Hanssen, L. S. A. M., Hermus, D. C. R., and De Jong, D. J. 2009. Guidelines for seagrass restoration: importance of habitat selection and donor population, spreading of risks, and ecosystem engineering effects. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58(2): 179-188.
Wahl, T., Jensen, J., Frank, T. and Haigh, I.D. 2011. Improved estimates of mean sea level changes in the German Bight over the last 166 years. Ocean Dynamics 61: 701-715.
Wyer, D. W., Boorman, L. A. and Waters, R. 1977. Studies on the distribution of Zostera in the outer Thames Estuary. Aquaculture 12: 215-227.
Zipperle, A.M., Coyer, J.A., Reise, K., Gitz, E., Stam, W. T. and Olsen, J L. 2009. Conal architecture in an intertidal bed of the dwarf eelgrass Zostera noltii in the Northern Wadden Sea: persistence through extreme physical perturbation and the importance of a seed bank. Marine Biology 156(10): 2139-2148.

Criterion A Text:
This habitat is assessed as Near Threatened under criterion A. There have been some substantial reductions in the extent of this habitat in some areas in the last 50 years (e.g. by around 99% in Mondego estuary, Portugal, 33% in Arcachon Bay, France and 90% in UK Essex estuaries). There have also been significant increases (by more than 250% in the Cromarty Firth, Scotland and more than 45% in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland). Historical declines are  believed to have been substantial (by around 40% in the north Frisian Wadden Sea, 17% in the east Frisian Wadden Sea). The current situation is reported as either unknown or stable and no estimates have been made of future trends.  This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
The characteristic species of this habitat Zostera noltei is known to be highly sensitive to substrate loss, smothering, change in wave exposure, introduction of non-native species and extraction of other species, such as cockles. Both historic and more recent declines in quality have been observed but are difficult to quantify. Historically a reduction in quality over around 30% of this habitat is considered likely. More recent declines are likely to be less. This habitat has been assessed as Near Threatened under criterion C/D3 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a widespread distribution and is not limited to a few locations. Intertidal Z. marina beds may extend into the subtidal where they may develop into a perennial form with broad and long leaf and root systems (rhizomes) which survive in winter. The subtidal form disappeared in all but brackish regions around 1930 because of a disease and it is uncertain whether recovery is taking place. The intertidal form develops each year from seed and was not struck by the disease.
There are data on trends in quantity from many locations pointing to substantial historical declines in extent of this habitat over the last 150 years. Quality is also believed to have declined, due to both biotic and abiotic factors, however this is harder to quantify. The overall assessment is that habitat is Near Threatened on the basis of historical and recent declines in quantity and quality for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Zostera noltei beds and those of Ruppia spp. (which only occur in brackish waters) should be assessed separately as these species respond in different ways to pressures and threats.

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

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


Habitat Type Name:
A2.72: Mussel beds in the Atlantic littoral zone

Habitat Description:
Sediment shores characterised by beds of the mussel Mytilus edulis occur principally on mid and lower shore mixed substrata (mainly cobbles and pebbles on muddy sediments) but also on sands and muds. In high densities (at least 30% cover) the mussels bind the substratum and provide a habitat for many infaunal and epibiotic species. This habitat is also found in lower shore tide-swept areas, such as in the tidal narrows of sealochs. A fauna of dense juvenile mussels may be found in sheltered firths, attached to algae on shores of pebbles, gravel, sand, mud and shell debris with a strandline of fucoids. Two associated biotopes are M.edulis beds on littoral mixed substrata and M.edulis beds on littoral sand.
The temporal stability of mussel beds can vary a lot. Some beds are permanent, maintained by recruitment of spat in amongst adults. Other beds are ephemeral, for example in locations where large amounts of spat settle intermittently on a cobble basement. In such situations mussels rapidly build up mud, and are unable to remain attached to the stable cobbles and are then liable to be washed away during gales. A second example of ephemeral mussel dominated biotopes occurs when mussel spat ("mussel crumble") settles on the superficial shell of cockle beds.
‘Mussel mud’, composed of faeces, pseudofaeces and sediment, accumulates underneath mussel beds. In sheltered habitats, pseudofaeces (undigested, filtered particles) can build up forming a thick layer of anoxic mud. The layer of mud may prevent the attachment of mussels to the underlying substratum, but the silt layer often consolidates and forms a firm clay bank which is very erosion resistant including the mussels embedded into it. ‘Mussel mud’ (that is not anoxic) supports a diverse range of infauna.
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 integratedindices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is largely dependent on the presence of Mytilus edulis which creates the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated communities depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of this species is a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage. Monitoring programmes may include measures of biomass, coverage, length frequency distribution, a condition index for the mussels (a ratio between biomass versus shell lenght) and descriptions of the structure of a bed including vertical height profile, thickness and type of accumulated sediment, coverage and biomass of macroalgae. 
Characteristic species:
Dense aggregations of the mussel Mytilus edulis. The wrack Fucus vesiculosus (and Fucus mytili, currently regarded as a synonym of F.vesiculosus) is often found attached to either the mussels or cobbles and it can be abundant. The mussels are often encrusted with the barnacles Semibalanus balanoides, Elminius modestus or Balanus crenatus. Where boulders are present they can support the limpet Patella vulgata. The winkles Littorina littorea and L. saxatilis and small individuals of the crab Carcinus maenas are common amongst the mussels, whilst areas of sediment may contain the lugworm Arenicola marina, the sand mason Lanice conchilega, the cockle Cerastoderma edule, and other infaunal species.  Although a wide range of species are associated with Mytilus edulis beds biotopes these characterizing species occur in a range of other biotopes and are therefore not considered to be obligate associates.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral biogenic reefs’ (A2.7).
 
Annex 1:
1140 Mudflats & sandflats not covered at low tide
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
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
12.4 Mud Shoreline and Intertidal Mud Flats

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments are specific to the North East Atlantic region. The majority are found in the Wadden Sea area (the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark) and in UK waters, although they are also present along the coast of Iceland and Ireland. Historical data report some intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments along the coast of France, but those records have yet to be confirmed.

Trends in Quantity:
There has been a significant decline the extent and biomass of this habitat, in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany both historically and in recent decades. In Germany, a series of surveys covering the whole littoral of Niedersachsen revealed a decrease in the extent of beds and, more drastically, in biomass from roughly 5,000 ha in extent to the late 1950s (100,000 t fresh weight), 2 700 ha in 1989/1990, 1,300 ha in 1994 to 170 ha (1,000 t) in 1996. Following some good spatfalls an area of 1,280 ha survived the severe winter of 1996/97. In the Dutch Waddensea there was a more or less stable area of 4,500 ha until the middle of the 1980s. Because of the fishery in a period with limited spatfall all beds had disappeared in 1991. Fishing on intertidal beds was then forbidden and the population recovered to about 2500 ha in 2015. About half of these present beds should be considered as mixed beds of mussels and Pacific Oysters. In Schleswig-Holstein a decrease of biomass of approximately 50% was reported between 1989 and 1990.
Comparisons using aerial photography of the German Wadden Sea (Schleswig-Holstein) taken in 1959 reveal severe decline in the extent of this habitat over that time period. Historically (between 60-250 years ago) there has been an estimated reduction in the extent of this habitat in the German Waddensea of more than 90%. In the Netherlands, Higler et al. (1998) observed a serious decline in the populations of mussels between 1988 and 1990, mainly caused by fisheries. The extent of mussel beds decreased from the 1970s to the 1990s. In Denmark, intensive fisheries during 1984 to 1987 almost led to a complete disappearance of the mussel population.
In the UK,  large beds exist in the Wash, Morecambe Bay, Conwy Bay and other estuaries of south-west England, north Wales and West Scotland as well as the sea loughs of Northern Ireland many of which have historical data associated with mussel fisheries. In the Wash, for example there appear to have been at least four large fluctuations in abundance since the 1920s. High exploitation and variable recruitment led to a severe decline in the number of productive  beds,  with 31 beds covering around 1,320 ha in 1940, 14 beds covering 510ha in 1977 and 6 beds covering 155ha in 1992.  In the Exe estuary since the farming of mussel beds stopped in the 1950s/60s, the intertidal area occupied by mussels has shrunk considerably. Comparison of known beds covered an area of just over 51ha from the period 1976-1990 compared to just over 36 ha in 2013/14. While there were 31 mussel beds occupying a combined areas of 80ha in 1976, today there are 12 main mussel  beds and almost all of the smaller  beds have disappeared.

Trends in Quality:
The quality of this habitat has been reduced by fishing as this regularly depletes the mussel beds. Invasive species are also an issue. In the German Waddensea all littoral mussel beds are now inhabited by the invasive species Crassostrea gigas and many are dominated by this species to the extent that the biomass of C.gigas is sometimes 4 to 5 times higher than biomass of mussels. Decrease in quality is also indicated by decrease in biomass. In Schleswig-Holstein for example, a decrease of biomass of approximately 50% was reported between 1989 and 1990. There may be some beds with good quality (e.g. Exe estuary) which can be used as reference sites on quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Unknown but likely to be more than 90% as the majority of reported examples of this habitat are in the southern North Sea.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as it occurs in locations as widely separated as the Wadden Sea coast of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark and in UK waters.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as it occurs in locations as widely separated as the Wadden Sea coast of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark and in UK waters.

Pressures and Threats:
Directed fisheries are the principal athropogenic threat to this habitat. The extensive, heavily exploited mussel fisheries (especially spat collecting for aquaculture) removed close to the entire stock in the Wadden Sea between 1988 and 1990 as well as having knock on effects such as an increased mortality for seabirds (e.g. eider ducks) and affecting the benthic diversity. The pressure from fisheries activities is exacerbated when settlement of spatfall is low. Another threat is from alien species. The introduced Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) has increased significantly in the Wadden Sea since the beginning of the 21st century and one of the preferred settlement structures for the larvae are existing mussel beds. The result has been a conversion of a large parts of mussel beds into oyster beds. In the Lower Saxony part of the Wadden Sea, for example, every intertidal mussel bed holds at least some oysters. Bait collection can have a localised effect while phytoplankton blooms, produced by nutrient enrichment (e.g. industrial and residential sewage discharge, agriculture), are another potential threat. Mussel beds could also have intermediate sensitivity to anti-fouling substances and heavy metal contaminants. Climate change effect the reproductive success directly or indirectly eg. via higher abundance of shrimp (C.crangon) surviving the winter which are major predators of spat. In the eastern Scheldt oyster drills (aquaculture transfer of spat, with non-indigenious species).

Conservation and Management:
The main management measures, which would assist the conservation of this habitat, are the regulation of the fisheries which target the mussel beds and protection from physical damage. Specific measures include control of fisheries through quotas, closed areas, specified fishing methods,  regulations on the movement of spat including collection of spat for aquaculture, and prohibiting spat collection from intertidal areas.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1140: MATL U2, MMAC XX
1160: MATL U2, MMAC FV
1170: MATL U2, MMAC FV
 
Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments are identified by OSPAR as a threatene

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The mussel beds which characterise this habitat may be transient and dynamic or permanent and persistent. Their capacity to recover is generally strong where there are good spatfalls although development into established beds will be influenced by many factors, such as the presence of predators, local hydrographic conditions, and exposure of the location. 
Blue mussels are sessile, attached organisms that are unable to repair significant damage to individuals. They do not reproduce asexually and therefore the only mechanism for recovery from significant impacts is larval recruitment to the bed or the area where previously a bed existed. Recruitment is often sporadic, occurring in unpredictable pulses, although persistent mussel beds can be maintained by relatively low levels or sporadic recruitment.  Recovery from human activity impacts may take at least 5 years, although in certain circumstances and under some environmental conditions (e.g. recurring physical disturbance or sporadic recruitment) recovery may take significantly longer. Nearly complete recovery from disturbance is a characteristic common to Mytilus beds throughout the world.

Summary:
Dense aggregations of blue mussels (living and dead) form a single or multi-layered framework, held together by byssus threads, that stabilise sediment and provide a habitat for many infaunal and epifaunal species. They are important in sediment dynamics of coastal systems, provide shelter for a large number of species, are important as food source for birds, and form an often rare area of hard substrata in areas of soft sediment. The temporal stability of mussel beds can vary a lot. Some beds are permanent, maintained by recruitment of spat in amongst adults. Other beds are ephemeral and beds can recovery quickly following disturbance. The morphological structures of littoral areas are enhanced by the mussel beds even where absent, as remnants are visible as elevations of clay banks or shell layers. Very old beds may also stabilise creek patterns because clay and shell layers are relatively erosion resistant.
Pressures such as intensive commercial fisheries and harvesting, coastal development, chemical pollution, and other human activities that physically disturb the mussel bed habitat result in widespread losses and may even lead to long-term disappearances of mature mussel beds on sandy and mixed sediments. The main management measures, which would assist the conservation of this habitat, are the regulation of the fisheries which target the mussel beds and protection from physical damage. Specific measures include control of fisheries through quotas, closed areas, specified fishing methods, regulations on the movement of spat including collection of spat for aquaculture, and prohibiting spat collection from intertidal areas.

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).
Dare, P. J., Bell, M. G., Walker, P & Bannister, R. G. A. 2004. Historical and current status of cockle and mussel stocks in The Wash. CEFAS, Lowestoft.
Dankers, N. 1993. Integrated estuarine management - obtaining a sustainable yield of bivalve resources while maintaining environmental quality. In: Dame R.F., (ed.) 1993. Bivalve filter feeders in estuarine and coastal ecosystem processes. Ecological Sciences 33: 479-511.
De Jong, F., Bakker, J., Van Berkel, C., Dahl, K., Dankers, N., Gaetje, C., Marencic, H., Potel, P. 1999. Wadden Sea quality status report 1999. Wilhemshaven: Wadden Sea ecosystem No.9, Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Trilateral Monitoring & Assessment Group.
van den Ende, D., van Asch, M. and Troost, K. 2014. Het mosselbestand en het areaal aan mosselbanken op de droogvallende platen van de Waddenzee in het voorjaarvan 2014. Wageningen: IMARES UR.
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp (Accessed 22/08/2014).
Michaelis, M. H 1996. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung von Miesmuschelbanken der niedersachsischen Watten, unter Berucksichtigung der Miesmuschelfischerei, Forseungsstelle Kuste. Norderney: Forschungsbericht 21: 91.
Higler, B., Dankers, N., Smaal, A., De Jonge, V. N. 1998. Evaluatie van de ecologische effecten van het reguleren van schelpdievisserij in Waddenzee en Delta op bodemorganismen en vogels. In Structuurnota Zee- en Kustvisserij, van de maatregeln in de kustvisserij gedurende de erste fase (1993-1997). Appendix 5, p.17. 
ICES 2002. Draft OSPAR List of threatened and declining species and habitats. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems 2002. p42-46 and Annex 1. 
Jones, L. A., Hiscock, K., Connor, D. W. 2000. Marine habitat reviews – a summary of ecological requirements and sensitivity characteristics for the management of marine SACs. Peterborough: JNCC.
Kristensen, P. S. 1995. Aerial surveys, biomass estimates, and elimination of the mussel population (Mytilus edulis L.), in the Danish Wadden Sea, 1991-1994. ICES: Shellfish Committee, C.M. 1995/K: 44, p.22.
Kristensen, P. S, 1997. Blåmuslingebestanden i det danskeVadehav august 1996. DFU-rapport 36-97, p.27.
Kristensen, P. S. 1994. Blåmuslingebestanden i det danske Vadehav og Blåmuslingefiskeri (1991-1993). DFH-rapport nr. 476-94, p.56.
Lancaster, J. (Ed), McCallum, S., Lowe A. C., Taylor, E., Chapman A. and Pomfret, J. 2011. Development of Detailed Ecological Guidance to Support the Application of the Scottish MPA Selection Guidelines in Scotland’s seas. Scottish Natural Heritage. Availiable at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B1000925.pdf. (Accessed: 28/08/2014)
Mainwaring, K., Tillin, H. & Tyler-Walters, H., 2014. Assessing the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to pressures associated with human activities. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough: JNCC Report No. 506, 96 pp. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/JNCC_Report_506_web.pdf. (Accessed: 07/11/2015)
Marencic, H. (Ed.). 2009. The Wadden Sea - Introduction. Thematic Report No. 1. In: Marencic, H. and
Vlas, J. de (Eds). 2009. Quality Status Report 2009. Wadden Sea Ecosystem No. 25. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. Wilhelmshaven: Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Group.
Millat, G., Borchardt, T., Bartsch, I., Adolph, W., Herlyn, M., Reichert, K., Kuhlenkamp, R., Schubert, P. 2012. Development of intertidal blue mussel stocks (Mytilus edulis) in the German tidal flats Meeresumwelt Aktuell Nord- und Ostsee, 2012 / 2. Hamburg: Bundesamt fuÌˆr Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH) Hamburg und Rostock.  Available at: http://www.meeresschutz.info/sonstige-berichte.html. (Accessed: 07/11/2015). 
von Nordheim H., (hrsg.) 1995. Red lists of biotopes, flora and fauna of the trilateral Wadden Sea area. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 47.
OSPAR. 2015. Background document on intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments. Southampton: OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Series.
Rollet, C., Bonnot-Courtois, C., Fournier, J., 2005. Cartographie des habitats benthiques médiolittoraux à partir des orthophotographies littorales. Fiche technique-Projet REBENT FT13-2005-01, Ifremer, Brest. 
18pp.
 
Scheiffarth, G., Ens, B., Schmidt, A., 2007. What will happen to birds when Pacific Oysters take over the mussel beds in the Wadden Sea?  Wadden Sea Newsletter 33: 10-14. 
Seed, R. & Suchanek, T. H. 1992. Population and community ecology of Mytilus. In: E.M. GOSLING ed. The mussel Mytilus: ecology, physiology, genetics and culture. Amsterdam. Elsevier Science Publisher 25: 87-169. 
Stillman, R. A., Goss-Custard, J. D. and Wood, K. A. 2015. Predicting the mussel food requirements of oystercatchers in the Exe estuary. London: Natural England, Exe Estuary Special Protection Area. IPENS 025.
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).
UK Biodiversity Group. 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions.Sheltered muddy gravels. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/UKBAP_BAPHabitats.pdf. (Accessed:11/08/2014).
van den Ende, D., van Asch, M. & Troost, K. 2014. Het mosselbestand en het areaal aan mosselbanken op de droogvallende platen van de Waddenzee in het voorjaarvan 2014. Wageningen: IMARES UR.
Zens, M., Michaelis, H., Herlyn, M. and Reetz, M. 1997. Die Miesmuschelbestände der niedersächsischen Watten im Frühjahr 1994. – Ber. Forschungsstelle Küste Norderney, 41: 141-155.

Criterion A Text:
There has be a significant decline in biomass and extent of this habitat, both historically and over the last 50 years. The declines differ in extent in different parts of the region. For example in Schleswig Holstein,  Niedersachsen, in the Netherlands and Denmark the losses were so substantial that this habitat was almost lost in 1990. There has been a slow recovery but this is still only around half the level of 50 years ago. The intertidal beds in the Wash (UK) also almost completely disappeared in the 1990s which is attributed to a combination of heavy exploitation and poor spatfalls. 
Where there is good evidence, the decline in extent in recent years has been greater than 50%.In some cases it has been greater than 80% and in the Eastern Scheldt the decline has been 100% in the last 100 years with only a small area of artificial lays present now. However, as this large scale decline is not the case for all examples of this habitat, the overall decline over the last 50 years is estimated to be >50%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criterion A1 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region as it occurs in locations as widely separated as the Wadden Sea coast of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and in UK waters. 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. Future 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(a,c), B2 (a,c) & B3 and Data Deficient under all other criteria.

Criterion C/D Text:
There has been a very substantial reduction in biotic quality of this habitat over the last 50 years in many locations. Expert opinion is that this is at least a severe decline affecting more than 50% of the extent of this habitat. There has also been a historical reduction in quality. The scale of historical change is harder to estimate but is not believed to be above the thresholds for Red Listing. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Endangered under criteria C/D1 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
When determining trends in this habitat it is important to recognise that the temporal stability of mussel beds can vary a lot. Some beds are permanent, maintained by recruitment of spat in amongst adults. Other beds are ephemeral. Many mussel beds are subject to total destruction by storms, ice drifts and tidal surges and on occasion, this may involve hundreds of hectares. Trend analysis also needs to take account of the fact that many intertidal Mytilus beds are subject to relaying and commercial exploitation.
There has been a significant decline in the extent and biomass of this habitat, in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany both historically and in recent decades.  The quality of this habitat has also been reduced by fishing as this regularly depletes the mussel beds. Invasive species are also an issue in some locations. In the German Waddensea, for example all eulitoral mussel beds are now inhabited by the invasive species Crassostrea gigas and many are dominated by this species to the extent that the biomass of C.gigas is sometimes 4 to 5 times higher than biomass of blue mussels. 
ICES found sufficient evidence for the decline and threat of this habitat over the whole OSPAR area, and this habitat is on the list of threatened and/or declining species in the OSPAR area. 
Where there is good evidence, the decline in extent in recent years has been greater than 50% (and in some cases >80%) however, as this is not the case for all examples of this habitat, the overall decline over the last 50 years is estimated to be >50%. There has been a very substantial reduction in biotic quality of this habitat over the last 50 years in many locations.  Expert opinion is that this is at least a severe decline affecting more than 50% of the extent of this habitat. On this basis the habitat is assessed as being Endangered for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

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


Habitat Type Name:
A2.71: Worm reefs in the Atlantic littoral zone

Habitat Description:
The sedentary polychaete Sabellaria alveolata (honeycomb worm) is a sessile, tube-dwelling species which builds its tubes from sand and shell fragments held together with biological cement. Colonies form on fixed and stable substrates where there is a plentiful supply of sediment on the mid to lower shore. The colonies can form relatively quickly and may take the form of sheets, hummocks and reefs as well as evolving from globular formations into reef platforms. In the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, France, they create irregularly shaped, patchy banks that cover approximately 225ha. These are considered to be the largest reef formation in Europe with worm densities estimated to reach up to 60,000 individuals/m2 and reef structures more than 2m thick. At the other extreme the S.alveolata reefs at the edge of its range on the central coast of Portugal and north of the Cumbrian coast in the UK tend to be very scattered and not particularly extensive. 
S.alveolata reefs can be relatively unstable and undergo a natural cycle of development and decay. As new individuals prefer to settle on active colonies or the remains of old colonies, the age and morphology of reefs are not directly related to the age of individual worms which are typically 4-5 years with a likely maximum of 9 years. The species assemblages found on S.alveolata reefs are unique because they are composed of a mixture of species typically found on hard structures, sandy and muddy sediments as well as from subtidal, intertidal and terrestrial habitats (insect larvae).
Indicators of Quality:
The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is largely dependent on the presence of S. alveolata which creates the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated communities depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of this species is a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage. Scientists working on the Mont-Saint-Michel S. alveolata reefs defined the vitality status of the reef by integrating the physical characteristic of the reef and its dynamics. This took into account the degree of fragmentation of reef features, cover by species which are known to degrade, smother and break up areas of S.alveolata reef (the oyster Crassostrea gigas and the mussel Mytilus galloprovinciallis) and the prevalence of different structural characteristics within the reef formations. In Morecambe Bay (UK), the health of the reefs was determined with reference to the percentage of newly settled worms, those with crisp apertures, to those with worn apertures and dead worms. A generic and universally applicable health metric has still to be developed.  
Characteristic species:
S. alveolata reefs are quite distinct from the mosaic of seaweeds and barnacles or red seaweeds generally associated with moderately exposed rocky shores though many of the same species are present (A1.2). These include the anemone Actinia equina and Cereus pedunculatus, the barnacles Semibalanus balanoides and Elminius modestus, the limpet Patella vulgata, the top shell Gibbula cineraria and the winkle Littorina littorea. The whelk Nucella lapilus and the mussel Mytilus edulis is also present on the boulders. In the surrounding sediment, the tubiculous polychaete Lanice conchilega and Diopatra spp are routinely found. Scour resistant red seaweeds including Palmaria palmata, Corallina ifficinalis, Mastocarpus stellatus, Chondrus crispus, Ceramium nodulosum, Osmundea pinnatifida, Polysiphonia spp. and coralline crusts can also be present where suitable substrata exist. Brown and green seaweeds also present include Fucus serratus, Fucus vesioculosus, Cladostephus spongiosus, Enteromorpha intestinalis and Ulva lactuca. The colonisation of bioconstruction by epibonts (e.g. green macroalgae) is typically a symptom of a non-healthy state). The richness of the associated infauna varies according to the stage of reef development or degradation.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Littoral biogenic habitats’ (A2.7).
 
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 habitats is only found in a few locations.

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) (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:
Although the geographic range of S.alveolata reefs is fairly stable there is a degree of fluctuation in the distribution and abundance of the reef habitat within this range. This is apparent from the different trends in different locations, some of which have comprehensive records going back more than 50 years.  The reefs in Bay Mont-Saint-Michel, France, were first described in the scientific literature in 1832. Around the British Isles this habitat is considered to have been stable on a decadal scale between the 1980s- 2010s although decreases in distribution were noted, specifically along the north coast of Wales, after the extremely cold winter of 1962. Decreases have been reported in Northern Ireland although not quantified. In France there has been a decrease in overall extent of the reefs in Mont-Saint-Michel between the 1970s and 2000s. In the latter case some of the changes are so drastic that they have altered the three dimensional configuration of the reefs. The grand table-like structures which could still be seen at the beginning of the 1980s can no longer be observed on the massif as a whole.

Trends in Quality:
There is a natural cycle of reef development, maturity and relict/senescence, but some reef structures, such as those in Bay Mont-Saint-Michel have been recorded on the same site since 1832. In this location the reef quality is declining as they are being increasingly colonised by oysters C.gigas from local aquaculture operations and by green algae (Ulva sp.) due to the increasing inputs of nitrates from terrestrial origin. Oysters affect the reef species assemblage more strongly than algal epibionts. Epibionts, especially green algae, alter S.alveolata population structure causing a reduction in new recruits that over the long run may cause significant damage to the reef structure itself.
Worm reefs on the eastern Irish Sea coast are considered to be mostly in moderate to good health, with a small proportion (<10%) considered to be poor quality.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
More than 95% of this habitat is likely to be hosted by the EU 28 as this habitat is not believed to be present in Norway.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Although not present in all sub-basins of this region, this habitat has a large natural range with examples as widely separated as Aguda on the Atlantic coast of Spain, Avencas on the central coast of Portugal, Oleron island on the Atlan

Justification of Restricted Area:
Although not present in all sub-basins of this region, this habitat has a large natural range with examples as widely separated as Aguda on the Atlantic coast of Spain, Avencas on the central coast of Portugal, Oleron island on the Atlan

Pressures and Threats:
Activities which change sedimentary patterns such as coastal protection works. Also mussel farming by changing sedimentation rates and increasing trophic competition between cultivated and wild suspension-feeders, bait digging, boulder turning, trampling and destruction of the reef to uncover crabs and lobsters. Change in abiotic conditions (temperature) resulted in significant loss of this habitat in the severe winter of 1962/3 in Europe which was the coldest since 1740 and had catastrophic effects on intertidal populations.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat is present within Marine Protected Areas. Specific management measures include regulation and specification of types of coast protection works to avoid changes in sedimentation regime, and regulation of intertidal fisheries to prevent break up of reefs for bait collection, or promoting access routes to aquaculture facilities that avoid reef structures. Operational measures such as hygiene requirements related to aquaculture are also important to minimise the likelihood of introducing invasive species to the shore environment. Codes of conduct and educational information on the vulnerability of these reef features can also be used to try and minimise trampling damage to the reef structures by shore users. National and European recognition of the need for protection of this habitat is also valuable as this encourages the introduction of local measures that have a direct benefit on the reefs.

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

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The intensity of settlement is extremely variable from year to year and place to place and once established growth can be rapid (e.g. up to 12cm/yr increase in tube length has been reported for northern France) and the  worms can mature within the first year. New individuals prefer to settle on active colonies or the remains of old colonies. In-depth investigations regarding reef function, maintenance of function for degraded reefs and resilience are needed to determine the recovery capacity of this habitat.

Summary:
The worm reef habitat, formed by Sabellaria alveolata, may take the form of sheets, hummocks and reefs as well as evolving from globular formations into reef platforms. In the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, France, they create irregularly shaped, patchy banks which were first described in the scientific literature in 1832. These are considered to be the largest reef formation in Europe with worm densities estimated to reach up to 60,000 individual/m2 and reef structures more than 2m thick. At the extremes of its distribution range such as the Spanish Atlantic coast and north of Cumbria in the UK, the reefs tend to be very scattered and not particularly extensive.S.alveolata reefs can be unstable and undergo a natural cycle of development and decay.
The species assemblages associated with this habitat are unique because they are composed of a mixture of those typically found on hard structures, sandy and muddy sediments as well as from subtidal, intertidal and terrestrial habitats (insect larvae).
Changing sedimentary patterns, for example associated with mussel farming and coast protection works, and increase in trophic competition between cultivated and wild suspension-feeders has been identified as a potential indirect threat to this habitat. Human trampling and fishing activity (boulder turning and destruction of reef parts to collect oysters or uncover crabs) is the most damaging activity. Conservation measures include regulation of coast protection works, intertidal fisheries, and aquaculture to reduce the likelihood of introducing invasive species to the shore environment and minimise the competition with Sabellaria. Codes of conduct and educational information on the vulnerabilty of these reef features can also be used to try and minimise trampling damage to the reef structures by shore users.

References:
Allen, J.H., Billings, I., Cutts, N. & Elliott, M. 2002. Mapping, Condition and Conservation assessment of Honeycomb Worm Sabellaria alveolata Reefs on the Eastern Irish Sea Coast. Report to English Nature. Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull. Report: Z122-F.
Almaça, C.1990 Structure and interactions in the crab community inhabiting sabelariid worm colonies at Praia de Ribeira D'Ilhas (Ericeira, Portugal). Arquivos do Museu Bocage, Nova 1(37): 505-519.
Anadon, N. 1981. On the reefs of Sabellaria alveolata (L.) PolychaetaInvest. Pesq. Barc.45: 105-122
Audoin, M., Edwards, M.1832. Reserches pour servir a l'histoire naturelle du littoral de la France ou recueil des mémoires sur l'anatomie, la physiologie, la classification et les moeurs des animaux de nos côtes1Crochard, Paris.
Ayata S., Ellien C., Dumas F., Dubois S., Thiébaut E., 2009. Modelling larval dispersal and settlement of the reef-building polychaete Sabellaria alveolata: role of hydroclimatic processes on the sustainability of biogenic reefs. Continental Shelf Research, 29: 1605-1623.
Bertocci, I., Araújo, R., Incera, M., Arenas, F., Pereira, R., Abreu, H., Larsen, K., Sousa-Pinto, I. 2012. Benthic assemblages of rock pools in northern Portugal: seasonal and between-pool variability. Scientia Marina 76(4): 781-789.
Brazier, P., Birch, K., Brunstrom, A. Bunker, A., Jones, M. Lough, N. Salmon, L. & Wyn, G. 2007. When the tide goes out. The biodiversity and conservation of the shores of Wales - results from a 10 year intertidal survey of Wales. Bangor: Country side council for Wales. 
 Brinkmann, N., Wanninger, A. 2008. Integrative analysis of polychaete ontogeny: cell proliferation patterns and myogenesis in trochophore larvae of Sabellaria alveolata. Evolution and Developmet 12(1): 5-15.
Callaway R., Desroy N., Dubois S., Fournier J., Frost M., Godet L., Hendricks V., Rabaut M. 2010. Ephemeral bio-engineers or reef-building polychaetes: How Stable are aggregations of the tube worm Lanice conchilega (Pallas, 1766). Integrative and Comparative Biology, 50: 237-250.
Cole, V. J., Chapman, M. G. 2007. Patterns of distribution of annelids: taxonomic and spatial inconsistencies between two biogeographic provinces and across multiple spatial scales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 346: 235-241.
Crisp, D. J. 1964. The effects of the winter of 1962/63 on the British marine fauna. Helgoländer Meeresun 10(1-4): 313-327.
Culloty, S. C., Favier, E., Ní Riada, M., Ramsay, N. F., O'Riordan, R. M. 2010. Reproduction of the biogenic reef-forming honeycomb worm Sabellaria alveolata in Ireland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 90(3): 503-507.
Cunningham, P., Hawkins, S., Jones, H., Burrows, M., 1984. The biogeography and ecology of Sabellaria alveolata. Nature Conservancy Council CAS report 53570pp.
Dauvin, J.-C., Dewarumez, J.-M., Gentil, F. 2003. Liste actualisée des espèces d’Annélides Polychètes présentes en Manche. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 44(1): 67-95.
Desroy, N., Dudois, S. F., Fournier, J., Riquiers, L., Le Mao, P., Guerin, L., Gerla, D., Rougerie, M., Legendre, A. 2011. The conservation status of Sabellaria alveolata (L.) (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) reefs in the Bay of Montâ€Saintâ€Michel. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21: 462-471.
Dias, A. S., Paula, J. 2001. Associated fauna of Sabellaria alveolata colonies on the central coast of Portugal. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81: 169-170
Domínguez, R., Godino, J. D., Freitas, C., Machado, I., Bertocci, I. 2015. Habitat traits and patterns of abundance of the purple sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816), at multiple scales along the north Portuguese coast. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 15: 547-55.
Dubois, S., Barillé, L., Cognie, B., 2009. Feeding response of the polychaete Sabellaria alveolata (Sabellariidae) to changes in seston concentration. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 376: 94-101.
Dubois, S., Barillé, L., Cognie, B. and Beninger, P. G., 2005. Particle capture and processing mechanism in Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae). Marine Ecology Progress Series 301: 159-171.
Dubois, S., Barillé, L., Cognie, B. and Beninger, P. G., 2006. Feeding mechanism of the polychaete Sabellaria alveolata revisited: reply to Riisgård & Nielsen. Marine Ecology Progress Series 328: 307-311.
Dubois S., Barillé L. and Retière C., 2003. Efficiency of particle retention and filtration rate in the polychaete Sabellaria alveolata (L.). Comptes Rendus Biologies 326: 413-421. 
Dubois S., Comtet T., Retiere C. and Thiébaut E., 2007. Distribution and retention of Sabellaria alveolata larvae (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) in the bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, France. Marine Ecology Progress Series 346: 243-254.  
Dubois S., Commito, J.A., Olivier F. and Retière C. 2006. Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 68: 635-646. 
Dubois, S., Retière, C., Olivier, F. 2002. Biodiversity associated with Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) reefs: effects of human disturbances. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82: 817-826.
Dubois, S., Barillé, L., Retière, C. 2003. Efficiency of particle retention and clearance rate in the polychaete Sabellaria alveolata L.C. R. Biologies 326: 413-421.
Dubois, S., Barillé, L., Cognie, B., Beninger, P. G. 2005. Particle capture and processing mechanisms in Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae). Marine Ecology Progress Series 301: 159-171
Dubois, S., Commito, J. A., Olivier, F., Retière, C., 2006. Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68: 635-646
Dubois, S., Comtet, T., Retière, C., Thiébaut, E. 2007. Distribution and retention of Sabellaria alveolata larvae (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, France. Marine Ecology Progress Series 346(1): 243-254.
Egerton, S. 2014. Distribution mapping and health assessment of honeycomb worm, Sabellaria alveolata, reefs on Heysham Flat. Lancashire: Report to the North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, p.65.
ERT (Scotland) Ltd. 2011. Broadscale mapping of marine features within the Lue Bay and Sands Special Area of Conservation. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 471. 
Firth, L. B., Mieszkowska, N., Grant, L. M., Bush, L. E., Davies, A. J., Frost, M. T., Moschella, P. S., Burrows, M. T., Cunningham, P. N., Dye, S. R., Hawkins, S. J.  2015. Historical comparisons reveal multiple drivers of decadal change of an ecosystem engineer at the range edge. Evolution and Ecology 5(15): 3210-3222.
Fournier, J., Etienne, S., Le Cam., J-B. 2010. Inter- and intraspecific variability in the chemical composition of the mineral phase of cements from several tube-building polychaetes. Geobios 43: 191-200
Frost, M. T., Leaper, R., Mieszkowska, N., Moschella, P., Murua, J., Smyth, C., Hawkins, S., Hill, C., Nature, E., House, N. 2004. Recovery of a Biodiversity Action Plan Species in Northwest England: Possible Role of Climate Change, Artificial Habitat, and Water Quality AmeliorationOccasional publication. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, p.1657
Gruet, Y. 1971. Morphologie, croissance et faune associée des récifs de Sabellaria alveolata (Linné) de la Bernerie-en-Retz (Loire Atlantique). Tethys 3(2): 321-380.
Gruet, Y.  1972a. Aspects morphologiques et dynamiques de constructions de l'Annelide polychete Sabellaria alveolata (Linne). Revue des Travaux de l'Institut des Pêches Maritimes 36(2): 131-161.
Gruet, Y. 1972b. Fauna associée de "récifs" d'Hermelles Polchète Sabellaridé: Sabellaria alveolata (Linné): cas de récifs morts à Crève-Coeur (La Bernerie, Loire-Atlantique). Bulletin de la société scientifique de Bretagne 67: 69-80.
Gruet, Y. 1986. Spatio-temporal changes of Sabellarian reefs built by the sedentary polychaete Sabellaria alveolata (Linné). Marine Ecology 7: 303-319.
Le Rhun, J., Mathieu, R. 1982. Le banc des Hermelles de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel: les variations topographiques entre 1964 et 1980. Mémoires géologiques de l’Université de Dijon 7: 53-61.
Mathieu, R. 1967. Le banc des Hermelles de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel, bioherme á Annélides. Sédimentologie, structure et genesè. Bulletin de la société géologique du France 9(7): 68-78.
National Biodiversity Network. 2013. Available at: https://data.nbn.org.uk/. (Accessed: 25/11/2015).
Noernberg M. A., Fournier J., Dubois S., Populus J. 2010.  Using airborne laser altimetry to estimate Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) reefs volume in tidal flat environments. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 90: 93-102.
Peaucellier, G. 1974. Révision de la garniture chromosomique de Sabellaria alveolata (L.) et de Sabellaria spinulosa (Leuck.) (annélides polychètes). Cahiers de Biologie Marine 15(3): 465-469.
Porras, R., Bataller, J., Murgui, E., Torregrosa, M. 1996. Trophic structure and community composition of polychaetes inhabiting some Sabellaria alveolata (L.) reefs along the Valencia Gulf Coast, Western Mediterranean. Marine Ecology 17(4): 583-602.
Preston, J., Portig, A. unpublished. An Assessment of the honeycomb worm Sabellaria alveolata at several locations in County Down. Report for The Environment and Heritage Service, p.7.
Robert, A., Gruet, Y. 1979. Quelques aspects de la biologie de Hermelles, Sabellaria alveolata (Linné), Annélide Polychète Sédentaire; Etude de leur reproduction C.R.D.P. de Nantes. Biologie Géologie: 13-14.
Strachan, B. 2013. The effects of trampling and smothering upon reefs formed by Sabellaria alveolata. Bangot: Bangor University, p.50. 
Weber, M., Sousa, D., de Costa, F. B. 2001. The Littoral Station of Aguda, a new aquarium in Portugal. Bulletin-Institut Oceanographique Monaco-Numero Special 2: 193-200.
Wilson, D. P. 1971. Sabellaria colonies at Duckpool, North Cornwall, 1961-1970. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 50: 209-280
Noernberg, M. A., Fournier, J., Dubois, S. & Populus, J. 2010. Using airborne laser altimetry to estimate Sabellaria alveolata (Polychaeta: Sabellariidae) reefs volume in tidal flat environmnents. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 90(2): 93-102.
Simkanin, C. 2004. Monitoring intertidal community change in a warmining world. MSc Thesis. Dept of Life Sciences, Glway-Mayo Institute of Technology.
Egerton, S. 2014. Distribution mapping and health assessment of honeycomb worm Sabellaria alveolata reefs on Heysham Flat, Lancashire. Lancashire: Report to the North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, p.66. 
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. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).

Criterion A Text:
This habitat appears to have either been stable or declining in much of its range in the North East Atlantic over the last 50 years but increasing in the north of its range within the Irish Sea. The overall trend is considered to be a decline although there are difficulties in making comparisons because changes are not limited to area covered but also the three dimensional structure of reefs.  
There are long term data on the changes that have taken place in some locations (most notably the reefs at Bay Saint-Michel, France), where both quanity and quality has declined but a lack of comprehensive quantiative data on overall long term trends of the habitat.  The overall decline is estimated to be between 25-30%. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Near Threatened under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat has a large natural range in the 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. Current trends are declining and future 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(a,c), B2 (a,c) & B3 and Data Deficient for the other criteria.

Criterion C/D Text:
Changes in quality of reef habitat are difficult to determine as they go  through a natural cycle of development. Newly established reefs as well as senescent reefs are potentially present in any one location. Declines in quality have been reported in some locations but there is a lack of data and therefore insufficient information to assess changes in quality of this habitat over the last 50 years. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criteria C/D.

Synthesis:
There have been different trends in the extent and quality of this habitat across the North East Atlantic region and on various time scales. Change in abiotic conditions (temperature) resulted in significant loss of this habitat in the severe winter of 1962/3 in Europe which was the coldest since 1740 and had catastrophic effects on intertidal populations.
More recently, around the British Isles this habitat is considered to have been stable on a decadal scale between the 1980s- 2010s, but increased in abundance in the north of its range. In France there has been a decrease in overall extent of the reefs in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay between the 1970s and 2000s and a decline in quality for the larger reefs. In the latter case some of the changes are so drastic that they have altered the three dimensional configuration with some of the grand table-like structures that could still be seen at the beginning of the 1980s no longer present. Newly formed reefs have also been observed since 2010 in bay Mont-Saint-Michel and along the Normandy coast.
The overall trend is considered to be a decline although there are difficulties in making comparisons because changes are not limited to area covered but also the three dimensional structure of reefs.The most extensive examples of this habitat are in France where significant declines have taken place over the last 50 years.
The current Red List assessment is that although this habitat does not have a narrow geographical range and is distributed such that identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once, it should be considered Near Threatened for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ because of an overall decline in extent over the last 50 years.

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


Habitat Type Name:
A2.82: Vegetated (ephemeral) Atlantic littoral mixed sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat comprises littoral mixed substrata (pebbles and cobbles overlying sand or mud) that are subject to variations in salinity and/or siltation, characterised by dense blankets of ephemeral green and red seaweeds. This habitat is found primarily on enclosed stony shores sheltered from wave action with weak to moderate tidal streams and often subject to variable levels of salinity. It is found predominately in the mid shore zone above, or at the same level as, the biotope dominated by the barnacles S. balanoides and/or E. modestus and Littorina spp. If it is found in the upper shore region it can be backed by saltmarsh species such as Salicornia sp. and Spartina sp. Below are biotopes dominated by the wracks Fucus serratus or Fucus vesiculosus or by M. edulis or by the polychaete Hediste diversicolor and the tellin Macoma balthica depending on the substratum.
Eulittoral pebble and boulder beaches in the Macaronesian archipelagos are mainly located at the mouth of steep brook valleys (Barrancos). At depths where wave action is only slight, stable ecosystems can develop with species-rich plant covers, lodging many different animals. In the eulittoral the biota is reduced to a few  small turf green and red seaweeds (usually Ulva species and Gelidium pusillum), but in the infralittoral, several species of red seaweeds occur, such as Ellisondia officinalis, Halophytis incurva and members of the family Liagoraceae, also brown seaweeds, like Stypocaulon scoparium and Sargassum spp. Among the faunal components, limpets (Patella spp.), periwinkles (Osilinus spp.) and crabs (Pecnon gibbessi) are common 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:
The main species present are Enteromorpha intestinalis, Ulva lactuca and Porphyra spp., along with colonial diatoms covering the surface of the substratum. Small numbers of other species such as barnacles Semibalanus balanoides and Elminius modestus are confined to any larger cobbles and pebbles or on the shells of larger individuals of the mussel Mytilus edulis. The crab Carcinus maenas and the winkle Littorina littorea can be present among the boulders, cobbles and seaweeds, while gammarids can be found in patches underneath the cobbles. In common with the other habitats found on mixed substrata, patches of sediment are typically characterised by infaunal species including bivalves, for example, Cerastoderma edule and the polychaete Arenicola marina and the polychaete Lanice conchilega. This is a habitat with a low species diversity and the number of species in the characterising species list is due to a variation in the species composition from site to site, not to high species richness at individual sites.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic littoral mixed sediment’ (A2.8).
 
Annex 1:
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.
12.3 Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient information available for this habitat to comment on whether it is an outstanding example a North East Atlantic habitat.

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in historical or current quantity of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in historical or current quality of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

% 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 more than 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 EOO exceeds 50,000km2.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as EOO exceeds 50,000km2â€‹.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to substratum loss and smothering, mainly resulting from activities such as coastal construction or coastal protection works. Smothering may prevent feeding and respiratory flows through the biological communities and the species may not survive burial. Moreover, the decrease in wave exposure and also any changes in the emergence regime, due to coastal modifications will have a detrimental impact on the habitat.
Abrasion, habitat destruction and any kind of physical disturbance will lead to displacement of organisms and severe changes in the diversity of the habitat. Hydrocarbon contamination (eg. oil spills) may lead to smothering of the associate fauna and flora.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat is afforded some protection within Marine Protected Areas. Additional beneficial management measures finclude the regulation of coastal developments and the construction of hard coastal defence structures, as well as water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and of nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication.

Summary:
This habitat is associated with littoral mixed substrata (pebbles and cobbles overlying sand or mud) that may be subject to variations in salinity and/or siltation, characterised by dense blankets of ephemeral green and red seaweeds. It is found primarily on enclosed stony shores sheltered from wave action with weak to moderate tidal streams.  The habitat is sensitive to  substratum loss, smothering, changes in wave exposure and any changes in the emergence regime, mainly resulting from coastal modifications or protection works and hydrocarbon contamination. Abrasion, and other types of physical disturbance will lead to displacement of organisms and severe changes in the biodiversity of the habitat. 
Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the regulation coastal developments and hard coastal defence structures. Additionally, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination or nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication are important measures.

References:
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp (Accessed: 22/08/14). 
Haroun, R., Gil-Rodriguez, M.C., Wildpretde la Torre, W., et al., 2008. Marine Plants of  the Canary Islands, BlaBla Ediciones, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Spain. 380pp.
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira and 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 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 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) & B3 and Data Deficient under all other criteria.

Synthesis:
Survey information confirms that this habitat has a widespread distribution in the North East Atlantic 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 given the lack of information on its area and 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, R. Haroun, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.1_PT14 Faunal communities of high energy infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat includes dense populations of Mytilus galloprovincialis, on high energy infralittoral rocky seabed, up to 6-8 meters depth. The specimens are strongly attached to each other by the byssus threads, which makes them extremely endurable to rough sea. Several layers of mussels can occur on the rock. Under them the rock is covered by abundant Balanus perforatus that can also be attached to the shells of the mussels.
Indicators of Quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species, in this case Mytilus galloprovincialis 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.
Charactersitic species:
Where M.galloprovincialis communities occur the associated fauna is very diverse, with several sessile and mobile species on the rock occupying the spaces between the mussels. Attached either to the barnacle shells or directly to the rock, abundant populations of the cnidarian Corynactys viridis occur, as well as serpulid polychaetes Spirobranchus spp., and the bryozoan Celleporina caliciformis. The echinoderms Ophiotrix fragilis and Amphipholis squamata and the polychaetes Lepidonotus clava and Platynereis dumerilii are common species in this habitat. The flatworms Stylochus neapolitanus and Emprosthopharynx pallida and the ascidean Diplosoma listerianum are frequent and abundant in this habitat. Crustaceans are also abundant, namely Pilumnus hirtellus, Tanais dulongii, Ischyromene lacazei, Elasmopus brasiliensis, Stenothoe tergestina, Podocerus variegatus and Parajassa pelagica. Regarding the molluscs, the most abundant one, besides M. galloprovincialis, is Patella ulyssiponensis; Hiatella arctica and the predator Nucella lapillus are present but in small numbers. Among echinoderms Paracentrotus lividus, Amphipholis squamata and Ophiotrix fragilis occur in this habitat, as well as the predator Marthasterias glacialis, which can cause periodic destruction of the mussel populations. Algae are not abundant in this habitat, the most frequent one is Corallina elongata, whose biotope occurs between the eulittoral and infralittoral populations of Mytilus galloprovincialis.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Proposed new level 4  to accommodate new level 5 biotopes of faunal units on high energy infralittoral rock. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic and Mediterranean high energy infralittoral rock' (A3.1).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine – Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock & biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

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 calcuation of EOO and AOO.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat was  proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013. There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity.

Trends in Quality:
This habitat was only proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013. There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quality.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has was  proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013. There is insufficient information to determine its natural range or any trends.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has was  proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013. There is insufficient information to determine its natural range or any trends.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat has was proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013 therefore there is little information on presssures and threat. In general encrusting sessile epifauna are known to be vulnerable to removal and damage by towed fishing gears. Pollution has also been identified as a potential pressure in supporting documentation but no further details given at the present time.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat has was proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013. No specific conservation and management measures have been identified at the present time.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Unknown, although because this habitat occurs in high energy situations it likely to be a robust and capable of recovery depending on availablity of larvae and successful spat falls of the characteristic species Mytilus galloprovincialis.

Summary:
This habitat is present in high energy situations and is therefore likely to be resilient and capable of recovery depending on availability of larvae and successful spat falls of the characteristic species Mytilus galloprovincialis which can be present in abundance.  Fishing activities and pollution have been listed as potential pressures in supporting literature but no further details given. No specific conservation and management measures have been identified for this habitat at the present time.

References:
Environment Agency. 2010. Review of existing approaches to evaluate marine habitat vulnerability to commercial fishing activities. Report SC080016/R3.
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. PT010000. Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera (IPMA), Lisboa, Portugal. Available at: www. searchMESH.net/geonetwork.
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 - MeshAtlantic, CCMAR-Universidade do Algarve, Faro, 72pp

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat at the present time. This habitat is therefore Data Deficient under criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
There is insufficient information on the distribution of this habitat and any likely future trends. This habitat is therefore Data Deficient under criterion B.

Synthesis:
This habitat was  proposed as a separate EUNIS habitat in 2013 consequently there is a lack of data on its range, area, extent and any trends in quantity or quality. 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: S. Gubbay, G. Saunders, H. Tyler-Walters, N. Dankers, F.Otero-Ferrer, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.11 Kelp with cushion fauna and/or foliose red seaweeds on wave-exposed Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This is a rocky habitat occurring in the infralittoral zone in areas exposed or extremely exposed wave action and/or strong tidal streams. It typically occurs from low water to depths of up to 45m. The rock supports a community of kelp Laminaria hyperborea or further south Laminaria ochroleuca, with foliose seaweeds and animals, the latter tending to become more prominent in areas of strongest water movement. In extremely wave exposed conditions, the sublitttoral fringe is characterised by dabberlocks Alaria esculenta  which, may extends from 5 to 10 m depth, or even replace L. hyperborea as the dominant kelp in the infralittoral zone. The depth to which the kelp extends varies according to water clarity, exceptionally (e.g. St Kilda, Scotland) reaching 45 m. The shallowest kelp plants are often short or stunted, while deeper plants are taller with heavily epiphytised stipes with foliose red seaweeds. At some sites the red seaweeds can be virtually mono-specific, while at other sites show considerable variation, containing a dense mixed turf of a large variety of species. 
The faunal and floral understorey is generally rich in species due, in part, to the relatively low urchin-grazing pressure in such shallow exposed conditions. As the exposure increases the rock surface is covered by a dense turf of anthozoans such as Sagartia elegans, Phellia gausapata and Corynactis viridis, encrusting sponges and coralline algae. The gastropod Margarites helicinus can be found grazing on the kelp fronds, whereas the crab Cancer pagurus can be found among the kelp stipes. The bryozoan Tubularia indivisa also occurs, but it does not form such a dense turf as in more shallow waters, while the ascidian Botryllus leachi is found encrusting the large brown seaweeds. Cryptopleura ramosa is the dominant red seaweed on horizontal surfaces. Winter storms may remove patches of kelp, and fast-growing annuals may form a temporary forest
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:
Laminaria hyperborea, Laminaria ochroleuca, Alaria esculenta, foliose red seaweeds such as Delesseria sanguinea, Cryptopleura ramosa, Plocamium cartilagineum, and the brown seaweed Dictyota dichotoma. Also found on the stipes, or on the rock below, are Phycodrys rubens, Kallymenia reniformis, Callophyllis laciniata, Caryophyllia smithii, and Corallina officinalis, while encrusting coralline algae can cover any bare patches of rock. The faunal composition of this habitat varies markedly between sites, but commonly occurring are the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum and the anthozoans Sagartia elegans and Corynactis viridis. Sponges form a prominent part of the community with variable amounts of the sponges Halichondria panicea and Pachymatisma johnstonia and several other species. The crab Cancer pagurus and the starfish Asterias rubens are normally present in small numbers foraging beneath the canopy, while the sea urchins Echinus esculentus and Urticina felina graze on the seaweeds. The hydroid Obelia geniculata, the ascidian Botryllus schlosseri and the bryozoan Membranipora membranacea compete for space on the kelp, whereas the bryozoan Electra pilosa also can be found on foliose red seaweeds. In more exposed conditions underneath the canopy of A.esculenta are red seaweeds such as Mastocarpus stellatus and Palmaria palmata, while encrusting coralline red algae such as Lithothamnion graciale covers the rock surface. The limpet Patella vulgata can be found grazing the rock surface, while the whelk Nucella lapillus is preying on the limpets, barnacles and mussels.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.1).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine overall trends in quantity but some localised trend data. For example there has been a reduction in the extent of S.polyschides and L.ochroleuca forest on the north-west coast of Spain of nearly 1,400 ha over the last 30 years. Formerly dense stands of kelp are now reduced to small patches of isolated individuals east of Cape Penas, a change which has been attributed to increases in both summer and winter mean sea surface temperature.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine overall trends in quality but some localised trend data. For example, the disappearance of L.ochroleuca and other canopy forming species on the Asturias coast of Spain and at the same time an increased importance of understory taxa has reduced the vertical structure of the system. This is believed to have negatively influenced both habitat availability and diversity.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as the remote island of Rockall to the west of the British Isles and the Channel coast of France.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated, as the remote island of Rockall to the west of the British Isles and the Channel coast of France.

Pressures and Threats:
Harvesting of kelp beds is the most direct pressure on this habitat. Indirectly, climate change may lead to a change in the dominant species of kelp characterising this habitat. The kelp species of Western Europe have relatively limited geographical ranges, which suggests that they are stenothermal and as such unable to tolerate large fluctuations in temperature. Laminaria hyperborea grows in a temperature range of 0oC–15oC, whereas Saccorhiza polyschides grows between 3oC-24oC. Alaria esculenta is tolerant of temperatures up to 16 oC. Seasonal adaptations to temperature tolerance do occur, though increased temperatures during the winter months, are less well tolerated than increased temperatures during the summer months. Increased mean sea surface temperature on the North West coast of Spain over the last 30 years has been proposed as the likely cause of the reduction of S.polyschides and L.ochroleuca forests to small patches of isolated individuals.

Conservation and Management:
The main approach to the conservation of this habitat is through regulation of the harvesting of kelp. Measures to combat the effects of climate change (sea temperature and sea level rise) will also be beneficial.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Perennial species of kelp have a fast recovery potential but in North West Spain, where increased sea surface temperatures led to significant loss, recovery of L.ochroleuca forest was only observed at depth four years after a decline in both shallow and deeper waters.

Summary:
This habitat occurs in the infralittoral zone in areas that are exposed or extremely exposed to wave action and/or strong tidal streams.  It can extend from low water to depths of up to 45m. Typically, the rock supports a community of kelp Laminaria hyperborea or further south Laminaria ochroleuca, with foliose seaweeds. The faunal and floral understorey is generally rich in species due, in part, to the relatively low urchin grazing pressure in such shallow exposed conditions. As the exposure increases the rock surface may be covered by a dense turf of anthozoans such as Sagartia elegans, Phellia gausapata and Corynactis viridis, encrusting sponges and coralline algae.
Harvesting of kelp beds is the most direct pressure on this habitat. Indirectly, climate change may lead to a change in the dominant species of kelp, which characterises this habitat. Beneficial conservation and management measures, include regulation of harvesting and mitigation measures to reduce climate change effects.

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).
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira and 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.
Voerman, S. E. Llera, E. and Rico, J. M. 2013. Climate driven changes in subtidal kelp forest communities in NW Spain. Marine Environmental Research. 90: 119-127.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. This habitat has 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 >50,000 km2 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 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:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking, but it is known to have a widespread distribution.  There is also a lack of data on the quantity and quality of this habitat, including any historical or recent, trends across the region.
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 area and any trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.12 Kelp and seaweed communities on sediment-affected or disturbed Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
Infralittoral rock habitat which is subject to disturbance through the mobility of the substratum (boulders or cobbles), abrasion/covering  by nearby coarse sediments, or suspended particulate matter (sand). The associated communities can be quite variable in character, depending on the particular conditions. Laminaria hyperborea and red seaweed communities typical of stable open coast rocky habitats are replaced by those which include more ephemeral species or which are tolerant of sand and gravel abrasion. As such Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides or Halidrys siliquosa may be prominent components of the associated community. The foliose green seaweed Ulva spp. is fast to colonise newly cleared areas of rock and is often present, along with the foliose brown seaweed Dictyota dichotoma. 
Due to the disturbed nature of this habitat, fauna are generally sparse, being confined to encrusting bryozoans and/or sponges, such as Halichondria panacea and the gastropod Gibbula cineraria. 
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 Saccorhiza polyschides and other opportunistic kelps occur, scour-tolerant red seaweeds including Corallina officinalis, Kallymenia reniformis, Plocamium cartilagineum, Chondrus crispus, Dilsea carnosa and encrusting coralline algae are often present beneath the kelp. Foliose red seaweeds such as Callophyllis laciniata, Cryptopleura ramosa and Palmaria palmata also occur in this habitat. P. palmata and Delesseria sanguinea often occur as epiphytes on the stipes of L. hyperborea, when it is present. 
Where there are seasonally disturbed unstable boulders and cobbles in very shallow water the brown seaweeds Chorda filum and S.latissima can dominate with Desmarestia aculeata and encrusting coralline algae also typical. Other red seaweeds, which can be found here, include Chondria dasyphylla, Brongniartella byssoides, Polysiphonia elongata, Ceramium nodolosum, Cystoclonium purpureum, Heterosiphonia plumosa, Rhodomela confervoides and Plocamium cartilagineum.The brown seaweeds Punctaria sp. and Cladostephus spongiosus are generally present.
Where there are dense stands of Halidrys siliquosa  it can be mixed with the foliose brown seaweed; Dictyota dichotoma and kelp such as Saccharina latissima and Laminaria hyperborea. Below the canopy is an undergrowth of red seaweeds, that are tolerant of sand-scour such as Phyllophora crispa, Phyllophora pseudoceranoides, Rhodomela confervoides, Corallina officinalis and Chondrus crispus. Other red seaweeds such as Plocamium cartilagineum, Calliblepharis ciliata, Cryptopleura ramosa, Delesseria sanguinea, Heterosiphonia plumosa, Dilsea carnosa, Hypoglossum hypoglossoides and Brongniartella byssoides may be locally abundant, particularly in the summer months. There may be a rich epibiota on H. siliquosa, including the hydroid Aglaophenia pluma, ascidians such as Botryllus schlosseri. There is generally a sparse faunal component colonising the boulders and cobbles, comprising the tube-building polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter, the crab Cancer pagurus, the starfish Asterias rubens, the gastropod Gibbula cineraria and the sea anthozoan Urticina felina. 
The faunal component of this biotope is typically sparse - the starfish Asterias rubens and the crabs Pagurus bernhardus and Necora puber are amongst the most conspicuous animals. The bryozoan crust Electra pilosa colonise many of the algae along with the ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Occasionally, the polychaete Lanice conchilega may occur in the sand between pebbles, and the anthozoan Urticina felina may be found amongst pockets of gravel along with the gastropod Gibbula cineraria. At some sites the rock beneath the algae can be occupied by the tube-building polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4 of the EUNIS classification. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.1).
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Trends in Quantity:
The trends in quantity of this habitat is unknown.

Trends in Quality:
The trends in quality of this habitat is unknown.

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

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

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is vulnerable to change in the level of wave exposure (higher or lower) which can be a consequence of nearby coastal construction and coastal protection works. It can also be affected by nutrient enrichment, for example associated with run-off from the land. Pollution, for example, oil spills can also be a significant threat to this habitat, while dredging and the disposal of dredge spoil may result in the displacement and loss of characteristic species. Climate change could cause localised extinctions due to the inability of species to spread to suitable alternative habitats.This habitat is also vulnerable to introduction of invasive non-indigenous species.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the regulation of coastal developments that might affect adjacent areas of this habitat by altering sediment movement patterns and wave exposure. Also pollution control and regulation of discharges to the marine environment, the development of contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, and control on the potential introduction of non-native invasive species.

Summary:
This is an infralittoral rock habitat which is subject to disturbance through the mobility of the substratum, and abrasion/covering  by nearby coarse sediments, or suspended particulate matter. The associated communities can be quite variable in character, depending on the particular conditions. Algae such as Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides or Halidrys siliquosa may be prominent components of the associated community and, due to the disturbed nature of this habitat, fauna are generally sparse, being confined to encrusting bryozoans and/or sponges.
This habitat is vulnerable to change in the level of wave exposure, nutrient enrichment, pollution incidents (e.g. oil spills), dredging and the disposal of dredge spoil. Climate change could cause localised extinctions due to the inability of species to spread to suitable alternative habitats.It is also vulnerable to introduction of invasive non-indigenous species. Beneficial management measures include the regulation of coastal developments and discharges to the marine environment. The development of contingency plans to be followed in the event of a major pollution incident, and control on the potential introduction of non-native invasive species are other valuable measures.

References:
Connor, D. W., Allen, J. H., Golding, N, Howell, K. L., Lieberknecht, L. M., Northen K. O. and Reker, J. B. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland. Peterborough: Version 04.05 JNCC ISBN 1 861 07561 8. Availiable at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification. (Accessed: 08/11/2015).
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. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira and 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 to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A.

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking, but it is known to have a widespread distribution. Data on the quantity and quality of this habitat, including any historical or recent, trends across the region are unknown.
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 area and 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, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders


Habitat Type Name:
A3.14 Encrusting algal communities on exposed Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat comprises a community of crustose algae on rocky substrates. It occurs in locations which are exposed or moderately exposed to wave action. Algal cover is extremely poor, and almost completely restricted to encrusting species. Sessile animals are typically encrusting sponges, bryozoans, barnacles, serpulids and vermetids. Vertical surfaces may be occupied by patches of encrusting sponges and Corynactis viridis, while hydroids such as Aglaophenia pulma may be locally abundant. In deeper water the colonial coral Madracis asperula may be present. The herbivory of the sea-urchins is very important for the maintenance of this habitat. 
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:
In the Azores this community of crustose algae is found in association with Arbacia lixula with reported characteristic species of Corallinacea, Hildenbrandia sp., Cutleria sp. aglaozonia phase, Peyssonelia spp., Nemoderma tingitana, some tiny polisyphonate Ceramiales, and in some case Lythophillum tortuosum amidst the turf. In sheltered notches and crevices, Percnon gibbesi, Sphaerechinus granularis and the sea-star Marthasterias glacialis are commonly found. Sessile associated fauna is composed of giant barnacles Megabalanus azoricus, limpets Patella aspera, the muricid predator Stramonita haemastoma and vermetids. Abandoned vermetid tubes are often inhabited by sedentary individuals of the hermit crab Calcinus tubularis while empty giant barnacle fortresses are usually occupied by sponges, serpulids and sea urchins Paracentrotus lividus, as well as small blennies (Parablennius rubber, Parablennius incognitus, Ophioblennius atlanticus and Lipophrys trigloides) which use them as shelters and nesting places.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.1) proposed to incorporate new Macaronesian habitat A3.14_PT01 at EUNIS level 5.
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient information to comment on whether this habitat is an outstanding example of the North East Atlantic.

Comment EU28:
There is insufficient information for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO.

Comment EU28+:
There is insufficient information for accurate calculation of EOO and AOO.

Trends in Quantity:
There is a lack on information to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat however given the robust nature of this habitat, expert opinion is that it is unlikely to have suffered significant decline in the last 50 years. The current trend is therefore inferred to be stable.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quality of this habitat at the present time.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat is widespread in the Azores. 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:
EOO cannot be calculated because of limited data however this habitat is unlikely to have a small natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
EOO cannot be calculated because of limited data however this habitat is unlikely to have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
There is limited information on the pressures and threats affecting this habitat but two have been identified. One of these is cascading effects generated by high fishing pressures on fish predators of sea urchins, which may generate trophic imbalances leading to increased crustose algal assemblages. Pollution is also mentioned as a threat in supporting documentation.This is likely to include oil pollution which can smother encrusting communities, but there are no details on what type of pollution and how it might affect the habitat.

Conservation and Management:
As this habitat occurs in exposed rocky areas it is likely to be resilient with few specific conservation measures required. It could however benefit from general measures to reduce the pressures of human activity on inshore rocky areas (e.g. controls on fishing) and to prevent pollution at sea.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Unknown, although as present in high energy situations it likely to be a resilient habitat capable of recovery.

Summary:
This habitat is found along rocky coastlines in areas of the infralittoral zone that are exposed or very exposed to wave action. It is characterised by a community of crustose algae. There is limited information on the pressures and threats  that might affect the habitat although fisheries and pollution have been mentioned in supporting documentation.  Given its occurrence in exposed situations it is likely to be a resilient habitat with few specific conservation measures required. General measures to reduce the pressures of human activity on inshore rocky areas (e.g. controls on fishing) and to prevent pollution at sea could nevertheless be beneficial.

References:
Bianchi, N.C., Morri, C., Sartoni, G. & Wirtz, P. 1998. Sublittoral epibenthic communities around Funchal (Ilha da Madeira, NE Atlantic). Biochemical Medicine and Metabolic Biology 5: 59-80.
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira and 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 to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat at the present time although given the robust nature of this habitat it is most likely to be 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 is likely to have a large range in the North East Atlantic 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 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
Experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to assess criteria C/D although it is likely that this habitat has not suffered significant decline in quality over the last 50 years.

Synthesis:
There is a lack of information on the  quantity and quality of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region although it is likely to be widespread. Because of the robust nature of this habitat, occuring in wave exposed conditions, it is thought unlikely to have declined over the last 50 years.  For the purposes of Red List assessment this habitat is therefore considered to be of Least Concern for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

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

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


Habitat Type Name:
G3.4c Mediterranean montane Pinus nigra-Pinus sylvestris woodland

Habitat Description:
Pinus nigra has been widely planted through the Mediterranean, but it remains the natural dominant tree species that forms forests in more drought-prone situations, at scattered localities through the mountains of Spain, Corsica, southern Italy, and at higher elevations further south where altitude moderates the effects of the Mediterranean climate. P. sylvestris can be co-dominant in the canopy, except in the far south and on the Mediterranean islands.
Vicariant forms of the black and Scots pines are recognised in different localities. In Spain, for example, P. nigra ssp. salzmannii forms stands with so-called P. sylvestris ssp. nevadensis, and P. sylvestris var. iberica. On Corsica, P. nigra ssp. laricio is a pioneer species occupying open ground or clear-felled areas within the zone of beech and fir, but it also dominates on rocky, south-facing slopes, which are too dry for beech and fir to compete black pine. In such sites, black pine can attain a magnificent height in closed canopy, with shorter Betula pendula and Ilex aquifolium individuals in the understory, and a field layer with Avenella flexuosa, Brachypodium pinnatum, Sanicula europaea, Galium rotundifolium, Veronica officinalis and endemic species such as Helleborus lividus, Crocus corsicus, Carlina macrocephala, Galium corsicum and Stachys corsica. More open stands can have a denser understory of Synonym of Juniperus communis subsp. Nana, Genista lobelii and Berberis aetnensis.
Indicators of quality:
·     Maintenance of natural woodland structure and distinctive
·     Absence of signs of exploitation by logging and grazing which leads to to the increase of grasses cover
·     No fragmentation of cover by quarrying or gravel extraction.
·    Structural diversity/ complexity with (semi)natural age structure or the existence of different vegetation layers
·    Presence of old trees and a variety of dead wood (lying or standing) and of the associated flora, fauna and fungi
Characteristic species:
Tree canopy: P. nigra, P. sylvestris;
Understory: Amelanchier ovalis, Juniperus communis (including ssp. hemisphaerica), Cotoneaster tomentosus, Berberis vulgaris, Buxus sempervirens and many endemic species in the herb layer.

Classification:
EUNIS:
G3.4 Pinus sylvestris woodland south of the taiga
G3.5 Pinus nigra woodland
EuroVegChecklist:
Junipero hemisphaericae-Pinion sylvestris Rivas-Mart. 1983
Avenello ibericae-Pinion ibericae Rivas-Mart. et J.A. Molina in Rivas-Mart., Fernández-González et Loidi 1999
Junipero sabinae-Pinion sylvestris Rivas Goday in Rivas Goday et Borja 1961 nom. invers. propos.
Juniperion thuriferae Rivas-Mart. 1969
Galio rotundifolii-Fagion Gamisans 1975
Annex 1:
9530 (Sub-) Mediterranean pine forests with endemic black pines
Emerald:
G3.5 Pinus nigra woodland
MAES:
Woodland and forest
IUCN:
1.4 Temperate Forest

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This Mediterranean subtype of P. nigra and P. sylvestris (G3.4c) occurs, by definition, only in Mediterranean. The temperate type (3.4b) spreads in other biogeographical regions, and for this reason limits between this two types is sometimes difficult and subjected to interpretation

Map Description:
The map is rather complete. Data sources: EVA, Art17, ETS.

Trends in Quantity:
The historic trend of this habitat is unknown, but the territorial experts reported a constant stable recent trend in the last 50 years.

Trends in Quality:
The territorial datasheet shows slight differences between countries. This may be caused by real differences between countries, but it is probably influenced by the different perceptions of quality trends between national experts.
All the four countries reported stable trend in quantity (surface), and three of them (Portugal, Spain, and Italy) also reported stable trend in quality.
Only France reported 20% degradation in quality during the last 50 years, mainly due to repeated fires and introgressive hybridization. This trend is not expected to continue in the future in France. Extraction (logging) of old trees is also identified as cause of quality decline, mainly in Corsica.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
The exact area that lies within EU28 is unknown. Delimitation with the temperate type is often subjected to interpretation, and extent or occurrence outside EU 28 are unclear. In any case this habitat type is not limited to EU28, but it has isolated occurrences in Rif (Morocco), in ex-Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Crimea (delimitation with 3.4b is to be reviewed here).

Pressures and Threats:
The territorial experts have reported different threats among the countries. The most common threats among countries are: Wildfires and forestry management and plantation. Less commonly reported are threats concerning cutting of old trees and urbanization (including road, paths, human habitation, and outdoor sports).

Conservation and Management:
The management of this habitat has been traditionally addressed towards wood production and watersheds protection. Application of Habitat Directive, with inclusion of 9530 type has changed this tendency in some places. Consideration of natural dynamics, with diversified age structure, and presence of deadwood is needed (see quality indicators) in the management of the habitat type. Some of the relict subtypes merit special wildfire protection measures.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The dominant Pinus species show a pioneer behaviour, but the other species of flora and fauna of the habitat type require longer periods without disturbances, and the presence of an adequate network of mature & ancient forests that may serve as gene-pool. Design of an adequate network of reserves may significantly improve the recovery of typical species and ecological functions of the habitat type.

Summary:
Pinus nigra has been widely planted through the Mediterranean, but it remains the natural dominant tree in this habitat in more drought-prone situations, at scattered localities through the mountains of Spain, Corsica, southern Italy, and at higher elevations further south where altitude moderates the effects of the Mediterranean climate. P. sylvestris can be co-dominant in the canopy, except in the far south and on the Mediterranean islands. From place to place, the habitat is threatened by wildfires, forestry management and plantations, urbanization and outdoor sports. Consideration of natural dynamics, with diversified age structure is needed in the management of the habitat

References:
Bohn, U., Gollub, G. Hettwer, C., Neuhauslova, Z., Rause, T., Schlüter, H. & Weber, H. (2004) Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe.  Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Council of Europe (2010), Interpretation Manual of the Emerald Habitats.  Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Davies, C.E., Moss, D. & Hill, M.O. (2004), EUNIS Habitat Classification, revised. Report to the European Topic Centre, European Environment Agency.
European Commission DG Environment (2007), Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. Strasbourg: European Commission DG Environment.
European Environment Agency (2006), European Forest Types, EEA Technical report No9/2006, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Schamineé, J.H.J., Chytrý, M., Hennekens, S., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Mucina, L. & Rodwell, J.S. (2013), Review of EUNIS forest habitat classification, Report EEA/NSV/13/005. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

Criterion A Text:
The trend for criterion A1 was calculated on the basis of the data from the Territorial datasheets, provided by national experts. The countries that have been taken into account in the calculation were the ones with current and recent-past (last 50 years) data (Spain; Portugal; Italy; and France). A stable trend is reported.

Criterion B Text:
The Area of Occupancy and Extent of Occupancy are very large, beyond the criteria B threshold.

Criterion C/D Text:
Data extracted from territorial datasheets. Only two countries reported degradation trends in quality (C/D1). Spain reported no degradation and France reported reduction in quality 20% with a moderate severity. Thus, the proportion of the habitat type declining  represents only 1.5% of its total surface and the severity of degradation in this fraction is moderate.

Synthesis:
The overall assessment of this habitat is based on data from the recent past (last 50 years). Based on the geographical stability, large area of occupancy, and no signs of extended degradation, the overall assessment is Least Concern (LC). There is neither sufficient data about historical trends, nor sufficient information to estimate future trends, and data on habitat quality trends are very limited, so this assessment may change in the future under the light of new information and data.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
This habitat includes some peculiar endemic vegetation types, like the one dominated by Pinus nigra ssp. calabrica, wich is present only in Sicily (33,23 km2) and Calabria (38,4 km2).

Contributors:
Habitat description: J Rodwell.
Territorial data: E. Agrillo, O. Argagnon, S. Armiraglio, S. Assini, F. Attorre, G. Buffa, J.Capelo, L. Casella, D. Espírito-Santo, C. Giancola, G. Giusso Del Galdo, J. Loidi, C. Marcenò, J. Reymann, S. Sciandrello.
Working Group Forests: F. Attore, R-J. Bijlsma, M. Chytrý, P. Dimopoulos, B. Renaux, A. Ssymank, T. Tonteri, M. Valderrabano


Habitat Type Name:
A3.15 Frondose algal communities (other than kelp) on exposed Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This rocky habitat type is found in the infralittoral zone, in locations exposed or extremely exposed to wave action, or strong tidal streams. Associated biotopes are characterised by foliose red seaweeds, turfs of articulated Corallinaceae  and Cystosiera spp. at or below the lower limit of the kelp. Most of the red seaweeds which make up the dense turf of foliose red seaweeds are common to the kelp zone above, while the faunal component of the habitat is made up of species that are found either in the kelp zone or the animal-dominated upper circalittoral. Many of the red seaweeds, which occur in this habitat have annual fronds, which tend to die back in the autumn and regenerate again in the spring. This produces a seasonal change in the density of the seaweed cover, which is greatest between April and September, then substantially reduced over winter months. As well as a varied red seaweed component, this habitat may also contain occasional kelp plants and patches of the brown foliose seaweed Dictyota dichotoma. 
Dense fields of Cystoseira cf. abies-marina, are an associated biotope but currently only recorded on the Macaronesian archipelagos such as Formigas Bank, Azores and Chinijo Islets, north of Lanzarote, Canary Islands. Encrusting coralline algae frequently cover the substrate under the Cystoseira plants whilst Ulva rigida is an occasional epiphyte on the fronds. Around the various nooks and crevices of the irregular bedrock, the more abundant species are encrusting rhodophytes (calcareous and non-calcareous) as well as cartilagineous rhodophytes. Other species present are Sphaerococcus coronopifolius, Hypoglossum hypoglossoides, Dictyopteris membranacea and Cladophora sp.
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:
Foliose species commonly present include Dilsea carnosa, Hypoglossum hypoglossoides, Schottera nicaeensis, Cryptopleura ramosa and Delesseria sanguinea. The red seaweed species composition varies considerably; at some sites a single species may dominate (particularly Plocamium cartilagineum). Small filamentous red seaweeds can be found here as well. These include Heterosiphonia plumosa and Brongniartella byssoides. Coralline crusts cover the bedrock beneath the seaweeds. The fauna generally comprises low-encrusting forms such as the tubeworms Pomatoceros spp., anthozoans including Alcyonium digitatum, Urticina felina and Caryophyllia smithii) and occasional sponge crusts such as Cliona celata, Esperiopsis fucorum, Scypha ciliata and Dysidea fragilis. More mobile fauna include the gastropod Calliostoma zizyphinum, the echinoderms Echinus esculentus as well as the starfishs Asterias rubens, and Marthasterias glacialis and the crab Cancer pagurus. Bryozoan crusts such as Electra pilosa can be found fronds on the foliose red seaweeds while scattered hydroids such as Nemertesia antennina form colonies on shells, cobbles and available rock. At some sites erect bryozoans Crisia spp. and Bugula spp. are present. Ascidians such as Clavelina lepadiformis and Clavelina lepadiformis may also be common.  The Cystoseira beds are used by a multitude of species that feed, take shelter and nest amongst the fronds. Thalassoma pavo and Centrolabrus trutta are two extremely abundant fish species and the latter species has major breeding grounds in this assemblage. Cryptic fish such as Conger conger, Muraenidae spp., Epinephelus marginatus and Phycis phycis are typically found in the crevices.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.1).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine any historical or recent trends in quantity of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

Trends in Quality:
Overall unknown although in the case of the Macaronesian archipelagos, the C.abies-marina habitat has declined in quality in recent years. In some cases, a severe decline in coverage and structure have been reported, and even total loss of the species (Madeira and Canary Islands). This seems to be related to herbivore pressure (sea urchin grazing) and thermal stress (temperature increase), but these ecological processes are not yet fully understood, nor are any potential long-term effects on ecosystem services.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as the Azores and the Shetland Islands.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as the Azores and the Shetland Islands.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is particularly sensitive to substratum removal as this will result in the loss of all the attached species including the characterising red algal species. More likely are changes in water quality and turbidity, for example from dredge spoil disposal or activities which disturb the seabed in adjacent areas of soft sediment. Increased turbidity can increase sedimentation and reduce photosynthesis.  
Red algal species and the urchin Echinus esculentus are sensitive to synthetic chemical contamination and some red algal species such as Delesseria sanguinea are particularly intolerant to anoxic conditions. Furthermore, sessile faunal species would probably be lost if there are changes in water column oxygenation and mobile species are likely to migrate to avoid adverse conditions, causing a subsequent decline in species richness.

Conservation and Management:
The main approach to the conservation and management of this habitat would be through regulation of activities that can alter the hydrological regime or sediment loads in the water column e.g.coastal and offshore construction. Water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination or of nutrient inputs leading to eutrophication would also be beneficial measures.

Summary:
This rocky habitat type is found in the infralittoral zone, in locations exposed or extremely exposed to wave action, or strong tidal streams. It is characterised by a dense turf of foliose red seaweeds, many of which have annual fronds that tend to die back in the autumn and regenerate again in the spring. This produces a seasonal change with seaweed cover most dense between April and September, then substantially reduced over winter months. As well as a varied red seaweed component, the habitat may also contain occasional kelp plants and patches of the brown foliose seaweed Dictyota dichotoma. Dense fields of Cystoseira cf. abies-marina, are an associated biotope but currently only recorded on the Macaronesian archipelagos. 
This habitat is particularly sensitive to substratum removal as this will result in the loss of all the attached species including the characterising red algal species. More likely are changes in water quality and turbidity, for example from dredge spoil disposal or activities which disturb the seabed in adjacent areas of soft sediment. Increased turbidity can increase sedimentation and reduce photosynthesis.  Beneficial management and conservation measures for this habitat include water quality improvement programmes, the regulation of fishing methods which damage, or disturb seabed communities, of dredging, of coastal development and the construction of hard coastal defence structures that can alter the hydrological regime or sediment loads in the water column.

References:
Connor, D. W., Allen, J. H., Golding, N, Howell, K. L., Lieberknecht, L. M., Northen K. O. and Reker, J. B. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough. ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version.)
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view [online]. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp [accessed August 2014].
Marlin.ac.uk. 2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. [online] Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats.php [Accessed 18 Nov. 2015]
Tempera, F., Atchoi, E., Amorim, P. et al. 2013. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. MeshAtlantic Technical Report No.4/2013 – MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP- UAc, Horta 126pp.

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 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:
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 lack of information on its area and any trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.22 Kelp and seaweed communities in tide-swept sheltered Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This is a species-rich, structurally complex habitat that develops in areas of infralittoral rock sheltered from wave action but exposed to strong tidal streams such as the sheltered narrows and sills of Scottish sea lochs or in Norwegian fjords.  In the sublittoral fringe dense Laminaria digitata is found together with erect seaweeds, sponges, ascidians and bryozoans. Below this, on bedrock and stable boulders a canopy of mixed kelp (primarily Laminaria hyperborea and Saccharina latissima) occurs with foliose red seaweeds, sponges and ascidians. In some situations, for examples on mixed substrata of boulders, cobbles, pebbles and gravel, there may be a reduced kelp canopy of L. hyperborea and S. latissima, but with a rich red seaweed component and maerl at some sites. Where the tide-swept rock occurs in estuarine conditions, the reduced and variable salinity as well as increased turbidity of the water has a significant effect on the biota, limiting the infralittoral zone to very shallow depths. The rock in these situations is characterised by a relatively low abundance of S. latissima with foliose red seaweeds, sponges and ascidians. L. hyperborea is rarely 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.
Characteristic species:
Tide-swept algal communities dominated by dense stands of kelp, together with a high diversity of red seaweeds, e.g. Plocamium cartilagineum, Heterospihonia plumose, Cryptopleura ramose, Delesseria sanguinea and Phycodrys rubens. The brown seaweed Dictyota dichotoma may also be frequent. The strong water flow supports a wide variety of sessile animals such as anthozoans, sponges, sea squirts and sea mats on both the bedrock and the seaweeds. They include Urticina felina, Alcyonium digitatum Pachymatisma johnstonia, Clavelina lepadiformis, and Botryllus schlosseri. In the sublittoral fringe, oarweed (Laminaria digitata) dominates while on the tide scoured rock of sea loch sills and narrows, dense cuvie (Laminaria hyperborea) and sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) forests form. In areas of boulders and gravel, the kelp canopy is less dense but with a greater diversity of red seaweeds and occasionally maerl. Invertebrate species that characterise the habitat include Cancer pagurus, Calliostoma zizyphinum, Asterias rubens, Echinus esculentus and Balanus crenatus.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.2).
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD: 
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN ecosystem: 
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reef

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Tide swept rocky coasts with this specific composition of kelp and seaweeds are only characteristic for several North East Atlantic biogeographic regions. It neither occurs in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea nor in the Mediterranean Sea.

Trends in Quantity:
This habitat 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.

Trends in Quality:
This habitat 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 quality.

Pressures and Threats:
Because this habitat is present in sheltered locations, such as narrow channels in sea lochs, it is vulnerable to changes in wave exposure and tidal flow. This may result from coastal works such as the construction of bridges and causeways, as well as tidal power generation schemes,  land claim, and dredging. Although the currents in rapids may quickly disperse one-off sources of pollution, chronic continuing pollution could affect sensitive marine life.
Urbanisation is thought to have the most disrupting effects on kelps and other canopy-forming algae, particularly by affecting water clarity and quality as well as other habitat-related changes. In some northern European regions, including the west coast of Norway, the French channel coast and parts of the UK coast, harvesting is also an issue.

Conservation and Management:
Controls on activities that change the hydrological regime, such as coastal construction works, tidal energy generation schemes and land claim are important for the conservation of this habitat.  These types of 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

Summary:
This is a species-rich, structurally complex habitat that develops in areas of infralittoral rock sheltered from wave action but exposed to strong tidal streams. It has a wide range being found on the Atlantic coast of France, the west coast of Ireland, the north coast of Scotland and within Norwegian fjords. Because this habitat is present in sheltered locations, such as narrow channels in sea lochs and fjords, it is vulnerable to changes in wave exposure and tidal flow. This may result from coastal works such as the construction of bridges and causeways, as well as tidal power generation schemes, land claim, and dredging. Urbanisation is thought to have the most disrupting effects on kelps and other canopy-forming algae, particularly by affecting water clarity and quality as well as other habitat-related changes and in some northern European regions harvesting is also an issue. Controls on such activities, for example through spatial planning regulation, have been introduced where this habitat occurs both within and outside Marine Protected Areas.

References:
Airoldi L. and Beck M. W. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 45: 345-405.
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).    
UK Biodiversity Group. 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions: Tide-Swept Channels. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf. (Accessed:11/08/2014).
JNCC/SNH/Marine Scotland. 2012. MPA search feature descriptions catalogue. Edingburgh: Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, p.68.
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira and 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 to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. It is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A.

Synthesis:
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 area and any trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.31: Atlantic silted kelp on marine low energy infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat can be found in wave and tide-sheltered conditions with Laminaria hyperborea and/or Saccharina latissima on infralittoral bedrock and boulders.  It is typically subject to weak tidal streams and rather silty conditions. The associated seaweeds are silt-tolerant and include a high proportion of delicate filamentous types. Beneath the kelp canopy, the faunal component is generally less diverse than in kelp forests that develop in more exposed locations. Some areas, particularly in the lower infralittoral zone, are subject to intense grazing by urchins and chitons and subsequently may have poorly developed seaweed communities. In very sheltered conditions S.latissima may grow as a ‘cape form’ where there are often few associated seaweeds due to siltation, grazing or shading from the dense kelp canopy.
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:
Laminaria hyperborea, Saccharina latissima. Beneath the kelp is an associated under-storey flora of foliose red seaweeds including Plocamium cartilagineum, Cryptopleura ramosa and Callophyllis laciniata as well as the brown seaweeds Dictyota dichotoma, Cutleria multifidi and Desmarestia aculeata. The stipes of L. hyperborea may be densely covered with red seaweeds such as Phycodrys rubens and Delesseria sanguinea as well as the solitary ascidian Clavelina lepadiformis and the featherstar Antedon bifida. The fronds are often epiphytised by the hydroid Obelia geniculata and the bryozoan Membranipora membranacea. In addition to the kelp, the brown seaweed Chorda filum and Ectocarpaceae are often present.
A depauperate assemblage of animals is present predominantly consisting of the encrusting polychaetes Pomatoceros triqueter, the crabs Carcinus maenas and Pagurus bernhardus and the ubiquitous gastropod Gibbula cineraria. The echinoderms Antedon bifida, starfish A. rubens, brittlestar O. fragilis and urchin Echinus esculentus occur in low abundance. Ascidians are commonly found but the large solitary ascidian Ascidia mentula are most prolific in very sheltered conditions of S.latissima forests.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.3).
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine – Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 subtidal rock and rocky reefs

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

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

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region as EOO exceeds 50,000km2.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region as EOO exceeds 50,000km2.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is susceptible to pollution incidents, substratum loss and changes in wave exposure either induced by coastal developments or, over the longer term, to predicted increased storminess and sea level rise associated with climate change. L. hyperborea is unable to survive in areas of high wave energy because of its large frond area attached to a stiff stipe which is liable to snap. Wave action depresses the upper depth limit of populations to several meters below low water. Similarly, an increase in wave action is likely to dislodge S. latissima plants and interfere with feeding activity in solitary tunicates.

Conservation and Management:
Management of marine activities will be important to control factors leading to the decline in quantity and quality of this habitat. Integrated coastal zone management, which includes spatial planning measures and limits land claim and other activities that alter the tidal regime, are examples of beneficial measures. Others include the regulation of the construction of hard coastal defence structures, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination, and measures to mitigate against climate change.

Summary:
This is an infralittoral rocky habitat found in wave and tide-sheltered conditions, supporting silty communities with Laminaria hyperborea and/or Saccharina latissima. The associated seaweeds are typically silt-tolerant and include a high proportion of delicate filamentous types. This habitat is susceptible to pollution incidents, substratum loss and changes in wave exposure either induced by coastal developments or, over the longer term, to predicted increased storminess and sea level rise associated with climate change. 
Marine Protected Areas and integrated coastal zone management, which may include zoning of activities and limits on land claim and other activities that alter the tidal regime, are examples of beneficial measures. Others include the regulation of the construction of hard coastal defence structures, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination, and measures to mitigate against climate change.

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).
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).

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

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking, but it is known to have a widespread distribution. Data on the quantity and quality of this habitat, including any historical or recent trends across the region are unknown. 
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 area and any trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.32 Kelp in variable salinity low energy Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This is a structurally complex habitat that develops in areas of very wave-sheltered infralittoral bedrock, boulders and cobbles subject to only weak tidal streams in the sublittoral fringe and infralittoral zone, with variable/reduced salinity typical for estuaries. The variabile salinity and increased turbidity have a signficiant effect on the biota, limiting species richness of seaweeds and the occurance to shallower parts of the infralittoral zone. The kelp canopy is characterised by Saccharina latissima only with accompanying foliose red seaweeds and coralline crusts. Laminaria hyperborea is generally missing due to the low salinity and weak tidal currents.  The associated biotopes may support dense stands of silted filamentous green seaweeds and red seaweeds,   depauperate coralline-encrusted rock with few foliose seaweeds but many grazing urchins and, in very shallow, heavily-silted situations, dense stands of Codium spp., together with silt-tolerant red seaweeds, the green seaweed Ulva spp. and often only a sparse covering of the kelp Saccharina latissima.
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 depth limit of kelp and/or red seaweeds is used in some countries as a Water Framework Directive parameter for assessing ecological status.
Characteristic species:
This habitat type is characterised by the kelp Saccharina latissima and coralline crusts such as Lithothamnion glaciale. Red algal communities are composed primarily of Phycodrys rubens. Grazers such as the urchins Psammechinus miliaris and Echinus esculentus, and the gastropods Gibbula cineraria and Buccinum undatum may be present. The tube-dwelling polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter, the ascidians Ciona intestinalis, Corella parallelogramma and Ascidiella scabra, the barnacle Balanus crenatus, the starfish Asterias rubens and the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis may also be present. The crabs Carcinus maenas and Pagurus bernhardus, and the bivalve Modiolus modiolus may also be observed.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.3).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
9.7 Macroalgal/kelp
9.10 Estuaries

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
The specific composition of S. latissima and seaweeds are not limited to the North East Atlantic. They also occur in the Baltic Sea and estuarine areas of the Mediterranean Sea.

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

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

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine any historical or current trends in quantity of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any historical or current trends in quality of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat occurs in estuaries and sheltered inlets so has a widespread distribution in the North East Atlantic although there is insufficient information to derive an accurate EOO at the present time.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat occurs in estuaries and sheltered inlets so has a widespread distribution in the North East Atlantic although there is insufficient information to derive an accurate EOO at the present time.

Pressures and Threats:
Most of the characteristic species in this habitat are permanently or firmly attached to the substratum so are susceptible to substratum loss. Some species, especially S. latissima, are likely to protrude above smothering material, but the asscociated flora and fauna are commonly foliose red algae and active suspension feeders, which are unlikely survive smothering from increased levels of siltation. Additionally, increased wave action is likely to dislodge S. latissima plants. Urbanisation is thought to have the most disrupting effects on kelps and other canopy-forming algae, particularly by affecting water clarity and quality as well as other habitat-related changes. 
In addition, low or variable salinity habitats are threatened by activities that change the water flow and the salinity regime (e.g. coastal development, land claim, water abstraction) and are susceptible to sea level rise and pollution.

Conservation and Management:
The main approach to the conservation and management of this habitat should be through regulation of fishing methods which damage or disturb seabed communities. In addition, controls on activities that change the hydrological regime, such coastal development and hard coastal defence structures are also important. Furthermore, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of contamination should also be considered. Lastly, measures to reduce climate change effects will benefit this habitat. This habitat is afforded protection within some Marine Protected Areas.

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

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The dominating kelp species S. latissima is capable of rapid settling and fast growing. Therefore the dominating element can recover rapidly but establishment of a community containing the range of characteristic species associated with an undisturbed and mature community may take several years.

Summary:
This habitat is found in areas of variable or reduced salinity and in very wave-sheltered bedrock, boulders and cobbles subject to only weak tidal streams in the sublittoral fringe and infralittoral zone typical for some estuaries and fjords. It is vulnerable to smothering, substratum loss, and increased wave action, the former affecting the sessile filter feeding associated fauna and the latter two likely to dislodge the characterising S. latissima plants. In addition, low or variable salinity habitats are threatened by activities that change the water flow and salinity regime (e.g. coastal development, land claim, water abstraction) and are susceptible to sea level rise and pollution.
Beneficial management and conservation measures for this habitat include protection within marine protected areas, integrated coastal management, water quality improvement programmes, the regulation of fishing methods which damage, or disturb seabed communities, regulation and control of dredging, coastal development and the construction of hard coastal defence structures.

References:
Airoldi L., Beck M.W. 2007. Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 2007, 45, 345-405.
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).
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).

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.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat most probably has a large range however sgnificant 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 any trends in quantity or quality over the last 50 years. Future trends have not been predicted. 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, J. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.34 Submerged fucoids, green or red seaweeds on low salinity Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
Very shallow submerged rocky habitats in bays, inlets or estuaries subject to permanently reduced salinity conditions. These particular conditions lead to a variety of seaweed-dominated communities, which include fucoids, green and red macroalgae species. The fucoids, more typical of intertidal Atlantic habitats, penetrate into the subtidal under the reduced salinity conditions which are not tolerated by kelps. This habitat may also includes dense stands of Ascophyllum nodosum if salinities are high enough (>20psu).
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 main species are the wracks Fucus serratus and Fucus vesiculosus, but there may also be dense stands of Ascophyllum nodosum, and presence of the brown seaweeds Chorda filum, and Ectocarpaceae. One sub-habitat is characterised by the wrack Fucus ceranoides and the green seaweed Ulva spp. (A3.344). Perennial red seaweeds are normally present often under the fucoid canopy and include Furcellaria lumbricalis, Mastocarpus stellatus, Polyides rotundus, Chondrus crispus, Ceramium spp. and coralline crusts. A variety of green seaweeds is also present and include Ulva spp., while dense patches of Cladophora rupestris may occur on vertical rock faces. Associated with these seaweeds are a variety of ascidians including Clavelina lepadiformis, Ascidiella aspersa, Ascidiella scabra and Ciona intestinalis as well as the anemones Anemonia viridis and Actinia equina and the sponge Halichondria panacea. The faunal component is restricted to the mussel Mytilus edulis, the polychaete Arenicola marina, the starfish Asterias rubens, the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus and the crab Carcinus maenas. Opossum shrimps Mysidae can be present as well. Part of this diversity is due to large differences between sites.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.3).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat occurs across the 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. Therefore it is not regarded as a typical characteristic of the North East Atlantic region.

Comment EU28:
EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data. Although this data set is known to be incomplete the figures exceed the threshold for threatened status for EOO.

Comment EU28+:
EOO and AOO have been calculated on the available data. Although this data set is known to be incomplete the figures exceed the threshold for threatened status for EOO.

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quality of this habitat in the North East Atlantic.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in Norway, inner fjords with freshwater outflow, estuaries therefore less than 100% is hosted by the EU 28 in the North East Atlantic. 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 EOO exceeds 50,000 km2.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range as EOO exceeds 50,000 km2 but the conditions required for its development are limited therefore it may only occupy a limited area.

Pressures and Threats:
Coastal works such as the construction of causeways and culverts that alter water flow and salinity in the sheltered areas where this habitat occurs can lead to habitat degradation and loss by making conditions unsuitable for characteristic species such as the wrack Fucus ceranoides and F.vesiculosus. Reduced water quality, for example nutrient enrichment can also have deleterious effects on the growth and survival of the associated species as ephemeral algae overgrow fucoids and perennial red seaweeds, which are in consequence replaced by opportunistic filamentous annual algal species.

Conservation and Management:
Regulation of coastal construction and maintenance of good water quality will benefit this habitat. Inclusion within Marine Protected Areas and identification in spatial planning documents can also raise awareness about the biodiversity interest of this habitat and specify measures to prevent degradation and loss. There may be some scope for habitat restoration by opening up or removing any barriers to water movement that have altered the salinity regime.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The capacity for this habitat to recover after being severly damaged is unknown.

Summary:
This is a shallow sublittoral habitat on rocky shores which occurs under permanently reduced salinity conditions. These particular conditions lead, depending on salinity gradient, to a variety of seaweed-dominated communities, which include fucoids, green and red macroalgae species. Coastal works such as the construction of causeways and culverts that alter water flow and salinity in the sheltered areas where this habitat occurs can lead to habitat degradation and loss. Poor water quality can also have deleterious effects on the growth and survival of the associated species, however fucoids are more  sensitive to those effects compared to especially green algae. Regulation of coastal construction and maintenance of good water quality will benefit this habitat. Inclusion within Marine Protected Areas and identification in spatial planning documents can also raise awareness about the biodiversity interest of this habitat and specify measures to prevent degradation and loss.

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).
Howson, C.M., Chambers, S.J., Pye, S.E. and Ware, F.J. 2014. Uist Lagoons Survey. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.787.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. It is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criteria A.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat does not have a restricted geographical distribution. Data available suggests that the Area of Occupancy is less than 50 but this is believed to be incomplete. There is also a lack of information on whether this habitat is likely to be subject to decline in the future or capable of becoming Critically Endangered or Collapsed within a very short time period. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criterion B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria.

Synthesis:
This habitat does not have a restricted geographical distribution however it may have a restricted Area of Occupancy. There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity or quality in the North East Atlantic
The current Red List assessment is that although AOO is less than 50,  this habitat qualifies as Data Deficient because of incomplete information on its area, and any trends  in quantity and quality.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Biotopes dominated by fucoids and those dominated by filamentous algae should be assessed separately as these groups of species respond in different ways to pressures and threats.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.35: Faunal communities on low energy marine Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat is found in tide-sheltered conditions, supporting silty communities with Laminaria hyperborea and/or Saccharina latissima. It is distinguished by the presence of an abundance of turf-forming species, often animal-dominated, but can sometimes be characterised by algal turf  with species such as Codium elisabethae and Halopteris filicina and coralline crusts.
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 has yet to be fully defined, so the characterising species, beyond those indicated above, have not been fully determined.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.3).
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
There are insufficient data on this habitat to determine natural range.

Justification of Restricted Area:
There are insufficient data on this habitat to determine natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
There are few specific studies of this habitat however, animal-dominated communities of sheltered infralittoral rock in wave and tide- sheltered conditions and full salinity are vulnerable to damage and deterioration from a number of pressures and threats. These include increases in suspended sediment or turbidity levels which can affect filter feeding organisms, pollution from synthetic organic compounds and heavy metals, with larval stages of some species being particularly sensitive, and physical damage due to abrasion from static fishing gears. Increase in the wave exposure could also be a threat for wave and tide- sheltered habitats in general.

Conservation and Management:
Management of marine activities will be important to control factors leading to the decline of quantity and quality of this habitat. Marine Protected Areas and integrated coastal zone management which can include spatial planning measures and limits on land claim and other activities that alter the tidal regime are examples of beneficial measures. Others are the regulation of the construction of hard coastal defence structures and the maintenance of water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of chemical contamination, as well as measures to reduce the impact of climate change and sea level rise.

Summary:
This habitat consists of turf-forming communities (predominantly animal, but sometimes algal dominated) on sheltered infralittoral rock in wave and tide-sheltered conditions and full salinity. It is vulnerable to increases in suspended sediment or turbidity levels which can affect filter feeding organisms, as well as to pollution from synthetic organic compounds and heavy metals, and physical damage due to abrasion from static fishing gears. In addition, increases in the wave exposure, either caused by coastal developments or climate change could also be a threat for all wave and tide- sheltered habitats.
Beneficial conservation measures include protection and regulation of  fishing methods which damage, or disturb seabed communities as well as measures to maintain water quality, regulate dredging, coastal developments and the construction of hard coastal defence structures.Such measures may be promoted with Marine Protected Areas or integrated coastal zone mangement plans.

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). 
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Sirjacobs, D., Tempera, F. Cardingos, F. et al., 2004. Study of the Structure, Distribution and  dynamics of Codium elisabethae populations in the Azorean reef ecosystem, use of submarine image analysis. Dublin: 5th International Symposium on Fauna & Flora of Atlantic Islands.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A.

Criterion B Text:
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:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking. Data on the quantity and quality of this habitat, including any historical or recent, trends across the region are unknown. For the purposes of Red List assessment this habitat is therefore considered to be Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.36 Faunal communities on variable or reduced salinity Atlantic infralittoral rock

Habitat Description:
The extent of rocky habitat in rias, sea-lochs and estuaries can range from a narrow strip restricted to the top of the shore to littoral reef structures extending to the subtidal. Rocky habitats in these sheltered inlets are typically located in low wave energy environments with reduced salinity, subjected to accelerated tidal streams with increased turbidity and siltation. The associated communities 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, grading to communities similar to open coast rock communities towards the mouth of estuaries.
At the most diverse end of the scale this habitat may support a rich and exceptionally abundant sessile epibiota of anemones (e.g. Metridium senile and Diadumene sincta), filter feeding sponges (e.g. Halichondria panacea, Hymeniacidon perleve, Haliclona oculata, Raspalia spp., Suberties spp. and Stelligera spp.), bryozoans (e,g, Alcyonidium digitata, Bugula spp.), hydroids (e.g. Sertularella gaudichaudi, Tubularia spp.) and ascidians (e.g. Ascidiella aspersa and Dendrodoa grossularia). Seaweed dominated biotopes are generally poorly developed or absent. In some sea lochs dense mussel Mytilus edulis beds develop in tide-swept channels, whilst upper estuarine rocky habitats in the rias may support particular brackish-water tolerant faunas.
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 the habitat is dominated by Mytilus edulis, a wide variety of epifaunal colonisers on the mussel valves, including seaweeds, hydroids and bryozoans can be present including, Balanus crenatus, Halichondira panacea, Metridium senile, Ascidiella aspersa and Ectocarpaceae. The crab Carcinus maenas and starfish Asterias rubens may also be present. In locations with a high turbidity such as upper estuaries, the brackish-water hydroid Cordylophora caspia and small colonies of the encrusting bryozoan Electra crustulenta and a few Balanus crenatus may be present. The hydroid Hartlaubella gelatinosa and bryozoans Conopeum reticulum and Bowerbankia imbricata have been recorded in other locations where this habitat occurs. There are considerable differences in species composition between sites, but all occur in brackish turbid-water conditions.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.3).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD: 
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat can be found in rias and in estuaries. It should most likely be considered usual rather than characteristic of the region.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range being present in the rias on the Atlantic coast of Spain and France, the west coast of Ireland and South West Britain, as well as in sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland but there

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range being present in the rias on the Atlantic coast of Spain and France, the west coast of Ireland and South West Britain, as well as in sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland but

Pressures and Threats:
Communities in naturally sheltered conditions, such as those of estuarine rocky habitats, rias and sea lochs are vulnerable to damage and deterioration from a number of pressures and threats. These include increases in suspended sediment/turbidity levels which can affect filter feeding organisms; an increase in levels of organic matter and nutrients that may lead to localised depletion of oxygen, pollution from synthetic organic compounds and heavy metals, with larval stages of some species being particularly sensitive; and physical damage due to abrasion from static fishing gears.
Sea level rise, increased storminess and changes in freshwater flows associated with climate change are a potential future threat to this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Current approaches to conservation include the regulation of potentially damaging activities in Marine Protected Areas and through integrated coastal zone management schemes.  General measures applied to large areas such as those which improve or maintain good water quality across the watershed are also beneficial.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
There is insufficient information to determine whether this habitat retains the capacity to recover when severely damaged and if so, over what time scales.  Major influences include larval supply, hydrodynamics such as scour and turbidity levels.

Summary:
The extent of rocky habitat in rias, sea-lochs and estuaries can range from a narrow strip restricted to the top of the shore to littoral reef structures extending to the subtidal. The associated communities are adapted to these conditions and consequently their composition and character is different to that found on similar substrata on the open coast.
This habitat and the associated biotopes are vulnerable to damage and deterioration from a number of pressures and threats. These include increases in suspended sediment/turbidity levels which can affect filter feeding organisms; an increase in levels of organic matter and nutrients that may lead to  localised depletion of oxygen, pollution from synthetic organic compounds and heavy metals, with larval stages of some species being particularly sensitive; and physical damage due to abrasion from static fishing gears. Sea level rise, increased storminess and changes in freshwater flows associated with climate change are a potential future threat to this habitat. Current approaches to conservation include the regulation of potentially damaging activities in Marine Protected Areas and through coastal planning as well as general measures applied to large areas such as those which improve or maintain good water quality across the watershed.

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). 
UK Biodiversity Group. 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions: Esturine Rocky Habitats. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc.pdf. (Accessed:11/08/2014).
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:
There is insufficient information on the current and historical extent of this habitat to determine any trends in quantity. This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
This habitat does not have a small natural range being present in the rias on the Atlantic coast of Spain and France, the west coast of Ireland and South West Britain, as well as in sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland, Orkney and Shetland. Nevertheless, because of significant shortcomings in available mapping data, 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 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat does not have a small natural range nevertheless, because of the lack of quantitative data on extent and condition, no assessment of trends in quantity and quality can be made at the present time. 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. Forde, K. Fürhaupter, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A3.71: Robust faunal cushions and crusts in Atlantic infralittoral surge gullies and caves

Habitat Description:
Infralittoral rocky habitats subject to strong wave surge conditions, as found in surge gullies and shallow caves, on open rocky coasts with moderate or greater wave action. This habitat is typically colonised by faunal communities of encrusting or cushion sponges, colonial ascidians, short turf-forming bryozoans, anthozoans, barnacles and, where there is sufficient light, by red seaweeds.
The surge gullies and caves usually consist of vertical bedrock walls, occasionally with overhanging faces, and support communities which reflect the degree of wave surge they are subject to, and any scour from mobile substrata on the cave/gully floors. The larger cave and gully systems typically show a marked zonation from the entrance to the rear of the gully/cave as wave surge increases and light reduces. This is reflected in communities of anthozoans, ascidians, bryozoans and red seaweeds near the entrance, leading to sponge crust-dominated communities and finally barnacle and spirobid worm communities in the most severe surge conditions. Gully/cave floors usually have mobile boulders, cobbles, pebbles or coarse sediment. The mobile nature of the gully/cave floors leads to communities of encrusting species, tolerant of scour and abrasion or fast summer-growing ephemeral species. The lower zone of the gully side walls are also often scoured, and typically colonised by coralline crusts and barnacles. Winter storms may result in scouring on gully/cave walls whilst some ephemeral growth may occur in calmer summer months.
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:
Frequently recorded species in this habitat include Clathrina coriacea, Halichondria paicea, Metridium senile, Corynactis viridis, Balanus crenatus, Polyclium aurantium, Didemnidae and Corallinaceae. Occasionally recorded are Pachymatisma johnstonia, esperipsis fucorum, Myxilla incrustans, Tubularia indivisa, Alcyonium digitatum, Urticina feline, Sargatia elegans, Pomatoceros triqueter, Cancer pagurus, Calliostoma zizyphinum, Asterias rubens, Echinus esculentus and Botryllus schlosseri.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic infralittoral rock’ (A3.7).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Trends in Quantity:
The full extent and quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region is unknown. Evidence of any trends in extent of occurrence is very sparse although there are limited data from a few long-term monitoring sites in caves. Both increases and decreases are to be expected through the natural process of erosion.

Trends in Quality:
The overall quality of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region is unknown although some locaised declines have been reported.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
This habitat occurs in the EU 28+ (e.g. Norway, Channel Islands, Isle of Man). 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 has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic being present in locations as widely separated as the Azores, the west coast of Ireland, the east coast of Shetland and the west and south coast of the Outer Hebrides.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic being present in locations as widely separated as the Azores, the west coast of Ireland, the east coast of Shetland and the west and south coast of the Outer Hebrides.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to increased silitation and smothering, as the associated biotopes are dominated by sessile filter feeders. Activities which may cause this include coastal construction and protection works, dredging and the disposal of dredge spoil. Some types of pollution (e.g. oil spills) may have a smiliar effect however if the exposure conditions are unchanged the impacts may be short lived.

Conservation and Management:
There are few conservation and management measures specifically directed at this habitat although some are within designated protected areas. Codes of Conduct which provide guidance on avoiding damage to these habitat are promoted in some areas where cave diving takes place.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1170: MATL U2, MMAC FV
8330 MATL XX, MMAC XX

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Unknown. Surge gully habitats develop in conditions of moderate to severe exposure to wave action. They are likely to be able to recover if there is successful settlement of larvae and conditions are favourable. Timescales for recovery will depend on the species which dominate as some are essentially annual such as the sea squirts Cliona intestinalis and Ascidiella aspersa and others such as the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum colonies are more than 10 years old.

Summary:
This is an infralittoral rocky habitat of surge gullies and shallow caves in areas subject wave surge. It is found on open rocky coasts in areas exposed to moderate or stronger wave action. The rock surfaces are typically colonised by faunal communities of encrusting or cushion sponges, colonial ascidians, short turf-forming bryozoans, anthozoans, barnacles and, where there is sufficient light, by red seaweeds.
The habitat is sensitive to increased silitation and smothering as the associated biotopes are dominated by sessile filter feeders. There are few conservation and management measures specifically directed at this habitat although some are within designated protected areas. Codes of Conduct which provide guidance on avoiding damage to the habitat are promoted in some areas where cave diving takes place.

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).
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.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any overal trends in quantity of this habitat although both increases and decreases are to be expected through the natural process of erosion. This habitat is 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 therefore it does not have a restricted geographical distribution. The AOO has been estimated as 35 indicating it is only present in a small number of 10 x 10km grid squares but this is known to be an underestimate. There is a lack of information on trends.
The known 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 under criteria B1 (a,b) and B2 (a,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. There are insufficient data to identify and trends although both increases and decreases in extent are to be expected through the natural process of erosion.  
This habitat has large EOO and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B1.  The AOO figure is known to be an underestimate. Given the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality, and the fact that the overall distribution is unknown, expert opinion is this habitat should be considered Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.11. Faunal communities on very tide-swept Atlantic upper circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat develops in extremely wave-exposed to exposed conditions where circalittoral bedrock and boulders are subject to strong or very strong tidal streams. It is typically found in tidal straits and narrows and is characterised by species that are capable of maintaining a foothold under these conditions. They either form a flat, adherent crust, as in the case of the barnacle Balanus crenatus, or have strong attachment points and are flexible, bending with the tide, such as the turf of the hydroid Tubularia indivisa.
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 characteristic species are determined by tidal stream strength. In strongly tide-swept wave exposed, situations there can be high abundance of the robust hydroid Tubularia indivisa and barnacle Balanus crenatus, the cushion sponges Halichondria panicea and Myxilla incrustans and Alcyonium digitatum. The anemones Sagartia elegans, Actinothoe sphyrodeta, Urticina felina, Corynactis viridis and Metridium senile are all found within this complex. Other species present in this high-energy complex are the sponges Esperiopsis fucorum and Pachymatisma johnstonia, the bryozoans Alcyonidium diaphanum and Flustra foliacea, and the hydroid Sertularia argentea. Where turbidity levels are high sponges such as Esperiopsis fucorum, Pachymatisma johnstonia, Hemimycale columella, Dysidea fragilis and Clathrina coriacea may be present. Mobile species include the starfish Asterias rubens and Henricia oculata, the crab Cancer pagurus and the whelk Nucella lapillus may also be present.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405): 
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.1)
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap :
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Trends in Quantity:
There is a lack of information on the full extent and quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region and any trends in quantity.

Trends in Quality:
There is a lack of information on any trends in quality of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region however it may be subject to considerable seasonal, annual and longer term fluctations. A long term study on the Swedish west coast, for example, showed an area dominated by ascidians from 1970-81 then by the tube worm Pomatoceros from 1982-93 with ascidians only beginning to reappear in the mid-nineties.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
There is a lack of comprehensive information on the distribution and abundance of this habitat in the North East Atlantic however as it is known to occur in locations as widely separated as the Azores, the west coast of Ireland, St.Kilda

Justification of Restricted Area:
There is a lack of comprehensive information on the distribution and abundance of this habitat in the North East Atlantic however as it is known to occur in locations as widely separated as the Azores, the west coast of Ireland, St.Kilda

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to increased silitation and smothering, as the associated biotopes are dominated by sessile filter feeders. Algal blooms have impacted circalittoral faunal turf communities in Scandinavia and there may be some effects associated with the use of towed fishing gear through direct impact, and by resuspending sediment.

Conservation and Management:
There are few conservation and management measures specifically directed at this habitat. Some are within designated protected areas and can therefore benefit from general measures which regulate activities in such areas and aim to prevent deterioration in water quality.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Information is limited, but it is clear that a number of the more prominent members of this habitat are relatively long lived, and fairly slow growing such as sea fans and cup corals. It may be concluded that because of this communities which they dominate will be relatively stable with time, but that when they are damaged recovery to their original complexity may be slow. This recovery will be hindered by the fact that for a number of species recruitment can be very spasmodic, particularly for species near the limits of their geographical range.

Summary:
This habitat develops in extremely wave-exposed to exposed conditions where circalittoral bedrock and boulders are subject to strong or very strong tidal streams. It is typically found in tidal straits and narrows and is characterised by species that are capable of maintaining a foothold under these conditions. The habitat is sensitive to increased silitation and smothering, and algal blooms are also known to have had an impact. There are few conservation and management measures specifically directed at this habitat. Some are within designated protected areas and can therefore benefit from general measures which regulate activities in such areas and aim to prevent deterioration in water quality.

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).   
Lundälv, T. 1996. Project Väderöarna: 10-åarsjubilerande rekordhällare I havsövervakning. Havsutsikt 1: 10.
Lundälv, T. and Christie, H. 1986. Comparative trends and ecological patterns of rocky subtidal communities in the Swedish and Norwegian Skagerrak area. Hydrobiologia 142: 71-80.
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.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic.This habitat has 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 therefore it does not have a restricted geographical distribution. The AOO has been estimated as 39 indicating it is only present in a small number of 10 x 10km grid squares but this is known to be an underestimate. There is a lack of information on trends.
The known 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 under criteria B1 (a,b) and B2 (a,b) for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

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

Synthesis:
There is a lack of comprehensive information on the distribution and abundance of this habitat in the North East Atlantic however as it is known to occur in locations as widely separated as the Azores, the west coast of Ireland, St.Kilda to the west of the Outer Hebrides, and the east coast of Shetland it is not considered to have a small natural range or occur in just a few locations.There is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity and quality.
This habitat has large EOO and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B1. The AOO figure is known to be an underestimate. Given the lack of information on trends in quantity and quality, and the fact that the overall distribution is unknown, expert opinion is this habitat should be considered Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Description:
Rare, extremely local and isolated, cushion-forming scrubs, often with spiny species, located in the clifftops of rocky coastal stretches, dispersed along the coasts of south Portugal, Northeast Spain and southern France, the Balearic and Thyrrenian Islands (Corsica, Sardinia, Malta and Pantellaria) up to the southern Italian Peninsula (Gulf of Taranto). It is submitted to the constant wind actions and to the salinity transported by the spray reaching particularly during the strong wind episodes. The rocky shallow soils and the steep slopes prevent from further development of vegetation, being considered this habitat as a permanent community of coastal clifftops in the Mediterranean area. These clifftop scrubs are characterized by irregular cover at their optimal phases, depending on the slope and the soil depth. Most of the stands of this habitat are quite inaccessible and the threats seem so be low.
Indicators of quality:
• no signals of human activity: trampling, building, trash, etc.
• presence and abundance of narrow-endemic species
Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Anthyllis fulgurans, Anthyllis hermanniae subsp. hystrix, Armeria ruscinonensis Astragalus balearicus, Astragalus massiliensis, Centaurea balearica, Centaurea horrida, Euphorbia pithyusa, Genista acanthoclada subsp. sardoa, Genista corsica, Genista morisii, Helichrysum italicum, Helichrysum saxatile subsp. errerae, Launaea cervicornis, Matthiola pulchella, Plantago subulatum, Sarcopoterium spinosum, Teucrium subspinosum, Thymelaea hirsuta.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F7.1 West Mediterranean coastal garrigue
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Anthyllion hermanniae Klein 1972,
Hypericion balearici O. Bolòs & R. Molinier 1958
Launaeion cervicornis (O. Bolòs & Vigo ex Y. Gil & Llorens 1995) Rivas-Martínez, Fernández-González & 1999
Rosmarinion officinalis Br.-Bl. ex Molinier 1934
Annex 1:
5320 Low formations of Euphorbia close to cliffs;
5410 West Mediterranean clifftop phryganas (Astragalo-Plantaginetum subulatae);
5430 Endemic phryganas of the Euphorbio-Verbascion p.p. (only the western subtypes)
Emerald:
F5.517 Coastal Helichrysum garrigues
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 habitat type is exclusively restricted to some coastal areas in the western Mediterranean.

Map Description:
The map likely provides the complete distribution of the habitat, with maybe some data gaps in Sicily and the southern Italian Peninsula. Data sources: Art17, EVA.

Trends in Quantity:
There is a slight decrease due to various constructions in the coastal areas.

Trends in Quality:
A slight decrease can be reported due to human visitors influence

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Possibly this habitat is also present in northewestern Africa; we can estimate that 60% of its current distribution is inside the EU28

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The extant distribution range has not suffered a strong reduction.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The natural area of this habitat is geographically broad but it is located to  special topographic positions (cliffs), usually occupying small surfaces.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is subjected to low pressures / threats due to the inaccessible sites where it is established and only some dispersed housing, as well as some walking and climbing activity could affect it.

Conservation and Management:
Preventing from building in the coastal strip as well as ordering the leisure activities of walking and climbing

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The reconstruction of this habitat after severe damage seems to be very difficult at least in a relatively short period of time

Summary:
This rare scrub, dominated by often spiny cushion plants, is confined to rocky cliff tops in parts of the western Mediterranean, from southern Portugal to the Balearic and Thyrrenian islands. Shallow rocky soils on steep slopes, constant winds and salt spray limit further succession and the threats are confined to recreation and tourist infrastructure.

References:
Bacchetta G., Bagella S., Biondi E., Farris E., Filigheddu R., Mossa L. 2009. Vegetazione forestale e serie di vegetazione della Sardegna (con rappresentazione cartografica alla scala 1:350.000). Fitosociologia 46 (1) suppl. I: 3-82.
Blasi C. (ed.), 2010. La vegetazione d’Italia, Carta delle Serie di Vegetazione, scala 1:500 000. Palombi & Partner S.r.l. Roma.
Bolòs, O. de, 1996. La vegetació de les illes Balears. Comunitats de plantes. Arxius Secc. Ci. Inst. Estud. Catalans 114: 1-267.
Bolòs, O. De & Molinier, R., 1958. Recherches Phytosociologiques dans L’île de Majorque. Collect. Bot. (Barcelona) 5(3): 699-865.
Bolòs, O. de, Molinier, R. & Montserrat, P., 1970. Observations phytosociologiques dans l’Ille de Minorque. Acta Botánica Barcinonensia 5: 1-150 (Commun. Stat. Inst. Géobot. Médit. Montpellier 191).
Rivas-Martínez, S., M. Costa, P. Soriano, R. Pérez Badia, L. Llorens & J. Rosselló (1992).- Datos sobre el paisaje vegetal de Mallorca e Ibiza (Islas Baleares, España). Itinera Geobot. 6: 5-98.

Criterion A Text:
The reduction in quantity is very slight due to the inaccessible topographic conditions of the habitat.

Criterion B Text:
The geographical extent is large and the number of sites reported is high

Criterion C/D Text:
The reduction in quality has been moderate and in many sites inexistent

Synthesis:
The assessment results on the basis of the main criteria (A1,B1,C/D1) lead  to the Least Concern category, due to the topographic self-defensive position of this habitat. However, if degraded, the recovery is difficult because the habitat is a low resiliency type adapted to high stressing conditions.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
No relevant sub-habitats have been recognized.

Contributors:
Description: J. Loidi
Territorial Data: O. Argagnon, S. Bagella, J. Capelo, 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 Type Name:
F7.4a Western Mediterranean mountain hedgehog-heath

Habitat Description:
This habitat consists of scrub or shrubby vegetation dominated by prostrate ligneous plants of pulviniform habit, i.e. simulating a hedgehog. They live in high mountainous areas, mostly in upper supra- and oro-mediterranean levels, usually between 1,600 and 2,300 m Aslin mountains of the central and southern Iberian Peninsula. This habitat type is presentin the siliceous mountains (Cytision oromediterranei, Genisto versicoloris-Juniperion hemisphaericae) and in the calcareous ones (Pruno prostratae-Juniperion sabinae, Xeroacantho-Erinaceion anthyllidis); while in the dolomitic substrata of the Baetic ranges, the endemic-rich alliance Andryalion aghardii is represented. Junipers and hedgehog legumes, often spiny, are the dominant and representative elements of this habitat, which is adapted to conditions of cold and drought typical of the Mediterranean mountains. The flora is rich in narrow endemics due to speciation, which is enhanced by isolation between mountain summits. Endemics are much more numerous on limestone or dolomite than in siliceous substrata. This habitat type constitutes, in most of the stands, the potential natural vegetation of the oro-mediterranean belt but there are also secondary, anthropo-zoogenic downslope extensions of the high-altitude formations which can be considered seral scrubs; at these lower altitudes, the primary stands of this habitat are in the crests and steep slopes. Due to human influence (grazing, burning), those extensions have historically increased and currently occupy somewhat larger areas than they would under strictly natural conditions. This habitat type has been traditionally used by an extensive husbandry with local transhumance of sheep and goat herds moving along the different altitudinal levels, and thus leading to a moderate grazing pressure.
Indicators of good quality:
In optimal conditions, this type shows a structure of dense scrub or shrubland of high to medium cover with prominent cushion shaped (hedgehog) ligneous plants in mosaic with a grassland of hard grasses in the open spaces. The following characteristics may be considered as indicators of good quality:
Abundance of endemics, including threatened species.
High to medium cover of vascular plant vegetation, particularly prostrate shrubs and chamaephytes.
Absence of signals of disturbance by trampling, skiing or burning.
Absence of ruderal, nutrient-demanding species.

Characteristic species:
Vascular plants: Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. microcephala, Arenaria alfacarensis, Armeria lanceobracteata, Artemisia villosa, Astragalus nevadensis subsp. andresmolinae, Astragalus nevadensis subsp. muticus, Astragalus nevadensis subsp. nevadensis, Astragalus sempervirens subsp. giennensis, Bupleurum spinosum, Centaurea boissieri subsp. funkii, Cytisus balansae subsp. nevadensis, Cytisus oromediterraneus, Echinospartum barnadesii var. hirsutum, Echinospertum ibericum subsp. pulviniformis, Erinacea anthyllis, Genista longipes subsp. gadorensis, Genista longipes subsp. longipes, Genista longipes subsp. viciosoi, Genista sanabrensis, Genista versicolor, Hippocrepis castroviejoi, Hippocrepis nevadensis, Juniperus alpina, Juniperus hemispaherica, Juniperus sabina, Prunus prostrata, Satureja intricata, Scabiosa andryalifolia, Sideritis carbonellis, Sideritis giennensis, Sideritis glacialis subsp. virens, Teucrium lerrouxii, Teucrium oxylepis, Thymus gadorensis, Vella castrilensis, Vella spinosa, Veronica tenuifolia subsp. fontqueri. Dolomitic species: Andryala aghardii, Anthyllis rupestris, Anthyllis tejedensis, Arenaria caesia, Arenaria racemosa, Arenaria tomentosa, Armeria trevenqueana, Armeria villosa subsp. longiaristata, Centaurea ginesii-lopezii, Chamaespartium undulatum, Convolvulus boissieri, Erodium boissieri, Erysimum cazorlense, Festuca plicata, Festuca segimonensis, Fumana procumbens subsp. baetica, Globularia spinosa, Hedysarum costatalentis, Helianthemum frigidulum, Helianthemum neopiliferum, Helianthemum pannosum, Jasione crispa subsp. segurensis, Leucanthemopsis spathulifolia, Lithodora nitida, Ononis cephalotes, Rothmaleria granatensis, Santolina elegans, Scabiosa pulsatilloides, Scorzonera albicans, Silene boryi subsp. tejedensis, Thymus granatensis.

Classification:
EUNIS:
F7.4a Western Mediterranean mountain hedgehog heaths
EuroVegChecklist (alliances):
Cytision oromediterranei Tüxen in Tüxen & Oberdorfer 1958 corr. Rivas-Martínez 1987
Genisto versicoloris-Juniperion hemisphaericae Rivas-Martínez & J.A.Molina in Rivas-Martínez et al. 1999
Pruno prostratae-Juniperion sabinae Rivas-Martínez & J.A.Molina in Rivas-Martínez et al. 1999
Xeroacantho-Erinaceion anthyllidis (Quézel 1953) O.Bolós 1967
Andryalion aghardii Rivas-Martínez in Rivas Goday & Mayor 1966 (dolomitic substrata in Baetic ranges)
Annex 1:
4090 Endemic oro-Mediterranean heaths with gorse
5120 Mountain Cytisus purgans formations
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:
The subalpine (oromediterranean) belt of the mountains in the Mediterranean regions is covered with heaths of this type, as a responde to the climatic conditions of the high mountain combined with drought stress.

Map Description:
The map possibly over-estimates the distribution a bit. Data sources: NAT, Art17

Comment EU28:
Mostly in mountains of the Iberian Peninsula

Comment EU28+:
Mostly in mountains of the Iberian Peninsula

Trends in Quantity:
The area of this habitat seems to have remained very stable during past years and it is expected that it will have slight variations in the near future.

Trends in Quality:
The quality of this habitat seems to have remained very stable during past years and it is expected that it will have slight variations in the near future. However, this is a climate-dependent type and climate warming can affect it.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Taking into account that the north African mountains Rif and Atlas contain an important share of this habitat type, it is estimated that around 40% of the current total distribution of this habitat lies within the EU.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The habitat has a reduced area not following regression but due to its intrinsical restricted distribution.

Justification of Restricted Area:
The range of the habitat is small due to its ecological requirements as it occupies the oro- belt of the Mediterranean mountains, which is a relatively restricted area.

Pressures and Threats:
The main threats to this habitat are related to the influence of human visitors, which extensively affect the habitat area through the creation of tracks for hikers, mountain-bikes, quads, etc. Sky resorts are another important threat which is severely damaging these restricted areas. Some areas have been damaged by pine plantations, usually of Pinus sylvestris. Additionally, climate change poses another potential threat, as is the case with most of the cold adapted habitats and species.

Conservation and Management:
Control of skiing activities and the development of associated resorts (i.e. stop erecting new buildings, parking lots, roads, sky tracks, etc). Stopping the process of planting pines and other conifers is required, together with a restriction on the building of roads and tracks for 4x4 vehicles and a restriction of access for mountain-bikes, motorcycles and quads.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
4090: ALP FV, ATL FV, MED FV
5120: ALP FV, ATL FV, MED FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Due to the effects of climate change, the recovery capacity of this habitat type after a severe damage is slow, needing several decades to recover.

Summary:
This habitat with vegetation dominated by prostrate ligneous plants of hedgehog habit occurs in high mountainous areas in the central and southern Iberian Peninsula. It is adapted to the cold and drought typical of such situations and the flora is rich in narrow endemics, especially ion base-rich substrates, due to speciation, enhanced by isolation between mountain summits. It is mostly a natural habitat of crests and steep slopes but grazing and burning have extended its occurrence downslope as secondary vegetation. Traditionally used in extensive husbandry with local transhumance of sheep and goat herds moving along the different altitudinal levels, grazing pressure was moderate. This habitat type is relatively self-protected as it occurs in high mountains where human pressure is usually low but ski resorts and other leisure activities continue to threaten and  their development should be restricted. In other areas, conifer plantations endanger the habitat. Climatic warming might also affect this cold-adapted habitat.

References:
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1948. La végétation alpine des Pyrénées orientales. Barcelona: Monografías de la Estación de Estudios Pirenaicos y del Instituto Español de Edafología, Ecología y Fisiología Vegetal.
Fernández Prieto, J. A. 1983. Aspectos geobotánicos de la Cordillera Cantábrica. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid 39(2): 489-513.
Martínez-Parras, J.M., Peinado, M. and Alcaraz, F. 1987. Comunidades vegetales de Sierra Nevada (España). Serv. Publ. Univ. Alcalá de Henares. 74 pp. Alcalá de Henares.
Molero Mesa, J. 1988. La vegetación en los pisos supra y oromediteráneo del sector Nevadense. Monografías de Flora y Vegetación Béticas 3:143-152.
Molero Mesa, J. 1999. The vegetation of Sierra Nevada. Itinera Geobotanica 13: 105-118.
Navarro, G. 1989. Contribución al conocimiento de la vegetación del Moncayo. Opuscula Botanica Pharmaciae Complutensis 5: 5-6.
Quèzel, P. 1953. Contribution à l'etude phytosociologique et géobotanique de la Sierra Nevada. Memorias da Sociedade Broteriana 9:5-77.
Rivas-Martínez, S., Belmonte, M. D., Cantó, P., Fernández-González, F., Fuente, V., Moreno, J. M., Sánchez-Mata, D. and Sancho, L. G. 1987. Piornales, enebrales y pinares oromediterráneos (Pino-Cytision oromediterranei) en el Sistema Central. Lazaroa 7: 93-124.
Sánchez-Mata, D. 1989. Flora y vegetación del macizo oriental de la sierra de Gredos (Ávila). Diputación Provincial de Ávila. 440 p.
Sardinero, S., 2004. Flora y vegetación del macizo occidental de la Sierra de Gredos (Sistema Central, España). Guineana 10: 1-474.

Criterion A Text:
There has been a decline in this habitat type of 7.6% for the past 50 years, as a result of the building of roads, parking lots and hotels for ski resorts, which has happened locally but whose impact has been severe in a few areas. A future decline of 5 % is projected considering that the development of ski resorts and other infrastractures is progressing quickly. As the percentages of reduction are below the thresholds for threatened Categories, the habitat type is therefore assessed as Least Concern.

Criterion B Text:
The EOO and AOO exceeds the thresholds for a threatened Category, but there is a continuing decline in spatial extent. It is unknown whether the habitat type exists only at very few locations. Thus, the habitat type is assessed as Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C/D Text:
The habitat type has experienced a decline in quality with a relative severity of 25%, affecting 4.4% of the extent, being thus assessed as Least Concern under Criterion C/D. This reduction in quality is the result of leisure and sport activities such as hiking, horse riding, mountain bike, motorcycles, quads, etc. Climate change has also favored the introgression of some species from lower levels of altitude.

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

Synthesis:
This habitat is assessed as Least Concern as it occurs in high mountains and it is relatively self-protected, and the fact that it has not declined fast enough to qualify for a threatened Category. However, the development of infrastructures for ski resorts and the use of tracks by hikers and mountain-bikes, together with as the construction of the road network, have substantially increased the threats to this habitat. Additionally, in some areas there has been also important artificial plantations of pines (mostly Pinus sylvestris), which makes the situation less optimistic for the next future, in combination with the expected effects of climate change. Therefore this habitat type should be monitored carefully, and conservation measures should be put in place to further protect it.

Contributors:
Habitat description: J. Loidi
Territorial data: O. Argagnon, J.A. Campos, J. Capelo, D. Espírito-Santo
Working Group Heathland & Scrub: M. Aronsson, F. Bioret, C. Bita-Nicolae, J. Capelo, A. ÄŒarni, P. Dimopoulos, J. Janssen, J. Loidi


Habitat Type Name:
A4.13 Mixed faunal turf communities on high energy Atlantic upper circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat type occurs on wave-exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders, sometimes on vertical or steep slopes, subject to tidal streams ranging from strong (3-6 kn) to moderately strong (1-3 kn). The rocky outcrops may be surrounded by coarse sediment, for example shelly gravel or muddy gravel. The majority of the organisms are filter feeders, depending on suspended material in the water column and providing important water quality regulation and nutrient cycling services. Amongst others, sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, ascidians and sea-anemones, whose functional roles are of high importance, form these communities. Slow-growing complex biogenic structures created by hydroids, bryozoans and sponges modify the flow of currents, consolidate sediments and provide a three-dimensional habitat to a multitude of associated 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:
This habitat is characterised by a diverse range of hydroids (Halecium halecinum, Nemertesia antennina and Nemertesia ramosa), bryozoans (Alcyonidium diaphanum, Flustra foliacea, Bugula flabellata and Bugula plumosa) and sponges (Scypha ciliata, Pachymatisma johnstonia, Cliona celeta, Raspailia ramosa, Esperiopsis fucorum, Hemimycale columella and Dysidea fragilis) forming an often dense, mixed faunal turf. Other species found within this complex are Alcyonium digitatum, Urticina felina, Sagartia elegans, Actinothoe sphyrodeta, Caryophyllia smithii, Corynactis viridis, Pomatoceros triqueter, Balanus crenatus, Cancer pagurus, Necora puber, Asterias rubens, Echinus esculentus and Clavelina lepadiformis.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.1).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient information on the characteristics of this habitat (including its associated biotopes) or on its distribution and extent to determine whether it is typical of North East Atlantic region.

Trends in Quantity:
The extent of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region and any trends (historical, recent or estimated future) are unknown.

Trends in Quality:
The extent of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region is unknown and there is insufficient information on any trends in quality to estimate any historical, current or future trends.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
There is a lack of detailed information on the extent of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. However as it is known to occur in locations as widely separated as the Atlantic coast of France, Ireland and Sweden, it is not considered to have a

Justification of Restricted Area:
There is a lack of information on the extent of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. However as it is known to occur in locations as widely separated as the Atlantic coast of France, Ireland and Sweden, it is not considered to have a small nat

Pressures and Threats:
Pressures and threats have  been described in general terms for this habitat. They include activities which may result in abrasion of the epifauna, or lead to changes in community composition as a response to poor water quality (from organic based effluents such as sewage or intensive fish farming), or due to contamination by heavy metals, pesticides or other potential toxins. Increased turbidity and sedimentation will also affect the characteristic species as they are adapted to high energy conditions.

Conservation and Management:
No conservation measures that specifically target this habitat have been identified, however it is present within some Marine Protected Areas and may therefore be protected through measures that limit potentially damaging activities e.g. by zoning fishing activities, regulation of discharges to the marine environment and setting limits of activities such as dredging which increase turbidity.

Summary:
This habitat occurs on wave-exposed circalittoral bedrock and boulders, subject to tidal streams. The slow-growing complex biogenic structures created by the associated hydroids, bryozoans and sponges, modify the flow of currents, consolidate sediments and provide a three-dimensional habitat to a multitude of associated species. Pressures and threats have been described in general terms and include activities which may result in abrasion of the epifauna, or lead to changes in community composition as a response to poor water quality and increased turbidity and sedimentation. No conservation measures that specifically target this habitat have been identified however it is present within some Marine Protected Areas and may therefore be protected through associated management measures that limit potentially damaging activities.

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: 22/08/2014).
MESMA. 2010. Monitoring and Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas. Marine Policy 37: 149-164. 
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.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity 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, 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 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking. It is known to be widespread (e.g. present in the Azores, Atlantic coast of France, the UK and Sweden), exceeding thresholds of EOO and AOO for Red Listing, but 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 given the lack of information on its trends in quantity and quality and the fact that its overall distribution is unknown.

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.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.21 Echinoderms and crustose communities on moderate energy Atlantic upper circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on wave-exposed, moderately strong to weakly tide-swept, circalittoral bedrock and boulders. Echinoderms, faunal and algal crusts (red encrusting algae) dominate, giving a sparse appearance. It occurs from depths, where the light becomes insufficient for macroalgae down to about 100 meters although occasionally also encountered in deeper water.
On vertical faces there may be dense aggregations of the cup coral Caryophyllia smithii, large expanses of encrusting red algae or, in conditions of moderate exposure, the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum. The sea fan Swiftia pallida can be present on silty substratum and the anemone Urticina feline and the sponge Ciocalypta penicillus at the sand-rock interface. The polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter can be locally abundant, and may in some cases cover far more rock surface than A. digitatum, especially on vertical faces. Clumps of robust hydroids such as Abietinaria abietina and Nemertesia antennina occur occasionally.
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:
Echinoderms Echinus esculentus, Asterias rubens, Henricia sanguinolenta, Ophiothrix fragilis, Antedon bifida, the anemones, Cortynactis viridis, Metridium senile and Sagartia elegans, the ascidians Clavelina lepadiformis, Ciona intestinalis and Ascidia mentula, the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum.  Also the cup coral Caryophyllia smithii, mollusc Calliostoma zizyphinum, the edible crab Cancer pagurus and occasional hydroids such as Abietinaria abietina and Nemertesia antennina. At the sand/rock interface Urticina feline, Ciocalypta penicillus and the polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.2)
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Trends in Quality:
The trends in quality for this habitat are unknown.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is vulnerable to abrasion from bottom towed gears, usually as a consequence of fishing at sediment-rock boundaries. Nearby maintenance and capital dredging may have indirect effects through changes in sediment and hydrological regimes. A potential change in the hydrological regimes, may affect the salinity, oxygen and temperature levels, which in turn will affect the overall distribution of the marine organisms. The deposition and dumping of dredged deposits will result in the increase of water turbidity and smothering. Similarly, coastal construction and coastal protection works, can increase smothering, lead to anoxia, change hydrological regimes, lead to the bio-accumulation of dangerous chemicals, and overall, negatively impact this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat would include regulation of fishing methods to reduce physical damage and incidental siltation, coastal development, and dredging and dumping of dredge spoils. This may be promoted in management schemes for Marine Protected Areas or integrated coastal management schemes. Measures to maintain water quality would also be beneficial.

Summary:
This habitat occurs on wave-exposed circalittoral bedrock, in depths where the light becomes insufficient for macroalgae development. The associated communites mainly consist of echinoderms, faunal and algal crusts (red encrusting algae) giving it a sparse appearance. On vertical faces there may be dense aggregations of the cup coral Caryophyllia smithii, large expanses of encrusting red algae or, in conditions of moderate exposure, the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum. The polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter can be locally abundant, and may in some cases cover far more rock surface than A. digitatum, especially on vertical faces. Clumps of robust hydroids such as Abietinaria abietina and Nemertesia antennina occur occasionally.
Abrasion from bottom towed gears and proximity to maintenance and capital dredging operations are the main pressures that are likely to impact the structure and functioning of this habitat. Beneficial management measures would include regulation of fishing methods to reduce physical damage and incidental siltation, coastal development, and dredging and dumping of dredge spoils. Such measures have been introduced independently as well as under the framework of Marine Protected Areas and integrated coastal management plans.

References:
Connor, D. W., Allen, J. H., Golding, N, Howell, K. L., Lieberknecht, L. M., Northen K. O. and Reker, J. B. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough. ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view [online]. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp [accessed August 2014].
HELCOM. 2013. HELCOM Red List Biotope information sheet, Red List Biotope Expert Group. http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20 Red%20List%20AB.A1G2,%20AB.M1G2.pdf
Marlin.ac.uk. 2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. [online] Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitats.php [Accessed 18 Nov. 2015]
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira andGonçalves, J.2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Adding new Macaronesian habitat types from the Azores to the EUNIS Habitat Classification. Technical Report No. 4/2013 - MeshAtlantic, IMAR/DOP-UAç, Horta, 126pp.

Synthesis:
There are a lack of quantitative data on extent and condition of this habitat. Although it is known to be widespread, exceeding thresholds of EOO and AOO for Red Listing, 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 because of the lack of information on area and any trends in quantity and quality.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.22 Sabellaria reefs on moderate energy Atlantic circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on moderately wave-exposed, circalittoral bedrock, boulders and cobbles subject to moderately strong tidal streams and is characterised by dense crusts on the upper faces of the hard surfaces formed by the sandy tubes of the polychaete worm Sabellaria spinulosa. In some cases the S.spinulosa may completely cover the rock, binding gravel and pebbles together. A diverse fauna may be found attached to and sometimes obscuring the crust, often reflecting the character of surrounding biotopes. There is usually no significant raised reef area.
Indicators of quality:
The condition of S. spinulosa reefs can be judged in different ways. For instance: the areal extent of the reef, its spatial patchiness, temporal stability, or number of associated species. Categorisation of condition may also consider a combination of these parameters. At present there is no consensus of approach or accepted yardstick against which to compare condition of individual reefs. Further to this, evidence suggests that S. spinulosa reefs may repeatedly develop and decline in a regular succession, through resettlement and demise of successive generations. An apparent deterioration in condition may therefore be natural and not necessarily reflective of an anthropogenic impact. The apparently ephemeral nature of S. spinulosa reefs is such that the condition of S. spinulosa reef habitat should be considered at a wider scale than individual reefs.
Characteristic species:
S.spinulosa. Other fauna present in many cases reflects the biotopes found on nearby rock, Infauna typically comprises polychaete species such as Protodorvillea kefersteini, Scoloplos armiger, Harmothoe spp., Mediomastus fragilis, Lanice conchilega and cirratulids together with the bivalves Abra alba and Nucula spp. and tube-building amphipods such as Ampelisca spp. Epifauna comprise calcareous tubeworms, pycnogonids, hermit crabs, amphipods, hydroids, bryozoans, sponges and ascidians. Species typically present include the bryozoans Flustra foliacea, Alcyonidium diaphanum and Pentapora foliacea, the hydroid Nemertesia antennina, the sponges Tethya aurantium and Phorbas fictitius, the anemones Urticina felina and Sagartia elegans, and the ascidians Distomus variolosus, Polycarpa pomaria and Polycarpa scuba. The barnacle Balanus crenatus, the polychaetes Pomatoceros triqueter and Salmacina dysteri, the starfish Crossaster papposus, and Alcyonium digitatum may also be recorded. The porcelain crab Pisidia longicornis can be very dominant on S.spinulosa reefs.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.2).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
9.3 Subtidal loose rock/pebble/gravel

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient information on the characteristics of this habitat  or on its distribution and extent to determine whether it is typical of North East Atlantic region.

Trends in Quantity:
The difficulty in detecting and categorising S. spinulosa reef structures, their spatially patchy distribution and their temporal instability all add to uncertainty about the current distribution and quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. The current area of reef has been estimated in some locations (e.g. off the Norfolk coast of the UK), but these figures do not distinguish between the occurrence of S.spinulosa on predominantly soft sediment and this habitat where it is associated with  pebbles, cobbles, boulders and rock. An added complication is that trends and longevity can be related to the stability of the substraturm.  Longer lasting reefs might be limited to more stable substratum while thin crust like forms are probably annual or transient features and may break up during winter storms.

Trends in Quality:
There is a lack of information on any trends in quality of this habitat because of the difficulty in detecting and categorising S. spinulosa reef structures, no widely agreed quality indicators, their spatially patchy distribution and their temporal instability.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Unknown. Typically limited to areas with very high levels of suspended sediment.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The species S.spinulosa is widely distributed in the North East Atlantic however densely aggregated reef structures are relatively rare according to OSPAR , and are typically restricted to areas with high levels of suspended sediment in t

Justification of Restricted Area:
The species S.spinulosa is widely distributed in the North East Atlantic. However densely aggregated reef structures are relatively rare  according to OSPAR, and are typically restricted to areas with high levels of suspend

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to physical pressures, most particularly the removal of substratum, abrasion, penetration and sub-surface disturbance. These actions can lead to physical loss of habitat, as well as damage to the worm tubes which cannot reattach once dislodged, or rebuild their tubes if removed from them.  Changes in siltation rates may result in sub-lethal and lethal damage to worms through smothering.  
A long-term decrease in water flow may reduce the viability of populations by limiting growth and tube development because under such circumstances, S. spinulosa is likely to suffer a reduction in the supply of suspended food and particles that are integral for growth and repair

Conservation and Management:
Management of marine activities and, in particular, certain fishing practices will be important in preventing further threat and decline of this habitat. Known reef areas could be protected through site safeguard. It should also be noted that as the larvae are strongly stimulated to metamorphose and settle on the tubes of both living and dead worms, conservation management could usefully be directed towards the protection of both living and dead reefs. Zoning to ensure that aggregate extraction does not take place on reef habitats is another management option and will depend on sufficient knowledge of the distribution of reef habitat.
Management proposals need to reflect the dynamic nature of reefs which can colonise, evolve and degrade rapidly. Research into the stability, rate of establishment, and recovery of damaged reefs will also be important as will better knowledge of the environmental conditions under which they do so and natural variation in extent, density and population structure of S.spinulosa reefs.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1170: MATL U2, MMAC FV
 
OSPAR have listed S.spinulosa reefs as a threatened and/or declining habitat in Regions II and III (North Sea and Celtic Sea)

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
There is limited information on reef longevity, stability and recovery however S.spinulosa is known to be a fast growing species which can recolonise quickly.  Recruitment rates are high and recovery could be quite rapid as this species is often one of the first to settle on newly exposed surfaces. Existing tubes strongly stimulate settlement.

Summary:
The species Sabellaria spinulosa is widely distributed in the North East Atlantic, but densely aggregated reef structures are believed to be relatively rare and are typically restricted to areas with high levels of suspended sediment in the North Sea and Celtic Sea.This habitat occurs on moderately wave-exposed, circalittoral bedrock, boulders and cobbles subject to moderately strong tidal streams and is characterised by dense crusts on the upper faces of the hard surfaces formed by the sandy tubes of the polychaete worm S. spinulosa. In some cases the S.spinulosa may completely cover the rock, binding gravel and pebbles together.  
This habitat is senstive to physical pressures, most particularly the removal of substratum, abrasion, penetration and sub-surface disturbance.  Changes in siltation rates may result in sub-lethal and lethal damage to worms through smothering while reduced water flows can reduction in the supply of suspended food and particles that are integral for growth and repair. Management of marine activities and, in particular, bottom gears will be important in preventing further threat and decline of this habitat. Known and former reef areas could be protected through site safeguard. Zoning to ensure that aggregate extraction does not take place on reef habitats is another management option. Management proposals need to reflect the dynamic nature of reefs which can colonise, evolve and degrade rapidly. Research into the stability, rate of establishment, and recovery of damaged reefs will also be important as will better knowledge of the environmental conditions under which they do so and natural variation in extent, density and population structure of S.spinulosa reefs.

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). 
Gibb, N., Tillin, H., Pearce, B. and Tyler-Walters, H. 2014. Assessing the sensitivity of Sabellaria spinulosa reef biotopes to pressures associated with marine activities. JNCC Report No. 504.
Gubbay, S. 2007. Defining and managing Sabellaria spinulosa reefs: Report of an inter-agency workshop. JNCC report No.405.
Hendrick, V. J. & Foster-Smith, R. L. 2006. Sabellaria spinulosa reef: a scoring system for evaluating ‘reefiness’ in the context of the Habitats Directive. J.Mar.Biol.Ass.UK. 86: 665-677.
Holt, T.J.Hartnoll, R.G. and Hawkins, S.J. 1997. Sensitivity and vulnerability to man-induced changes of selected communities. Intertidal Brown Algal Shrubs, Zostera beds and Sabellaria spinulosa reefs. English Nature Research Report 234.
Holt, T.J., Rees, E.I.,Hawkins,S.J. & Seed, R. 1998. Biogenic reefs (Volume IX). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project), p.170. 
Limpenny, D. S., Foster-Smith, R. L., Edwards, T. M., et al. 2010. Best methods for identifying andevaluating Sabellaria spinulosa and cobble reef. Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund Project.
MAL. 2008. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 134 pp., ISBN - 978 0 907545 33 0.
OSPAR. 2013. Background document of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs. Southampton: OSPAR Commission 614/2013. 24pp. Availiable at: http://www.ospar.org/documents?v=7342. (Accessed: 13/08/2014).
Pearce, B., Hill, J. Wilson,C. et al. 2013. Sabellaria spinulosa Reef Ecology and Ecosystem Services. London: The Crown Estate, p.118.

Criterion A Text:
The difficulty in detecting and categorising S. spinulosa reef structures, their spatially patchy distribution and their temporal instability all add to uncertainty about the current distribution and trends in quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic.  An added complication is that trends and longevity can be related to the stability of the substraturm.  Longer lasting reefs might be limited to more stable substrata while thin crust like forms are probably annual or transitent features and may break up during winter storms. This habitat has been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The species S.spinulosa is widely distributed in the North East Atlantic however densely aggregated reef structures are believed to be relatively rare and are typically restricted to areas with high levels of suspended sediment in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. 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 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The difficulty in detecting and categorising S. spinulosa reef structures, their spatially patchy distribution and their temporal instability all add to uncertainty about the current distribution, quantity and quality of this habitat in the North East Atlantic. The current area of reef has been estimated in some locations but not necessarily distinguishing between the occurrence of S.spinulosa on predominantly soft sediment and where it is associated with  pebbles, cobbles, boulders and rock.  An added complication is that trends and longevity can be related to the stability of the substratum.  Longer lasting reefs might be limited to more stable substrata while thin crust like forms are probably annual or transitent features and may break up during winter storms.
There is insufficient information to provide an overall estimate of the extent of this habitat and any historical, recent and possible future trends in quantity and quality. For the purposes of Red List assessment this habitat is therefore considered to be Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.23 Communities on Atlantic soft circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on moderately wave-exposed, circalittoral soft rock such as soft chalk, clay or peat exposures, in areas subject to moderately strong tidal streams. As it is found in highly turbid water conditions it can be present in shallow water and sometimes even around the low water mark. The associated biotopes may therefore sometimes be present in the infralittoral and even the littoral zone. Soft chalk and firm clay are often too soft for sessile filter-feeding animals to attach and thrive in large numbers, so there is generally an extremely impoverished epifauna, particularly on upward-facing surfaces. The vertical rock faces may be somewhat richer. The rock is sufficiently soft to be bored by bivalves such as Pholas dactylus, and by polychaete worms Polydora sp. which may form a complete cover in highly turbid conditions. Carbonate cemented structures formed by methane seeps ('bubbling reefs') are also examples of this habitat. These have been reported from the northern Kattegat and the Skagerrak where they are present as slabs or pillars up to 4m high and are colonised by anthozoans Metridium senile, Alcyonium digitatum and Tealia felina as well as species which bore into the surfaces such as the
sponge Cliona celata, the polychaete Dodocaceria concharum and the bivalve Hiatella sp. The three dimensional structures also provides shelter for mobile species such as crabs and lobster, cod and pollack.
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 beendetermined and applied on a location-specific basis.
Characteristic species:
This habitat is dominated by the piddock Pholas dactylus. Other typical species include the polychaete Polydora and Bispira volutacornis, the sponges Cliona celata and Suberites ficus, the bryozoan Flustra foliacea, Alcyonium digitatum, hydroids such as Sertularia cupressina, and Hydrallmania falcata, the starfish Asterias rubens, the mussel Mytilus edulis and the crab Necora puber and Cancer pagurus. Foliose red algae may also be present on the harder more stable areas of rock.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.2).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gas
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal .
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Current knowledge of the distribution of soft circalittoral rock habitats across the North East Atlantic region suggests that is unusual rather than a typical habitat in the region.

Trends in Quantity:
There is a lack of historical information on the extent of this habitat but sublittoral surveys, such as those mapping the extent of sublittoral chalk reefs around the British Isles since the 1980s, are providing some baseline data.  The most significant areas, in terms of extent, appear to be the sublittoral areas of chalk which extend offshore from Flamborough Head, on the east coast of England, for up to 6 km into water depths of over 30 m. The 20 mile long Cromer Shoals off the coast of East Anglia may the longest chalk reef feature in Europe. 
There is also a lack of data on the occurrence and extent of other soft rock habitat such as those associated with peat and clay beds although some descriptions from a limited number of locations. For example there were known to be significant areas of hard layers of peat on the Noord-Holland coast and on the Dogger Bank. For example there were known to be significant areas of hard layers of peat on the Noord-Holland coast and on the Dogger Bank. Locations of 'bubbling reefs' in the Kattegat and Skagerrak have long been known to fishermen due to fragments of the pillars becoming entangled in the nets.
The full extent of this habitat and any trends in quantity cannot be determined at the present time.

Trends in Quality:
Some locations where this habitat is present have been described in detail with species inventories that could be used to inform quality assessments in the future. Overall there is insufficient information to identify any recent or historical trends in quality of this habitat.

% of Distribution of the Habitat Type within the EU 28:
Unknown but likely to be more than 90% based on the distribution of coastal chalk in northern Europe.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range. Examples are the subtidal chalk reefs around the British Isles (e.g. Yorkshire, Norfolk and Northern Ireland) off the Channel coastline of France and England and around the island of Helgoland in the so

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range. Examples are the subtidal chalk reefs around the British Isles (e.g. Yorkshire, Norfolk and Sussex coasts) off the Channel coastline of France, the island of Helgoland in the southern North Sea and

Pressures and Threats:
Coastal defence works can cause both direct and indirect physical damage to this habitat, particuarly to areas of sublittoral peat and clay, through habitat loss and also alteration of sediment regimes. Maintenance and capital dredging operations are also a pressures as they may result in direct habitat removal or indirect damage through changes in sediment and hydrological regimes. Abrasion from bottom towed gears is also known to impact this habitat with trawling, bottom trawling or other fishing methods the major threat to bubbling reefs. Recreational activities such as SCUBA diving and other recreational
activities may also potentially harm the reef structures. Careless movements of the divers or divers touching the underwater structures could cause them to break.
Both peat and clay habitats are vulnerable to physical disturbance and smothering arising from dredge, mussel lay and mussel collection operations associated with commercial mussel fisheries.They are also  sensitive to increases in wave exposure, which can increase the rate of erosion of this habitat in shallow waters. There may therefore be future pressures associated with   predicted increased storminess associated with climate change.

Conservation and Management:
Examples of this habitat occur within Marine Protected Areas where there may be management measures to avoid damage. Useful measures would include limitations on activities which cause direct damage to the soft sediment, such as dredging or the use of towed demersal fishing gears.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Where the substrate is damaged this habitat is irreplaceable. Where the associated communities have been affected, timescales and ability to recover are unknown.

Summary:
This habitat occurs on moderately wave-exposed circalittoral soft rock, such as soft chalk, clay or peat exposures, in areas subject to moderately strong tidal streams, as well as on carbonate-cemented structures known as 'bubbling reefs'.  It is vulnerable to physical disturbance and damage from seabed activities such as dredging, cable laying and the use of heavy demersal towed fishing gears. The habitat is also sensitive to increases in wave exposure, which can increase the rate of erosion, especially where the habitat occurs in shallow waters. Predicted increased storminess asociated with climate change is therefore an additional pressure. Conservation measures both within and outside protected areas, such as limiting or prohibiting activities which damage or remove seabed communities, like bottom towed fishing gears or dredging, will benefit this habitat.

References:
Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N. et al. 2004. The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough. ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version).
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view [online]. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp [accessed August 2014].
HELCOM Biotope information sheet
http://helcom.fi/Red%20List%20of%20biotopes%20habitats%20and%20biotope%20complexe/HELCOM%20
Red%20List%201180%20Submarine%20structures%20made%20by%20leaking%20gases.pdf [Accessed
March 2016]

Jensen, P., Aagaard, I., R. A. Burke Jr, R.A. et al., 1992. 'Bubbling reefs' in the Kattegat: submarine
landscapes of carbonate-cemented rocks support a diverse ecosystem at methane seeps. Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 83:103-112.
Maddock, A. 2008. Biodiversity Action Plan. Priority Habitat Descriptions. Peat and Clay Exposures with Piddocks. UK Biodiversity Action PlanJoint Nature Conservation Committee. 
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment/Ministry of Economic Affairs 2012. Marine Strategy for the Netherlands part of the North Sea 2012-2020, Part 1. 136pp. The Hague, Netherlands. 
Spray, R. and Watson, D. 2011. North Norfolk's Chalk Reef. A report of marine surveys conducted by Seasearch East 50pp. Seasearch East.
Wood, C. 1992. Sublittoral chalk habitats in southern England. Reort of the MCS sE group. Chalk Cliffs project. Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye. 
Vahlendieck A.W. 1992. Das Witte Kliff von Helgoland Zur Geschichte seiner Zerstörung durch Steinbruchbetrieb. Verlag Norfriisk Instituut Bräist/ Bredstedt.

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient current or historical information about the area covered by this habitat to draw any conclusions about trends in quantity also there is known to have been damage to some of the associated biotopes in some locations ('bubbling reefs'). This habitat has therefore been assessed as 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 widespread distribution (e.g. sublittoral chalk habitat present on the south east and south coasts of the UK and the Channel coast of France and the island of Helgoland in the southern North Sea, and 'bubbling reefs' in the Kattegat). 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 because of the lack of information on any trends in quantity and quality and the fact that its overall distribution is unknown.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
Carbonate-cemented structures known as 'bubbling reefs'.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.24 Mussel beds on moderate energy Atlantic circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat occurs on moderately wave-exposed upper circalittoral bedrock subject to strong or moderately strong tidal streams. Mussels Mytilus edulis or Musculus discors can form dense beds, to the exclusion of other species, on the upper faces of bedrock, boulders and mixed substrata. The Musculus biotope occurs in much more wave sheltered and silted situations. There may also be an associated layer of pseudofaeces, forming a thick, silty matrix. 
Indicators of quality:
Both biotic and abiotic indicators have been used to describe marine habitat quality. These include: the presence of characteristic species as well as those which are sensitive to the pressures the habitat may face; water quality parameters; levels of exposure to particular pressure, and more integrated indices which describe habitat structure and function, such as trophic index, or successional stages of development in habitats that have a natural cycle of change over time.
There are no commonly agreed indicators of quality for this habitat, although particular parameters may have been set in certain situations e.g. protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis. The overall quality and continued occurrence of this habitat is, however, largely dependent on the presence of Mytilus edulis or Musculus discors which creates the biogenic structural complexity on which the characteristic associated communities depend. The density and the maintenance of a viable population of this species is a key indicator of habitat quality, together with the visual evidence of presence or absence of physical damage. However, beds of Mytilus edulis at least may disappear (most likely because of predation by starfish) but are likely to re-colonise at some time in the future (which may be several years) dependent on larval recruitment. 
Characteristic species:
This complex is characterised by dense aggregations of the mussels Mytilus edulis or Musculus discors carpeting the underlying substrata. Sponges that may be recorded in this complex are Scypha ciliata, Tethya aurantium, Pachymatisma johnstonia, Dysidea fragilis and Cliona celata. A sparse hydroid/bryozoan turf composed primarily of Nemertesia antennina, Alcyonidium diaphanum and Flustra foliacea is often recorded. Anemones present are Urticina felina and Sagartia elegans. Other species recorded are the crabs Cancer pagurus, Carcinus maenas and Necora puber, the starfish Crossaster papposus and Asterias rubens, and Alcyonium digitatum and in this upper circalittoral complex, algae species such as Dictyota dichotoma, Cryptopleura ramosa and Plocamium cartilagineum. The barnacle Balanus crenatus may be seen attached to the mussels themselves.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.2).
 
Annex 1:
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Mussel beds are often extensive and, for Mytilus edulis, are characteristic of North East Atlantic ecosystems.

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

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

Trends in Quantity:
Historical, recent and estimated future trends in quanity of this habitat are unknown.

Trends in Quality:
Historical, recent and estimated future trends in quality of this habitat are unknown.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
There are insufficient data to accurately map the extent of this habitat but it is not believed to have a small natural range. There are insufficient data to determine any declines during the last 50 years.

Justification of Restricted Area:
There are insufficient data to accurately map the extent of this habitat but it is not believed to have a small natural range.

Pressures and Threats:
The main pressures and threats on this habitat are associated with direct damage, removal and smothering of the associated biotopes. Musculus discors lives in fixed nests of byssus threads on the surface of the substratum. While the nest will protect the bivalve from the direct effects of smothering, they are unlikely to be able to burrow up through deposited spoil or other smothering agents. Thus, smothered individuals will probably succumb to the effects of anoxia. Trawling or dredging on subtidal rock can damage or dislodge mussels and remove other associated species, resulting in a decline in species richness but this unlikely to take place intentionally as exploitation of wild mussels from the circalittoral is likely to be unusual.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat is afforded protection within some Marine Protected Areas. Beneficial management measures include the regulation of fishing methods and the control of any activity which damages or disturbs seabed communities.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Mussels, as a generalisation, are considered to have a strong ability to recover from natural disturbance due to high production rates. The more firmly attached, stable communities on subtidal rock can have significantly more diverse associated communities (than those on mixed sediments); comprised of typically 50-100 species. Effects of mussel loss may therefore be significant at the community level, particularly as mussels settle preferentially on conspecifics and reduction of adults may reduce subsequent recruitment, although this relationship is poorly understood. Mussels are also likely to build up longer-lived beds on subtidal rock; Mytilus edulis has been reported as reaching 18-24 years in age in the Danish Wadden Sea. The MarLIN sensitivity reviews record the habitat as ‘Moderate’ or ‘low’ sensitivity to several pressures/activities.

Summary:
This habitat occurs on moderately wave-exposed upper circalittoral bedrock subject to strong or moderately strong tidal streams. Mussels Mytilus edulis or Musculus discors can form dense beds, to the exclusion of other species, on the upper faces of bedrock, boulders and mixed substrata. The information presented in this asssessment is predominantly based on Mytilus edulis beds.
This habitat is vulnerable to activities such trawling and dredging, as these can damage or dislodge the mussels or cause substratum loss. The habitat is also sensitive to smothering as the mussels, a characteristic species, are unlikely to be able to burrow up through deposited spoil or other smothering agents. However, mussel beds are often subject to natural predation by starfish and may 'disappear' from a location until a larval settlement and subsequent recovery occurs. Beneficial management and conservation measures for this habitat could potentially include some protection within Marine Protected Areas, and the regulation of dredging and fishing methods which damage or disturb seabed 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).
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. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).

Criterion A Text:
There is insufficient information to determine any trends in quantity of this habitat. It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The available information on the occurrence of this habitat is  limited. The existing data obtained from EMODnet suggests that it could potentially be considered  Near Threatened under Criterion B (EOO<50,000 km2, AOO≤10) if there were grounds for believing that this habitat was undergoing a decline in extent or quality. There are, however, no data on the present status or trends of this habitat and the accuracy of the mapping data cannot be verified at this time so the full distribution and extent is considered to be unknown.  This habitat is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
Experts consider there to be insufficient data on which to assess criteria C/D. It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criteria C/D.

Criterion E Text:
There is no quantitative analysis available to estimate the probability of collapse of this habitat type. It is therefore considered to be Data Deficient under criteria E.

Synthesis:
The available information on the occurrence of this habitat is limited. The existing data suggests that it could potentially be considered  Near Threatened under Criterion B if there were grounds for believing that this habitat was undergoing a decline in extent or quality. There are, however, no data on the present status or trends of this habitat and the accuracy of the mapping data cannot be verified at this time. This habitat is therefore considered to be Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Contributors:
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, and C. Karamita.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.25 Faunal communities on variable salinity Atlantic circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat type occurs on wave-sheltered, variable/reduced salinity bedrock and boulders, subject to moderately strong to weak tidal streams. There may be large growths of the brackish-tolerant sponge Halichondria bowerbanki. It is characterised by sponges tolerant of variable salinity, barnacles and a sparse hydroid and bryozoan turf. Especially where low salinity is frequently present, ‘groves’ of the peacock worm Sabella pavonina may be present. Beds of mussels, Mytilus edulis, may also be present but may be ephemeral.
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 supports a suite of sponge species able to tolerate the variable salinity conditions such as Hymeniacidon perleve, Suberites ficus, Halichondria panicea, Halichondria bowerbanki, Cliona celata and Leucosolenia botryoides. The tasselated form of the sponge Amphilectus fucorum and the filigree worm Salmacina dysteri are frequently present. The barnacle Balanus crenatus is frequently recorded in this complex. A sparse hydroid/bryozoan turf composed primarily of Nemertesia antennina, Nemertesia ramosa, Plumularia setacea, Alcyonidium diaphanum and Bugula plumosa is often recorded with seasonal occurrence of often dense Tubularia indivisa. Other species recorded are the ascidians Clavelina lepadiformis, Morchellium argus Distomus variolosus and Dendrodoa grossularia, the anemones Metridium senile and Sagartia troglodytes, the starfish Asterias rubens and the crab Carcinus maenas.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.2).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
9.10 Estuaries

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
This habitat and especially the associated biotope 'Cushion sponges and hydroids on tide-swept sheltered circalittoral rock (A4.251)' is typical of ria environments which are a characteristic physiographic feature of some inlets in south-west Britain and possibly in other locations on the western seaboard of Europe. It is a rare habitat in the North East Atlantic.

Map Description:
There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive and accurate map of the distribution of this habitat but the main locations where it occurs in Britain are shown. This map has been generated using EMODnet data from surveyed records for the North East Atlantic  (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:
The quantity of this habitat is unknown. It has a restricted geographic distribution, occurring naturally in, perhaps, less than 200 km².
There is insufficient information to determine any historical or recent trends in the quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic although it is known to still be present in most locations where it has been recorded in historic times.

Trends in Quality:
Trends in quality are unknown although there are some monitoring studies, mainly associated with reporting ‘Favourable conservation status’ for the EU Habitats Directive, which suggest that habitat quality is being maintained at sites in south-west Britain.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
The conditions which favour the occurence of this habitat are rare in the North East Atlantic however EOO exceeds 50,000km2  because of recorded presence in locations as widespread as Loch Etive on the west coast of  Scotland

Justification of Restricted Area:
The conditions which favour the occurence of this habitat are rare in the North East Atlantic however the EOO exceeds 50,000km2  because of recorded presence in locations as widespread as Loch Etive on the west coast of  Scotl

Pressures and Threats:
The majority of the species within the associated biotopes are permanently attached to the substratum or are slow moving therefore substratum removal would result in loss of faunal populations. Siltation is likely to limit or prevent feeding in many of the characteristic taxa of this habitat, in particular the ascidians and sponges. Sudden smothering will also result in suffocation and, if not removed by tidal currents or wave action eventually death. Mobile fishing gear, straying from their intended grounds will damage or remove individuals from the substratum. Most of the associated fauna are sessile organisms that are unable to re-attach to the substratum once detached and are thus highly intolerant to physical removal. Changes in the hydraulic conditions, for example, through the construction of tidal barrages, and  the discharge of contaminants can also threaten this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
This habitat is afforded some protection within Marine Protected Areas. Beneficial management measures include the regulation of fishing methods and control of any activity, including the discharge of contaminants, which damages or disturbs seabed communities. The unusual nature and rarity of occurrence of the associated biotopes needs to be accounted for in the management of locations and in ecological impact assessments.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1-type
1130: MATL U2.
1170: MATL U2,  MMAC FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The species that characterise this habitat are generally resilient to adverse impacts. The MarLIN sensitivity review for one of the associated biotopes (A4.252 Halichondria bowerbanki, Eudendrium arbusculum and Eucratea loricata on reduced salinity mixed substrata) suggests ‘High’ or ‘Very high’ recovery potential and the highest sensitivity as ‘Moderate’.

Summary:
This habitat and the associated biotopes develop under a narrow range of conditions where bedrock occurs in variable/reduced salinity, usually where an estuary exits towards the sea through a narrow submerged river gorge. It is characterized by sponges tolerant of variable salinity, barnacles and a sparse hydroid and bryozoan turf. Especially where low salinity is frequently present, ‘groves’ of the peacock worm Sabella pavonina may be present and beds of mussels, Mytilus edulis, may be present but may be ephemeral. 
This habitat is vulnerable to substratum removal and increased turbidity levels which would result in smothering and loss of faunal populations. Interaction with mobile fishing gear is likely to damage or remove individuals from the substratum. Changes in the hydraulic conditions, for example, through the construction of tidal barrages, and the discharge of contaminants can also threaten this habitat.
Beneficial management and conservation measures include protection within Marine Protected Areas, the regulation of fishing methods which could damage, or disturb seabed communities, and the control of dredging activity adjacent to this habitat. The unusual nature and rarity of occurrence of the associated biotopes needs to be accounted for in the management of locations and in ecological impact assessments.

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). 
Hiscock, K. 2002. Halichondria bowerbanki, Eudendrium arbusculum and Eucratea loricata on reduced salinity tide-swept circalittoral mixed substrata. 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/45. (Access: 07/11/2015).

Criterion A Text:
The extent of this habitat is unknown although it is known to have a restricted geographic distribution, occurring in, perhaps, less than 200 km² of natural situations. It is assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The conditions which favour the occurence of this habitat are rare in the North East Atlantic however EOO exceeds 50,000km2  because it is present in locations as widespread as Loch Etive on the west coast of  Scotland and the Tamar estuary in south west England. Currently the habitat has been recorded at only a very few locations (6 known locations, all in Britain), and therefore capable of becoming critically endangered or collapsed within a very short time period. This is however believed to be an incomplete data set. This habitat is Least Concern under B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The conditions which favour the occurence of this habitat are rare in the North East Atlantic however EOO exceeds 50,000km2  because it is present in locations as widespread as Loch Etive on the west coast of Scotland and the Tamar estuary in south west England (occurring naturally in, perhaps, less than 200 km²).
Although not considered likely to occur in many locations it is unlikely that the available data show its full distribution. It exceeds the threshold for threated status on the basis of a small range but there is a lack of information on trends. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
None because although the two associated biotopes A4.251 and A4.252 are very different in characterising species and biogeographical occurrence, their rarity of occurrence and their sensitivity to pressures/activities are considered simi

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, R. Haroun Tabraue, N. Sanders.


Habitat Type Name:
A4.31 Ascidian/Brachiopod communities on Atlantic sheltered upper circalittoral rock

Habitat Description:
This habitat type occurs on the wave-sheltered, circalittoral bedrock and boulders subject to weak tidal streams. The biotopes within this complex are characterised by brachiopod and ascidian communities.
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. for protected features within Natura 2000 sites, where reference values have been determined and applied on a location-specific basis.
 
Characteristic species:
Ascidians often recorded in this complex are Ciona intestinalis, Ascidia mentula, Ascidia virginea, Clavelina lepadiformis and, occasionally, the football seasquirt Diazona violacea. The brachiopods Neocrania anomala and often Terebratulina retusa are also characteristic of the sub-biotopes within this complex as recorded in Scottish sea lochs. The polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter, the saddle oyster Pododesmus patelliformis, the cup coral Caryophyllia smithii and encrusting red algae are frequently recorded on the rocky substrata. Echinoderms such as the brittlestars Ophiothrix fragilis, Ophiocomina nigra and Ophiura albida, the starfish Asterias rubens, Crossaster papposus and Henricia oculata, the crinoid Antedon bifida and the urchin Echinus esculentus are all found in this complex. Other species present include the squat lobster Munida rugosa, the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus, the soft coral Alcyonium digitatum, the anemone Protanthea simplex and the hydroid Kirchenpaueria pinnata. Off the coast of Portugal this habitat is characterised by the brachiopod Megerlia truncata. Colonies of sponges Geodia barretti, Geodia cf. macandrewii, Petrosia ficiformis, Phakellia sp., colonies of zooids Parazoanthus anguicomus, Polychaeta Serpulidae, sea urchins Echinus acutus, Echinus melo, Echinus esculentus and Sphaerochinus granularis and the crinoid Antedon bifida have all been recorded within and among the brachiopod. Mobile species present include the fishes Serranus cabrilla, Diplodus cervinus and Pollachius pollachius.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’ (A4.3).
 
Annex 1:
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient information on the characteristics of this habitat or on its distribution and extent to determine whether it is typical of North East Atlantic region, however, the associated Level 5 biotopes include outstanding examples of regionally restricted and significant habitats and associated communities. A4.314 Neocrania anomala and Protanthea simplex on sheltered circalittoral rock is characteristic of fjordic sealoch circalittoral reef habitats on the west coast of Scotland (and most likely Sweden and Norway).

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), 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. There are also shortcomings with the modelled distribution  as this habitat is generally not found on open coasts. Survey data suggests that the key biotope (A4.314) is mainly restricted to sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland and it would also be expected to occur in fjordic habitats in Sweden and Norway.

Trends in Quantity:
The full extent and quantity of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region is unknown and there is currenly insufficient information to determine any historical, current or future trends. However, examples of the habitat have been observed and recorded in shallow (<50m) locations for many (>30) years and remain characteristic of those locations.

Trends in Quality:
There is currently insufficient information to determine any historical, current or future trends in quality of this habitat.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat does not have a small natural range. Distribution records include the west coast of Ireland, the west coast of Scotland, the Shetland Islands and Gullmarsfjorden, Sweden.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat does not have a small natural range. Distribution records include the west coast of Ireland, the west coast of Scotland, the Shetland Islands and Gullmarsfjorden, Sweden.

Pressures and Threats:
Characteristic species of this habitat such as Antedon bifida, Nemertesia ramosa, large solitary ascidians and Clavelina lepadiformis have a high intolerance to substratum loss, smothering, increases in water flow rate as well as abrasion and physical disturbance and displacement. However, they are species that re-colonise rapidly. Of more concern are the biotopes characterised by brachiopods which are localised and the brachiopod species may take some time to recover from disturbance/loss.
Activities which increase turbidity such as dredging and the use of bottom towed gears, or which alter hydrographic conditions such as harbour constructions have the potential to damage this habitat. Activities which introduce poisons (as pesticides) and increase nutrient levels (for instance, waste food and faeces from fish farms) have the potential to damage species associated with this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
No conservation and management measures that specifically target this habitat have been identified however it is present within some Marine Protected Areas and can therefore benefit from associated measures such as those which limit potentially damaging activities e.g. by zoning fishing activities, setting limits of activities such as dredging which increase turbidity, not allowing fish farms nearby and regulating coastal development. The location of the associated biotope ' A4.314 Neocrania anomala and Protanthea simplex on sheltered circalittoral rock' should also be taken into account in ecological impact assessments and subsequent licensing of activities.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
The overall capacity for this habitat to recover after it has been severly damaged is unknown. Characteristic species  such as Antedon bifida, Nemertesia ramosa, large solitary ascidians and Clavelina lepadiformis have a high intolerance to substratum loss, smothering, increases in water flow rate as well as abrasion and physical disturbance and displacement. However, they are species that re-colonise rapidly. Of more concern are the associated biotopes characterised by brachiopods which are localized as the brachiopod species may take some time to recover from disturbance/loss. The MarLIN sensitivity review suggests that the associated biotope ' A4.314 Neocrania anomala and Protanthea simplex on sheltered circalittoral rock'  has a ‘moderate’ capacity for recovery following damage by some physical and other pressures/activities.

Summary:
This habitat type occurs on the wave-sheltered, circalittoral bedrock and boulders subject to weak tidal streams and is characterised by ascidian communities that in the case of the associated biotope A4.313 have brachipods present. Pressures and threats specific to this habitat have not been identified however characteristic species are known to have a high intolerance to substratum loss, smothering, increases in water flow rate, abrasion, physical disturbance and displacement.
No conservation and management measures that specifically target this habitat have been identified however it is present within some Marine Protected Areas and can therefore benefit from associated measures such as those which limit activities such as dredging, the use of bottom towed gears, coastal development and placement of mariculture facilities.The location of the associated biotope ' A4.314 Neocrania anomala and Protanthea simplex on sheltered circalittoral rock' should also be taken into account in ecological impact assessments and subsequent licensing of activities.

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).
Hill, J.M. 2001. Antedon spp., solitary ascidians and fine hydroids on sheltered circalittoral 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/313. (Accessed: 27/10/2015). 
Jackson, A. 2005. Neocrania anomala and Protanthea simplex on sheltered circalittoral rock. 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://192.171.193.68/habitat/detail/5. (Accessed: 10/10/2015). 
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. Faro: MeshAtlantic, CCMAR-Universidade do Algarve, Faro, p.72.
Seasearch 2002. Cape Wrath Survey May 2002. Summary Report. Available online: http://www.seasearch.org.uk/downloads/CapeWrathSummary.pdf. (Accessed: 10/10/2015).

Criterion A Text:
Examples of the habitat have been observed and recorded in shallow (<50m) locations for many (>30) years and remain characteristic of those locations. However, the full extent of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region is unknown and there is currently insufficient information to determine any historical, current or future trends in quantity. It is therefore assessed as Data Deficient under Criteria A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

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

Synthesis:
Detailed information on the abundance and extent of this habitat is lacking but survey information reveals that it has a widespread distribution (e.g. west coast of Ireland, west coast of Scotland and the Gullmarsfjorden, Sweden) but very localised occurrence for the associated biotopes with brachiopods. There is a lack of information on the overall quantity and quality of this habitat including any historical or recent trends however,examples of the habitat have been observed and recorded in shallow (<50m) locations for many (>30) years and remain characteristic of those locations. 
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 area covered and on any trends in quantity and quality.

Sub-habitats in Need of Examination:
A4.314 Neocrania anomala and Protanthea simplex on sheltered circalittoral rock a regionally restricted associated biotope which is most likely confined to a few fjordic sea loch and sheltered marine inlets in


Habitat Type Name:
A4.71: Communities of Atlantic circalittoral caves and overhangs

Habitat Description:
Caves and overhanging rock in the circalittoral zone, away from significant influence of strong wave action. This habitat generally occurs in open coast waters or on wave sheltered coasts with moderate tidal flow. Caves and overhangs display a wide range of structural and ecological variation, depending on the prevailing physical and geological conditions. Those which have extensive areas of vertical and overhanging rock, and those that extend deeply into the rock, generally support the widest range and highest diversity of species. In the circalittoral zone these are characterised by sponges and anthozoans. Resident, seasonal and occasional species of fish are also present in sublittoral caves. Extensive cave systems, such as the flooded lava tubes in the Canary Islands, may become anchialine at their innermost extents because of the long residence time (months to years) of seawater. In such systems, the extent of saltwater intrusion, its stratification and the residence time of seawater (which can be from months to years) has resulted in a specialised fauna with pronounced morphological, physiological, biochemical and behavioural adaptations, such as the blind crab Munidopsis polymorpha.
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 ma yface; 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.
Cave biotopes can be broadly divided into those characterised by long lived species and those characterised by ephemeral and scour tolerant species. Long lived species such as cup corals and sponges may be targeted as indicators that a cave system has remained undisturbed. Individuals or individual colonies of such species might represent suitable for monitoring change. 
Characteristic species:
Characteristic species include sponges (Stryphnus ponderosus, Dercitus bucklandi, Chelonaplysilla noevus, Pseudosuberites spp. and Spongosorites spp.,); tunicates (Clavelina lepadiformis), anemones and anthozoans (Parazoanthus spp., Corynactis viridis, Parerythropodium coralloides, Caryophyllia smithii, Caryophyllia inornatus, and Hoplangia durotrix).

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405).
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral rock’.
 
Annex 1:
8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
 
IUCN:
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Present in all the sub-basins of the North East Atlantic regional sea where there are sublittoral rock walls or boulder slopes although form can be very different, depending on geology and formation (e.g. marine erosion or collapsed lava tubes).

Comment EU28:
There is insufficient quantiative data to make an accurate estimate of EOO and AOO however this habitat is widespread.

Comment EU28+:
here is insufficient quantiative data to make an accurate estimate of EOO and AOO however this habitat is widespread.

Trends in Quantity:
Sublittoral cave systems have not been extensively studied. The associated biotopes can be broadly divided into those characterised by long-lived species and those characterised by ephemeral and scour-tolerant species. Natural loss and re-recruitment should be expected in the latter case and would need to be recognised in any trend analysis. The information which is available is generally limited to caves in shallow waters at diving depths.
There is insufficient data to provided an accurate and comprehensive record of the extent of this habitat. Listing under the Habitats Directive has meant that surveys of sublittoral cave habitats are being undertaken by Member States but trend analysis is not possible at the present time.

Trends in Quality:
Sublittoral cave systems have not been extensively studied. With some exceptions in shallow waters there is limited information on the associated communities and therefore possible indicators of quality. Natural loss and re-recruitment of ephemeral species should be expected and would need to be recognised in any trend analysis.
Listing under the Habitats Directive has meant that surveys of sublittoral cave habitats are being undertaken by Member States but there is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quality of this habitat across the North East Atlantic region at the present time.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as the Canary Islands, the Azores and the Shetland Islands.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region with examples as widely separated as the Canary Islands, the Azores and the Shetland Islands.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is sensitive to physical damage for example by processes such as increased silitation, abrasion or selective extraction of associated species. Sedimentation can be an issue where the associated biotopes are dominated by sessile filter feeders. Sport-diving may produce negative effects either directly by mechanical disturbance or indirectly as a result of air-bubble accumulation smothering organisms attached to the cave roof.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Caves are highly dynamic and their extent is likely to fluctuate over time, particularly in friable rock where erosion or collapse processes are likely to occur.
Several of the species typically present in this habitat appear to have short-lived benthic larvae, e.g. the soft coral Alcyonium hibernicum which broods planulae larvae that are released at a late development phase and so probably has a short planktonic life. Leptopsammia pruvoti also seems to have short-lived planulae larvae which may settle immediately or very soon after release. In the case of cup corals (Caryophyllia spp. Hoplangia spp.), growth rates are smaller compared to other zoanthids colonising cave walls and roofs.
Sponges are likely to have a longer lived larva and others species, such as the zoanthid anemones Parazoanthus axinellae and Parazoanthus dixoni, reproduce asexually to produce large colonies so may become restablished relatively rapidly if a source population is present and conditions are favourable.

Summary:
The composition and spatial extent of cave communities varies considerably, depending on the physical structure and extent of the cave system, its degree of submergence, exposure to scour and surge, and the nature of its geology. Marine caves and overhangs can support a rich and at times exceptional biodiversity. Some studies on the marine cave and other crevicular fauna have revealed the existence of unique communities characterised by high endemism, relict species and other unusual characteristics. 
This habitat is sensitive to physical damage for example by processes such as increased silitation, abrasion or selective extraction of associated species. Air-bubble accumulation from sport diving can smother organisms attached to the cave roof. There are few conservation and management measures specifically aimed at this habitat. They include limitations on access and on the collection of marine life, as well as general measures such as monitoring which may be part of a scheme of management of Marine Protected Areas.

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: 01/08/2014).
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2004. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Sea Caves. Version August 2004. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/CSM_marine_sea_caves.pdf. (Accessed: 01/08/2014). 
MESMA. 2010. Monitoring and Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas. Marine Policy 37: 149-164. 
Micael, J., Azevedo, J.M.N. and Costa, A.C. 2006. Biological characterisation of a subtidal tunnel in São Miguel island (Azores). Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 3675-3684.
Irving, R.A. 2005. Lundy cSAC and MNR Literature Review. Exeter: English Nature (Exeter) by Sea-Scope, Marine environmental Consultants.
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.
Wilkens, H., Parzefall, J. and Iliffe, T.M. 1986. Origin and age of the marine Stygofauna of Lanzarote, Canary Islands. Mitt. hamb. Zool. Mus. Inst 83: 223-230

Criterion A Text:
Sublittoral cave systems have not been extensively studied, nor are there consistently applied common metrics to describe 'quantity' of this habitat type which may include linear extent, volume, depth, wall height and floor width. 
Listing under the Habitats Directive means that information gaps are starting to be addressed however there are insuffcient data to undertake a trend analysis of this habitat at the present time. 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 with examples as widely separated as the Canary Islands, the Azores and the Channel coast of France. 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 for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
Sublittoral cave systems have not been extensively studied, and those which have been investigated in any detail are generally in shallow waters (diving depths).  There are no consistently applied common metrics to describe the 'quantity' of this habitat type, which may include linear extent, volume, depth, wall height and floor width. Caves are highly dynamic and their extent is likely to fluctuate over time, particularly in friable rock where erosion or collapse processes are likely to occur.  Because of the lack of quantitative data on extent and condition, no assessment of trends in quantity and quality can be made at the present time. The current Red List assessment for this habitat is therefore 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, R.Herrera, F. Otero-Ferrer, G. Saunders and H. Tyler-Walters.


Habitat Type Name:
A5.12 Faunal communities in estuarine Atlantic sublittoral coarse sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat comprises clean gravels that occur in the upper reaches of marine inlets, especially estuaries, where water movement is sufficiently strong to remove the silt content of the sediment. It is one of the rarer habitat types to occur in estuaries. The gravel may be moved and reworked depending on tidal and river currents and may be infilled palaeo-river channels. The habitat typically lacks a significant seaweed component and is characterised by a sparse but very robust brackish water tolerant fauna. The epifauna of this habitat tends to be dominated by mobile predatory 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.
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:
Robust, free-living fauna specific to the habitat are small polychaetes and small or rapidly burrowing bivalves and amphipods. The epifauna in these habitats tends to be dominated by mobile predatory species such as the crab Carcinus maenas. Gobies and Pomatoschistus spp. are recorded as occasional.

Classification:
EUNIS  (v1405)
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic shallow/Infralittoral coarse sediment’ (A5.1).
 
Annex 1:
1130 Estuaries
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
Sublittoral sediments in estuaries are typically dominated by soft sediments therefore this is an unusual rather than characteristic habitat of estuaries or the North East Atlantic region.

Comment EU28:
EOO and AOO figures are known to be an underestimate.

Comment EU28+:
EOO and AOO figures are known to be an underestimate.

Trends in Quantity:
There is insufficient information to determine any historical and recent trends in quantity of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

Trends in Quality:
There is insufficient information to determine any historical and recent trends in quality of this habitat. Future trends have not been estimated.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
Survey records from EMODnet suggest that the EOO is less than 50,000km2 however this data set is believed to be substantially incomplete as known occurrences include widely separated locations such as the Gironde estuary, France, the Severn

Justification of Restricted Area:
Sublittoral sediments in estuaries are typically dominated by soft sediments therefore this habitat does have an intrinsically restricted area. Survey records from EMODnet suggest that the EOO is less than 50,000km2 however this da

Pressures and Threats:
The predominant threats to this habitat are those that apply to estuaries in general, in particular the degradation of water quality and the damaging effect on habitats and associated communities. These are mainly due to the effects of wastewater inputs and chemical contaminants. High intolerance to hydrocarbon contamination has been recorded for Carcinus maenas. In addition, cadmium, mercury, lead, zinc and copper are highly persistent and have the potential to bioaccumulate being very toxic to fish species common to this habitat, such as Pomatoschistus spp.

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. Beneficial management measures for this habitat would mainly include water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination or nutrient inputs.

Summary:
This habitat consists of clean gravels and occurs in the upper reaches of marine inlets, especially estuaries, where water movement is sufficiently strong to remove the silt content of the sediment. It typically lacks a significant seaweed component and is characterised by a sparse, but very robust brackish- water tolerant fauna. It is vulnerable to hydrocarbon contamination and elevated levels of heavy metals mainly originating from wastewater discharges.
Conservation and management schemes to protect estuarine habitats have been applied at a number of scales ranging from whole estuary systems to small areas within an estuary. Beneficial management measures for this habitat would mainly include water quality improvement programmes to reduce the levels of toxic contaminants or excessive nutrient loading.

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.
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). 
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
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 trends in quantity of this habitat at the present time. This habitat has therefore
been assessed as Data Deficient under criterion A for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion B Text:
The data obtained from EMODnet suggests that this habitat could have an EOO<50,000 km2 and an AOO <20.  However the full distribution and extent is currently considered to be incomplete as known occurrences include widely separated locations such as the Gironde estuary, France, the Severn Estuary, UK and Odense fjord, Denmark. There also no data on the present status of this habitat and any trends. The distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. This habitat has been assesssed as Vulnerable under criteria B1(c), Endangered under criteria B2 (c), Least Concern under critieria B3 and Data Deficient for all other criteria for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
The data obtained from EMODnet suggests that this habitat could have an EOO<50,000 km2 and an AOO<20. However the distribution and extent is known to be substantially incomplete as known occurrences include widely separated locations such as the Gironde estuary, France, the Severn Estuary, UK and Odense fjord, Denmark. There is a lack of information on the extent of this habitat and any trends in quantity or quality over the last 50 years. No future trends have been estimated. For the purposes of Red List assessment it is therefore considered to be Data Deficient for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.


Habitat Type Name:
A5.13 Faunal communities in marine Atlantic infralittoral coarse sediment

Habitat Description:
This is a moderately exposed habitat with coarse sand, gravelly sand, shingle and gravel in the infralittoral, subject to disturbance by tidal steams and wave action. Such habitats found on the open coast or in tide-swept marine inlets. The faunal communities can be very abundant. In the case of the Dutch Borkum Reef Ground, for example, Lanice conchilega beds with estimated densities of >1500 individuals/m2 have been recorded.
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:
A robust fauna of infaunal polychaetes such as Chaetozone setosa and Lanice conchilega, cumacean crustacea such as Iphinoe trispinosa and Diastylis bradyi, and venerid bivalves. Habitats with the lancelet Branchiostoma lanceolatum may also occur. This habitat includes the following biotopes characterised by particular species. Sparse fauna on highly mobile sublittoral shingle (cobbles and pebbles); characterised by Halcampa chrysanthellum and Edwardsia timida on sublittoral clean stone gravel; Moerella spp with venerid bivalves in infralittoral gravelly sand; Hesionura elongata and Microphthalmus similis with other interstitial polychaetes in infralittoral mobile coarse sand; Glycera lapidum in impoverished infralittoral mobile gravel and sand; Cumaceans and Chaetozone setosa in infralittoral gravelly sand.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic shallow/ infralittoral coarse sediment’ (A5.1).
 
Annex 1:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered with seawater all the time
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy

Justification Outstanding Example of Biogeographical Region:
There is insufficient information on the characteristics of this habitat (including its associated biotopes) or on its distribution and extent to determine whether it is typical of the North East Atlantic region.

Comment EU28:
The area estimate for this habitat has been derived from a synthesis of EUNIS seabed habitat geospatial information for the European Seas but is recognised as being an underestimate. No precise figure

Trends in Quantity:
It is difficult to establish the quantity of this habitat as it often has a patchy distribution, grading into other soft sediment habitats, or interspersed amongst rocky areas. In the case of the Danish Borkum Reef the dense polychaete beds of L. conchilega are estimated to cover around 74km2.  Even where the extent of this habitat or its associated biotopes has been mapped in detail (e.g. as part of resource assessments for sand and gravel extraction or within marine protected areas) there is a lack of information on trends in extent. Changes in the occurrence of the underlying substrate have been reported in some locations e.g. from coarse sediments and stones in the 1950s to fine sand in 1992 on parts of the Dogger Bank and in some cases these changes may occur naturally. In Lanice beds, for example, the fine sediment fraction increases over time and the presence of L. conchilega alters the community structure of the benthic fauna, even when present at low densities.

Trends in Quality:
The substantial extent of the likely impact of bottom fishing gears on this habitat throughout the North East Atlantic region is apparent from many studies including analyses which have combined VMS data with sensitivity maps of benthic habitats and disturbance caused by surface abrasion for the continental shelf area of the North East Atlantic. Most recently, 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 (2013/2014) 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 70% of the area of infralittoral coarse sediment habitat was subject to such fishing pressure in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. 
Scientific evidence, supplemented with expert judgement to develop  fisheries measures in protected areas for the Dutch sector of the North Sea, indicated that the most significant threat to the conservation status of the Dogger Bank comes from bottom gear, notably from beam trawling with tickler chains. The main effect is on abiotic conditions, hence on structure and function, which results in reduction of the abundance of typical species. This initial effect is greater in sandy then muddy bottom however this is compensated somewhat by shorter recovery times where the seabed is predominantly sandy.
Impacts associated with aggregate extraction are the direct removal of the substratum and the benthic communities. The significance of this impact depends largely on the extent and depth of dredging activity. Research has shown reductions in species diversity and biomass in dredged areas but also recovery, which is quicker for communities typical of mobile sublittoral habitats than that of more stable environments.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a widespread distribution. In the North Sea locations where it has been reported include the Hinder Bank off the Thames estuary, the Dogger Bank, the Texel Rough, Cleaver Bank and Borkum Reef.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a widespread distribution. In the North Sea locations where it has been reported include the Hinder Bank off the Thames estuary, the Dogger Bank, the Texel Rough, Cleaver Bank and Borkum Reef.

Pressures and Threats:
Mobile demersal fishing gears have a direct impact on the substratum and its associated fauna by disturbing the upper layers of the substrate and damaging both the associated epifauna and shallow infaunal communities. Associated increases in suspended sediments can have a smothering effect on filter feeders. The degree of any damage will  depend on the gear, frequency of use and species present. Aggregate extraction has a more localised effect through a loss in substratum and the associated infauna. This activity can also affect the hydrological regime, also affecting species richness.
Synthetic compound contamination due to waste spoil dumping will also have an affect on the benthic communities.
Changes in abiotic conditions due to climate change will cause changes in water flow and wave exposure. Increase in water flow rate could remove species attached to the substratum, while a decrease in water flow is likely to reduce food supply for passive suspension feeders and allow deposition of fine sediment.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures for this habitat could include the regulation of fishing methods which damage or disturb seabed communities and other activities such as dredging and aggregate extraction which cause loss of the substratum and affect the hydrographic regimes. Additionally, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and reconnecting sediment supplies should also be considered. Any of these measures may be incorporated into management schemes for Marine Protected Areas.

Conservation Status:
Annex 1:
1110: MATL U2, MMAC U1
1160: MATL U2, MMAC FV

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Naturally subject to disturbance therefore likely to recover character and functionality relatively quickly if the substrate and hydrographic conditions are the same.
Studies of recovery following aggregate extraction indicate that in areas of weak tidal stress physical recovery may take up to 20 years and biological recovery up to 12 years. These time scale are much reduced  in areas of moderate or strong tidal stress and in the latter case may occur in less than 5 years.

Summary:
This habitat has a widespread distribution. Locations where it is reported to be present in the North Sea include the Hinder Bank off the Thames estuary, the Dogger Bank, the Texel Rough, Cleaver Bank and Borkum Reef. This is a moderately exposed habitat comprising coarse sand, gravelly sand, shingle and gravel in the infralittoral, where it is subject to disturbance by tidal steams and wave action. Such habitats are found on the open coast or in tide-swept marine inlets. The faunal communities can be very abundant.
The habitat is vulnerable to trawling, dredging and aggregate extraction which will cause a loss in substratum and affect the hydrological regime. Additionally, this habitat is sensitive in synthetic compound contamination and changes in abiotic conditions due to climate change. Beneficial management measures for this habitat include the establishment of Marine Protected Areas, regulation of fishing methods, and the control of other activities such dredging and aggregate extraction. Additionally, water quality improvement programmes to reduce the risk of toxic contamination and reconnecting sediment supplies should also be considered.

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).
Coolen, J. W. P., Bos, O. G., Glorius, S. T., Lengkeek, W., Cuperus, J., Weide, B. E. van der, and Agüera García, A. 2015. Reefs, sand and reef-like sand: Reefs, sand and reef-like sand: A comparison of the benthic biodiversity of habitats in the Dutch Borkum Reef Grounds. Journal of Sea Research. 103: 84-92. 
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.
European Environment Agency, 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 22/08/2014). 
Foden, J., Rogers, S.I., &Jones, A.P., 2010. Recovery of UK seabed habitats from benthic fishing and aggregate extraction-Towards a cumulative impact assessment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 411:259-270.
ICES. 2011. Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (FIMPAS) within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Dutch part of the North Sea: areas outside the 12 nautical miles zone: Proposals, Dates, Venue. FIMPAS Steering Group. 35 pp.
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Nilsson, P. & Ziegler, F. 2006. Spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to seafloor habitats in the Kattegat, a GIS analysis. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.17(4):421-440.
Rabaut, M., Guilini, K, van Hoey, G., Vincx, M. and Degraer, S. 2007. A bio-genginnered soft-bottom environment: The impact of Lanice conchilega on the benthic species-specific densities and community structure. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 75: 525-536.
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.
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

Criterion B Text:
There has been a decline in quality of this habitat due to disturbance of benthic communities resulting from mobile demersal fishing gears in particular and localised effects on various timescales associated with aggregate dredging. This trend is considered likely to continue, however the distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. Furthermore this habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region and as EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO >50, this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution.
This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
Most sedimentary benthic systems on the continental shelf of Europe have been modified by fishing activity in the last 100 years and this remains a significant pressure. Mobile demersal fishing gears such as otter trawls and beam trawls, disturb the upper layers of  the sediment and damage both the associated eipfauna and shallow infaunal communities . Associated increases in suspended sediments may also have a smothering effect on filter feeders. The degree of any damage will depend on the gear, frequency of use and species present. 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 (2013/2014) 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 70% of the estimated area of infralittoral coarse sediment was subject to such fishing pressure in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. Coarse sediment communities have greater resilience and faster recovery rates that those in fine sediments but 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 area of this habitat which has been affected. Aggregate extraction also has a localised effect on this habitat with the longevity of the effect depending on the local conditions and timescale. 
Expert opinion is that there is likely to have been a substantial reduction in quality of this habitat - an intermediate decline in quality affecting more than 50% of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region although it is also possible that more than 30% has been subject to a severe decline. This will depend on factors such as the intensity and frequency of disturbance. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable under criteria C/D for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic. A combination of survey data and modelling indicates that it does not have a restricted geographical distribution nor occur in only a few locations in the North East Atlantic and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B.
Most sedimentary benthic systems on the continental shelf of Europe have been modified by fishing activities, particularly bottom trawls and dredging, in the last 100 years and this habitat remains under fishing pressure and subject to aggregate extraction. Data for 2013/2014 has revealed that more than 70% of this habitat in the North Sea and Celtic Sea was subject to fishing pressure by bottom otter, beam and mid-water trawls. Coarse sediment communities have greater resilience and faster recovery rates that those in fine sediments but 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 area of this habitat which has been subject to such pressure. 
Expert opinion is that there has been a substantial reduction in quality of this habitat, most likely an intermediate decline affecting more than 50% of its extent although it is clear that in some locations there has also been a severe decline. The severity will depend on factors such as the intensity and frequency of disturbance. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ because of both past and likely continuing declines in quality.

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


Habitat Type Name:
A5.14 Atlantic upper circalittoral coarse sediment

Habitat Description:
This habitat comprises tide-swept circalittoral coarse sand, gravel, pebbles, shingle and cobbles which are often unstable due to tidal currents and/or wave action. It is typically found in depths of over 15-20m and is present in tidal channels of marine inlets and along exposed coasts and offshore. The associated biotopes are characterised by robust infaunal polychaetes, mobile crustacea and bivalves. Certain species of sea cucumber (e.g. Neopentadactyla) may also be prevalent, along with the lancelet Branchiostoma lanceolatum. Where the sediment is mobile or unstable, the epibenthic fauna may limited to the keel worm Pomatoceros triqueter with barnacles and bryozoan crusts as these species have some resistance to abrasion and can rapidly colonise areas after successful spatfalls. In locations with weak or no current the fauna is dominated by polychaetes. Scallops may occur on the sediment surface in areas of shell gravel that are subject to some sand scour.
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:
These include: Pomatoceros triqueter, Mediomastus fragilis, Lumbrineris spp. and venerid bivalves. Protodorvillea kefersteini, Neopentadactyla mixta,  Echinocyamus pusillus, Ampelisca spinipes, Asterias rubens, Spiophanes bombyx, Abra alba, Branchiostoma lanceolatum  Polygordius appendiculatus, Pisione remota, Sphaerosyllis bulbosa, Goniadella gracilis, Mediomastus fragilis, Glycera lapidum, Protodrilus; ophiuroid Amphipholis squamata, Ophiura albida, oligochaete Grania; Nematoda and Nemertina.

Classification:
EUNIS (v1405):
Level 4. A sub-habitat of ‘Atlantic circalittoral coarse sediment’ (A5.1).
 
Annex 1:
1110 Sandbanks slightly covered with seawater all the time
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
 
MAES:
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
 
MSFD:
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
 
EUSeaMap:
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
 
IUCN:
9.4 Subtidal sandy

Trends in Quantity:
It is difficult to establish the quantity of this habitat as it often has a patchy distribution, grading into other soft sediment habitats, or interspersed amongst rocky areas. Even where the extent of this habitat or its associated biotopes has been mapped in detail (e.g. as part of resource assessments for sand and gravel extraction or within marine protected areas) there is a lack of information on trends. Some changes in the occurrence of the underlying substrate have been reported e.g. from coarse sediments and stones in the 1950s to fine sand in 1992 on parts of the Dogger Bank, but no analysis of changes in the habitat. Overall trends are unknown.

Trends in Quality:
The substantial extent of the likely impact of bottom fishing gears on this habitat throughout the North East Atlantic region is apparent from many studies including analyses which have combined VMS data with sensitivity maps of benthic habitats and disturbance caused by surface abrasion for the continental shelf area of the North East Atlantic. Qualitative observations have revealed trends in the relative abundance of common species and changes in the associated communities from some locations. Off the coast of Belgium, for example, parts of areas first surveyed in the 1920s have experienced a shift from typical gravel epifauna toward a more typical sand bottom epifauna. In the Kattegat, around 50% of coarse sediment habitats were trawled over during a 3 year study period but with a low intensity. As most was fished less than twice a year it was considered to have a high recoverability from associated impacts in this area. 
Most recently, 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 (2013/2014) 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 60% of the area of upper circalittoral coarse sediment habitat was subject to such fishing pressure in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. Scientific evidence, supplemented with expert judgement to develop fisheries measures in protected areas for the Dutch sector of the North Sea, indicated that the most significant threat to the conservation status of the Dogger Bank comes from bottom gear, notably from beam trawling with tickler chains. The main effect is on abiotic conditions, hence on structure and function, which results in reduction of the abundance of typical species. This initial effect is greater in sandy then muddy bottom however this is compensated somewhat by shorter recovery times where the seabed is predominantly sandy. 
More information is available where this habitat coincides with aggregate dredging sites. In such situations there have been changes in community composition and degradation of habitat quality but also recovery when areas are left undisturbed.  For example, a ten year study of the physical and biological impact of aggregate dredging along the French coast of the Eastern English Channel reported a change in the structure of the community from one of coarse sands with Branchiostoma lanceolatum to one of fine sands with Ophelia borealis, Nephtys cirrosa, and Spiophanes bombyx, with local dominance of the opportunistic, sessile Pomatoceros triqueter on bare shingles. Species richness was fully restored after 16 months although the community structure differed from the initial one corresponding to the new type of sediment.

Justification of Small Range/Regression:
This habitat has a widespread distribution. In the North Sea locations where it has been reported, include the Hinder Bank off the Thames estuary, the Dogger Bank, the Texel Rough, Klaver Bank and Borkum Reef.

Justification of Restricted Area:
This habitat has a widespread distribution. In the North Sea locations where it has been reported, include the Hinder Bank off the Thames estuary, the Dogger Bank, the Texel Rough, Klaver Bank and Borkum Reef.

Pressures and Threats:
This habitat is vulnerable to disturbance or loss of seabed sediments, for example  through dermersal fishing activity or aggregate dredging can both dislodge or remove the infauna and sessile epifauna associated with this habitat. An increase in water flow and wave exposure can also affect the species richness because of associated changes in sediment character, primarily by re-suspending and preventing deposition of finer particles and creating a high sediment mobility. One consequence is that the habitat can become less suitable for burrowing deposit feeders.
Species richness is expected to decline as bivalves in general are particularly intolerant of tri-butyl tin (TBT) an active component in antifouling paints. In addition, contact with oil causes an increase in energy expenditure and a decrease in feeding rate, resulting in less energy available for growth and reproduction. Larval and embryonic stages of bivalves are particularly intolerant of heavy metal contamination. Climate change and its associated changes in water flow may also be a threat for this habitat.

Conservation and Management:
Beneficial management measures include the control of demersal fishing activity and the regulation of activities which damage or disturb seabed communities such as aggregate dredging and offshore construction work. Establishing undisturbed areas may also be beneficial by helping to facilitate the recolonisation of previously degraded areas. The control of chemical discharges can reduce the risk of toxic effects on associated species.

Capacity to Recover its Typical Character and Functionality?:
Studies on the recovery of coarse sediment habitats following aggregate dredging indicate that the tidal stress regime is an important consideration in recovery times. In highly energetic conditions recovery may take less than 2 years but under other conditions recovery may take more than 20 years. If the sediment composition is altered the species composition may be different to that which existed before the habitat was damaged.

Summary:
This habitat consists of tide-swept circalittoral coarse sands, gravel and shingle. In general, it extends from depths of over 15-20m and it can be found in tidal channels of marine inlets, along exposed coasts, and offshore. The associated biotopes are typically characterised by robust infaunal polychaetes (eg. Pomatoceros triqueter), mobile crustacea and bivalves.
The habitat is intolerant to substratum disturbance and loss caused by demersal fishing activities and aggregate extraction. As well as direct removal, these activities can alter the sediment characteristics of the habitat and the associated species. Changes in water flow and wave exposure can also affect species richness when it results in high sediment mobility, rendering the sediment less suitable for burrowing deposit feeders. Chemical substances, such as oil pollutants, cause serious respiratory impairments in the bivalve communities associated with this habitat, in particular, their larval and embryonic stages. Beneficial management and conservation measures for this habitat include the regulation of fishing activities and dredging which damage, or disturb seabed 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).
Desprez, M. 2000.Physical and biological impact of marine aggregate extraction along the French coast of the Eastern English Channel: short- and long-term post-dredging restoration. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57(5): 1428-1438.
European Environment Agency. 2014. EUNIS habitat type hierarchical view. Available at: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp. (Accessed: 22/08/2014).
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.
Fodder,J., Rogers, S.I & Jones, I.P.  2009. Recovery rates of UK seabed habitats after cessation of aggregate extraction. Mar.Ecol.Prog Ser. 390: 15 –26.
ICES. 2011. Fisheries Measures in Protected Areas (FIMPAS) within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Dutch part of the North Sea: areas outside the 12 nautical miles zone: Proposals, Dates, Venue. FIMPAS Steering Group. 35 pp.
MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) .2015. MarLIN - The Marine Life Information Network. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciesfullreview.php. (Accessed: 18/11/2015).
Nilsson, P. & Ziegler, F. 2006. Spatial distribution of fishing effort in relation to seafloor habitats in the Kattegat, a GIS analysis. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.17(4):421-440.
Tempera, F., E. Atchoi, P. Amorim, J. Gomes-Pereira and Gonçalves, J. 2013. Atlantic Area Marine Habitats. Mesh Atlantic. Availiable at: http://www.meshatlantic.eu/assets/files/bluebox/02b_Azores_Marine_Habitats%20v1_1.pdf. (Accessed: 12/11/2015). 
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 
Tempera, F. 2015. Bringing together harmonized EUNIS seabed habitat geospatial information for the European Seas. JRC Technical report, EC. Availiable at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC95611/lb-na-27237-en-n.pdf. (Accessed: 12/11/2015).

Criterion A Text:
Some localised changes in extent of this habitat have been recorded but there is insufficient information to determine any overall trends in quantity of this habitat in 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:
There has been a decline in quality of this habitat due to disturbance of benthic communities resulting from mobile demersal fishing gears in particular and localised effects on various timescales associated with aggregate dredging. This trend is considered likely to continue, however the distribution of the habitat is such that the identified threats are unlikely to affect all localities at once. Furthermore this habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic region and as EOO >50,000 km2 and AOO >50, this exceeds the thresholds for a threatened category on the basis of restricted geographic distribution. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Least Concern under criteria B for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Criterion C/D Text:
Most sedimentary benthic systems on the continental shelf of Europe have been modified by fishing activity in the last 100 years and this remains a significant pressure. Mobile demersal fishing gears such as otter trawls and beam trawls, disturb the upper layers of the sediment and damage both the associated eipfauna and shallow infaunal communities . Associated increases in suspended sediments may also have a smothering effect on filter feeders. The degree of any damage will depend on the gear, frequency of use and species present. 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 (2013/2014) 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 60% of the estimated area of upper circalittoral coarse sediment was subject to such fishing pressure in the North Sea and Celtic Sea. Coarse sediment communities have greater resilience and faster recovery rates that those in fine sediments but 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 area of this habitat which has been affected. Aggregate extraction also has a localised effect on this habitat with the longevity of the effect depending on the local conditions and timescale.
Expert opinion is that there is likely to have been a substantial reduction in quality of this habitat - an intermediate decline in quality affecting more than 50% of this habitat in the North East Atlantic region although it is also possible that more than 30% has been subject to a severe decline. This will depend on factors such as the intensity and frequency of disturbance. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable under criteria C/D for both the EU 28 and EU 28+.

Synthesis:
This habitat has a large natural range in the North East Atlantic. A combination of survey data and modelling indicates that it does not have a restricted geographical distribution nor occur in only a few locations in the North East Atlantic and therefore qualifies as Least Concern under criterion B.
Most sedimentary benthic systems on the continental shelf of Europe have been modified by fishing activities, particularly bottom trawls and dredging, in the last 100 years and this habitat remains under fishing pressure and subject to aggregate extraction. Data for 2013/2014 has revealed that more than 60% of this habitat in the North Sea and Celtic Sea was subject to fishing pressure by bottom otter, beam and mid-water trawls. Coarse sediment communities have greater resilience and faster recovery rates that those in fine sediments but 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 area of this habitat which has been subject to such pressure.
Expert opinion is that there has been a substantial reduction in quality of this habitat, most likely an intermediate decline affecting more than 50% of its extent although it is clear that in some locations there has also been a severe decline. The severity will depend on factors such as the intensity and frequency of disturbance. This habitat has therefore been assessed as Vulnerable for both the EU 28 and EU 28+ because of both past and likely continuing declines in quality.

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

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, R. Haroun, N. Sanders


