Draft online platform (Fact sheet)
1. Habitat type
code & name
AA.E3Y Baltic photic shell gravel characterized by mixed infaunal macrocommunity in fine sandlike shell fragments
Photo of habitat type
 Please upload 1 or 2 photos of the habitat type
 Photo description (describe habitat and location of the photo):
There are no photos available for this biotope.
Habitat definition
A description of the habitat’s distribution, characteristic native biota, abiotic features, key ecological
processes and interactions.
Subheaders are:
 Description
 Characteristic species
 European Vegetation Checklist alliances (only for terrestrial types)
 Indicators of quality
1
Habitat description
The biotope is encountered in the photic zone and is characterized by shell gravel covering
more than 90% of the bottom, and most of the shell gravel having been ground down to sandlike fragments. Benthic macroinfauna species that occur in the biotope burrow down in to the
substrate that is similar in structure to coarse sand. The community composition of
macroinfauna is presumed to be different in the sand like shell gravel compared to coarser
shell gravel consisting mainly of semi-intact shells among which many different animals can be
found including non-burrowing animals. The interstitial space is smaller in the sand-like shell
gravel substrate, enabling also burrowing polychaetes and amphipods to build tunnels using
the small grains. The distribution of sand-like shell gravel bottoms in the Baltic Sea is unknown,
only few small patches have been recorded from German waters.
Increase in atmospheric CO2 leading to ocean acidification, eutrophication and pollution are
seen as the major threats to the biotope. Ocean acidification is assumed to increase the rate by
which the calcium carbonate of mollusc shells dissolve. It is however unclear in what way the
process will affect the sand-like shell gravel. Due to a higher acidity, shell gravel may be ground
down to a sand-like substrate at an increasing rate possibly making the sand like shell gravel
more common, but the acidity may also increase the rate by which the grains are dissolved
decreasing the sand-like shell gravel.
Eutrophication affects the sand-like shell gravel biotope adversely by increasing the organic
loading the Baltic Sea. The increasing organic load can lead to local oxygen depletion. Some of
the sand-like shell gravel patches may also become covered by overgrowth of algae.
Characteristic species
Unknown
Indicators of quality
-
Classification
Please indicate equivalent classification types as relevant, including:
 EUNIS type
 Annex 1 type of the Habitats Directive
 IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme
 Emerald type
 Marine Strategy Framework Directive type
 EUSeaMap type
 European Forest Type
 MAES type (level 2)
 Other types...
2
Annex 1 relationships
The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not been mapped by
HELCOM.
MAES relationships
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
MSFD relationships
Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment
Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment
EUSeaMap relationships
Shallow coarse or mixed sediments
IUCN ecosystem relationships
9.3 Subtidal Loose Rock/Pebble/Gravel
Other relationships
EUNIS (2004) A5.113: Baltic shell gravel bottoms in the infralittoral photic zone.
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB (2013) classification. This habitat has no sub-habitats in the
HELCOM HUB classification.

Does the habitat type present an outstanding example of typical characteristics of one or more
biogeographic regions?
Please tick () one box only:
(A habitat represents an outstanding example of typical characteristics of one or more
biogeographical regions, if it is especially characteristic of one or more biogeographic regions, in
terms of area, species composition, structure or functioning).
YES :
NO:
UNKNOWN:

 If Yes – please indicate the regions
For terrestrial types:
Alpine
Atlantic
Black Sea
Boreal
Continental
Macaronesia
Mediterranean
3
Pannonian
Steppic
For marine types:
Marine Atlantic
Marine Baltic
Marine Black Sea
Marine Macaronesia
Marine Mediterranean
Justification:
-
4
2. Geographic occurrence and trends
Distribution map (in 10x10 km grids) of the habitat type in Europe (provided by Alterra/ NatureBureau)

For both terrestrial and marine types, please tick () the countries in which the habitat type is
present based on the territorial data sheets (please select “Present” or “Presence Uncertain” as
relevant)
EU 28
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Finland mainland
Åland Islands
France
France mainland
Corsica
Germany
Greece
Greece (mainland and other islands)
Crete
East Aegean islands
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Italy mainland
Sardinia
Sicily
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Portugal (mainland)
Azores
Madeira
Savage Islands
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain (mainland)
Spain
Balearic Islands
Canary Islands
Sweden
United
Great Britain
5
Kingdom
Northern Ireland
Gibraltar
EU 28+
Albania
Andorra
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Faroe Islands
Guernsey
Iceland
Isle of Man
Jersey
Kaliningrad
Kosovo
Liechtenstein
Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
Monaco
Montenegro
Norway (mainland)
Norway
Svalbard
Jan Mayen
San Marino
Serbia
Switzerland
Vatican City

For marine habitats, please tick () the MSFD region and subregion in which the habitat type
occurs (please select “Present” or “Presence Uncertain” as relevant):
Mediterranean Sea
Black Sea
North-East Atlantic
Baltic Sea
Adriatic Sea
Aegian-Levantine Sea
Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea
Western Mediterranean Sea
Black Sea
Sea of Marmara
Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast
Celtic Seas
Kattegat
Greater North Sea
Macaronesia
Baltic Proper
Belt Sea 
Gulf of Bothnia
Gulf of Finland
Gulf of Riga
The Sound
6

Is the list of countries/seas selected above in correspondence with the provided map?
Please tick () the box confirming that a consistency check has been done:

For EU 28 and EU 28+:
1. Using the distribution map, the Project Management Team will provide the value for Extent
of Occurrence (extent of a minimum convex polygon enclosing all occurrences) and for Area
of Occupancy (number of 10*10 km cells occupied by the habitat type).
2. Using the territorial data sheets (along with additional information if relevant), please
provide the estimated total area (actual area in km2 of the habitat), calculated by adding up
the area of the habitat type in each country/sea.
Extent of
Occurrence
(EOO)
EU 28
EU 28+

Area of
Occupancy
(AOO)
Current
estimated Total
Area (km2)
Comments
≤ 55,000 km2
How much of the current distribution of the habitat type lies within the EU 28?
Please estimate in percentage the proportion of the habitat type that the EU28 hosts in relation to
the habitat type’s total worldwide distribution. For the marine types this is (by definition)
compared to the total area within EU28+.
In the Baltic Sea 100% of this habitat lies within EU 28.
Trends in quantity
Using the territorial data and any other relevant information, please describe the historical, recent and
estimated future trends in quantity (extent, distribution).
Current: The biotope occurs only in the south-western Baltic Sea, in the Belt Sea. EOO is ≤
55,000 km2, but exact data on biotope decline is lacking.
Past: The distribution of the habitat has declined due to degradation of the environmental
quality caused by climate change and pollution.
Historic: No data available.
Future: No estimate available.
7

Average current trend in quantity (extent):
EU 28
EU 28+

Stable
Increasing
Decreasing 
Unknown
Stable
Increasing
Decreasing 
Unknown
Does the habitat type have a small natural range following regression?
Please tick () one box only:
(The habitat has a small natural range following regression if the EOO ≤ 50,000 km² and the habitat
has undergone an important decline during the last 50 years)
YES :
NO:
UNKNOWN:

Justification (please indicate whether the decline is ongoing or has stopped, and provide any additional
supporting information):
The distribution of sand-like shell gravel bottoms in the Baltic Sea is unknown, only a few small
patches have been recorded from German waters. The distribution of the habitat has declined
due to degradation of the environmental quality caused by climate change and pollution.

Does the habitat have a small natural range by reason of its intrinsically restricted area?
Please tick () one box only:
(A habitat has a small natural range by reason of its intrinsically restricted area if the underlying
factors for the occurrence of the habitat occupy a very limited area and range)
YES :
NO:
UNKNOWN:

Justification:
See previous text box.
8
3. Habitat condition and trends
Please describe the current quality of the habitat type, historical trends in quality and estimated future
trends. Use and build on the information from the territorial data sheets and the quality indicators from
the description.
No information exists on the quality of the biotope.

Average current trend in quality:
EU 28
EU 28+
Stable
Increasing
Decreasing
Unknown 
Stable
Increasing
Decreasing
Unknown 
4. Country/regional sea trends
Using the territorial data sheets please indicate at the country or regional sea levels if the trends in
quantity and quality are increasing, decreasing, stable or unknown.
Current area of Recent trend in
habitat (km2) quantity (last 50 yrs)
Baltic
Sea

No data.
Decreasing.
Recent trends in
quality (last 50 yrs)
No data.
Please upload all the territorial data sheets for this habitat type
9
5. Pressures and threats
Indicate in the look-up table below (provided by Doug Evans and based on Article 17/MSFD) the five
most significant threats affecting the habitat and whether these are of past, current or future
importance.
In the accompanying text field below, indicate the main causes of the threats affecting the habitat and
their scale of significance within the EU 28 and EU 28+. Use and build on the information from the
territorial data sheets and other available information.
Past and Current Threats (Habitat directive article 17):
Climate change (ocean acidification M01.04), Eutrophication (H01.05)
Future Threats (Habitat directive article 17):
Random threat factors (–), Climate change (ocean acidification M01.04), Eutrophication
(H01.05)
Increase in atmospheric CO2 leading to ocean acidification, eutrophication and pollution are
seen as the major threats to the biotope. Ocean acidification is assumed to increase the
dissolving rate of the calcium carbonate in mollusc shells. It is however unclear how the
process will affect the sand-like shell gravel. Due to higher acidity, shell gravel may be ground
down to a sand-like substrate at increasing rates possibly making the sand like shell gravel
more common. On the other hand the increased acidity may also increase the dissolving rate of
the grains thus decreasing the amount of sand-like shell gravel.
Eutrophication affects the sand-like shell gravel biotope adversely by increasing the organic
load in the Baltic Sea. The increasing organic load can lead to local oxygen depletion, and some
of the sand-like shell gravel patches may also become covered by overgrowth of algae.
6. Conservation and management
Please describe the main (e.g. no more than 5) current approaches to conservation and management of
this habitat type, and outline what additional actions are needed.
The extent and occurrence of the biotope needs to be mapped in more detail to establish
whether the biotope also exists in areas outside the German exclusive economic zone.
 Conservation and management needs
10
Please tick the main essential and realistic conservation and management actions needed for the habitat
type (following the description provided above). The actions should be selected only if they are relevant
to the conservation of the particular habitat being assessed (the classification below is derived from the
Habitats Directive Article 17 reporting)
Code
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Measure
No measures needed for the conservation of the
habitat/species
Measures needed, but not implemented
No measure known/ impossible to carry out
specific measures
2
Measures related to agriculture and
open habitats
2.0
2.1
Other agriculture‐related measures
Maintaining grasslands and other open habitats
2.2
Adapting crop production
3
Measures related to forests and
wooded habitats
3.0
3.1
Other forestry‐related measures
Restoring/improving forest habitats
3.2
Adapt forest management
4
Measures related to wetland,
freshwater and coastal habitats
4.0
4.1
4.2
Other wetland‐related measures
Restoring/improving water quality
Restoring/improving the hydrological regime
4.3
Managing water abstraction
4.4
Restoring coastal areas
5
Measures related to marine habitats
5.0
5.1
Examples
No measures
Other marine‐related measures
Restoring marine habitats
species migrations, habitat changes due to climate change,
glacier retreat, monitoring changes without intervention
mowing, burning, grazing, removal/control of shrubs and
other woody plants
adapting input of nutrients and pesticides/herbicides;
adapting crop timing (advance/delay harvest dates)
replanting with autochthonous species, enable/
promote natural re‐growth, removing non‐natives
species, change single species and even‐aged stands
into multi‐species and uneven‐aged stands, burning/
maintaining a fire regime
adapting harvesting cycles, adapting techniques and
equipment
restoring alluvial situations,
reducing eutrophication
restoring river dynamics, removal of barriers and artificial
margins, managing water levels (e.g. in bogs and mires)
managing periods and/or quantity of water abstracted for
irrigation, energy production
stabilisation of dunes, re‐establishing dune dynamics,
removing coastal infrastructures
controlling invasive species, favouring
re‐establishment of natural communities
11
6
Measures related to spatial planning
6.0
6.1
6.2
Other spatial measures
Establish protected areas/sites
Establishing wilderness areas/ allowing
succession
6.3
Legal protection of habitats and species
6.4
Manage landscape features
6.5
Adaptation/ abolition of military land use
7
Measures related to hunting, taking and
fishing and species management
7.0
7.1
Other species management measures
Regulation/ Management of hunting and
taking
7.2
Regulation/ Management of fishery in limnic
systems
7.3
Regulation/ Management of fishery in marine
and brackish systems
Specific single species or species group
management measures
7.4
8
regulation of hunting (periods, species), collection
permits for plants, berries etc., regulation of game
density
regulation of amount, fish species & catching
methods allowed, removal of certain fish species,
control of measures for enhancing fish production,
maintenance of traditional fish pond systems
adapting fishing techniques and equipment,
including mussel fishery management
Measures related to urban areas,
industry, energy and transport
8.0
8.1
8.2
Other measures
Urban and industrial waste management
Specific management of traffic and energy
transport systems
8.3
Managing marine traffic
9
Measures related to special resource use
9.0
9.1
Other resource use measures
Regulating/Management exploitation of natural
resources on land
Regulating/Managing exploitation of natural
resources on sea
9.2

no intervention after calamities, natural catastrophic
events, succession where no management is
necessary
legal habitat type protection (regardless where they
occur, also outside protected areas), strictly legally
protected species including their habitats
maintenance or creation of hedges, tree lines,
corridors
nature management on military training grounds,
abolition of military use
measures to reduce collision, maintenance of semi
natural roadsides, protection of birds on high voltage
systems, regulations to manage traffic density
managing routes, boat speed,
management of quarries with amphibians,
wind exploitation
managing oil, gas, gravel/sand, wind exploitation on
sea
Conservation status
Please indicate the overall conservation status in the relevant biogeographical regions of all related
12
Annex 1-types according to the Habitats Directive. For marine types, please also indicate the OSPAR
or Helcom status if relevant.
According to HELCOM Red List Assessment 2013 this habitat has been given the threat category NT
according to criterion B1a (ii).

When severely damaged, does the habitat retain the capacity to recover its typical character and
functionality? Estimate the time taken for such recovery (1) naturally and (2) through intervention.
Please fill in the matrix below.
Justification (please also describe the specific resources and actions required to recover the habitat,
if possible):
Time
(years)
None
Low
Effort required
Medium
High
10 yrs
20 yrs
50+ yrs
200+ years
7. Synopsis
Please synthesize the relevant information obtained from the territorial data sheets and other sources in
order to facilitate the assessment process.
Input data:
-
HELCOM Red List of Biotopes Questionnaire raw data
-
Expert judgement
-
Subsequent expert discussions in the HELCOM Red List of Biotopes assessment
-
HELCOM Biotope Information Sheet for the habitat AA.E3Y Baltic photic shell gravel characterized
by mixed infaunal macrocommunity in fine sand-like shell fragments
13
8. Red List assessment
Criterion A: Reduction in quantity
Please indicate in the table below the percentage of decline obtained after applying Criterion A, as far as
data are available. Explain the percentage and provide any supporting evidence, including the map base
or other source(s) used to estimate change in distribution. If A2b was applied, please also give the
beginning and end (in years) of the 50-year period over which the decline was measured. Please cite
data sets and other sources of information used; if the primary data has not been published, please
provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments.
Criterion A
EU 28
EU 28+
A1
No data
available
No data
available
A2a
No data
available
No data
available
A2b
No data
available
No data
available
A3
No data
available
No data
available
Criterion B: Restricted geographic distribution
Please indicate in the table below the values obtained after applying Criterion B, as far as data are
available. Explain the values and provide any supporting evidence. If B1a or B2a is used, please indicate
which subcriteria (i, ii and/or iii) this is based on. If B1b or B2b is used, please explain the threatening
processes and their effects. If B3 is used, please give the most serious plausible threat and justify how it
will cause the habitat to become Critically Endangered or Collapsed, including the time frame in which
this could occur. Please cite data sets and other sources of information used; if the primary data has not
been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments.
Criterion B
B1
EOO
a
EU 28
≤ 55,000 km2
ii
EU 28+
No data
available
B2
b
c
AOO
No data
available
No data
available
a
b
c
B3
No data
available
No data
available
The distribution of sand-like shell gravel bottoms in the Baltic Sea is unknown, only a few small
patches have been recorded from German waters. The Extent of occurrence of the biotope is
estimated to be ≤ 55 000 km2, but exact data on biotope decline is lacking. The distribution of
the habitat has however declined due to degradation of the environmental quality caused by
climate change and pollution.
14
Criteria C and D: Reduction in abiotic and/or biotic quality
Please indicate in the table below the percentage of change in abiotic and/or biotic quality. Please
report them together (criterion C/D), but if possible, also report abiotic (criterion C) and biotic (criterion
D) percentages separately.
Please explain the resulting values obtained, and provide any supporting evidence. Whenever possible,
please identify the abiotic environmental and/or biotic ecological factor(s) and data sources used to
assess reduction in quality. If criteria C/D2, C2 or D2 are used, please define the 50-year time period
over which the reduction was measured. Please cite data sets and other sources of information used; if
the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for archive to support future reassessments.
C/D1
Criteria C/D
EU 28
EU 28+
Criterion C
EU 28
EU 28+
Criterion D
EU 28
EU 28+
Extent
affected (%)
No data
available
No data
available
Relative
severity
No data
available
No data
available
C1
Relative
Extent
severity
affected (%)
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
D1
Relative
Extent
severity
affected (%)
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
C/D2
Extent
Relative
affected
severity
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
C2
Extent
Relative
affected
severity
(%)
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
D2
Extent
Relative
affected
severity
(%)
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
C/D3
Extent
affected
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
Extent
affected
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
Extent
affected
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
Relative
severity
No data
available
No data
available
C3
Relative
severity
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
D3
Relative
severity
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
15
Criterion E: Quantitative analysis to evaluate risk of habitat collapse
Describe the method/model used to estimate risks of habitat collapse. Please explain the resulting
values obtained, specify the basis and provide any supporting evidence. Please cite data sets and other
sources of information used; if the primary data has not been published, please provide a copy for
archive to support future re-assessments.
Criterion E
EU 28
EU 28+
E
No data
available
No data
available
No quantitative analysis has been carried out for this habitat.
Overall assessment “Balance sheet” for EU 28 and EU 28+ 1
Please complete the table below, indicating the Red List Category that the habitat type qualifies for,
after assessing the habitat types against all criteria for which data is available. If any criteria were not
applied, the habitat type should be considered Data Deficient (DD) under those criteria.
Category
EU
28
EU
28+
A1
DD
DD
A2a
DD
DD
A2b
DD
DD
A3
DD
DD

Category
EU
28
Category
EU
28+
EU
28
Category
EU
28+
EU
28
Category
EU
28+
EU
28
Category
EU
28+
B1
NT
NT
C/D1
DD
DD
C1
DD
DD
D1
DD
DD
B2
DD
DD
C/D2
DD
DD
C2
DD
DD
D2
DD
DD
B3
DD
DD
C/D3
DD
DD
C3
DD
DD
D3
DD
DD
EU
28
E
DD
Overall Category &
Criteria
EU
28+
DD
EU 28
NT
B1a
(ii)
Synthesis
Provide a summary of the reasons why the habitat type qualifies for the Category and Criteria
recorded above, justifying assessment decisions, limits of data quality, reliability of assessment,
etc.), using the information from above.
The distribution of sand-like shell gravel bottoms in the Baltic Sea is unknown, only a few small
patches have been recorded from German waters. The Extent of occurrence of the biotope is
estimated to be ≤ 55 000 km2, but exact data on biotope decline is lacking. The distribution of
the habitat has however declined due to degradation of the environmental quality caused by
climate change and pollution.
1
This table possibly will be filled automatically in the online platform
16
EU 28+
NT
B1a
(ii)

Please indicate the confidence in the assessment; please tick () one box only:
Low
(mainly based on uncertain or indirect information, inferred and
suspected data values, and/or limited expert knowledge)
Medium
(evenly split between quantitative data/literature and uncertain
data sources and assured expert knowledge)
High
(mainly based on quantitative data sources and/or scientific
literature)


Sub-habitat types that may require further examination
Indicate and specify if any sub-types of the assessed habitat type which may require further
examination due to their particular character or potentially threatened status. These may be
subtypes in a specific region, or thematic subtypes, having a certain specific species composition or
structure.
This biotope has no further sub-biotopes according to current classification (HELCOM HUB
2003).

Assessors
Please indicate the names of the individuals that have assessed the status of the habitat type (the
working group members, first name is the member tasked to write up the draft assessment).
HELCOM RED LIST Biotope Expert Team 2013 and Baltic Sea Working Group for the European
Red List of Habitats 2014.

Contributors
Please indicate the names of the individuals that have contribute to the assessments (including
providers of territorial data, and providers of descriptions of types, and any other contributors).
HELCOM RED LIST Biotope Expert Team, November 2013.

Reviewers
Please indicate the names of the individuals that have reviewed the assessment.

Dates of the assessment
Please indicate the date when the habitat type was assessed (WG assessment workshop and/or
synthesis workshop if changes are made in a later stage).
November 2013.

Date of review
Please indicate the date when the habitat type assessment was peer-reviewed.
17
9. References
Provide a list of all published and unpublished reference sources used for the information recorded
above, including data sets and other sources of information. If the primary data has not been published,
please provide a copy for archive to support future re-assessments. Please provide full references, and
try to avoid abbreviations (e.g. write Conservation Biology rather than Cons. Biol.).
HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes.
Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138.
18