Draft online platform (Fact Sheet) 1. Habitat type code & name AA.H1B Baltic photic muddy sediment characterized by submerged rooted plants Photo of habitat type Please upload 1 or 2 photos of the habitat type Photo description (describe habitat and location of the photo): No photograph currently available for this habitat. 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 Description Baltic bottoms in the photic zone with at least 90 % coverage of muddy sediment. The sediment must contain at least 20 % of mud, silt or clay (grain size less than 63 µm). Submerged rooted plants, including plants with rhizoids (i.e. Charales) cover at least 10 % of the seabed and more than other perennial attached erect groups. Substrate is muddy sediment. Salinity range: all; Exposure range: low. Eight sub-biotopes with different dominant (>50% of the biovolume) macrophyte taxa can be identified. The sub-biotopes differ in their distribution along gradients in salinity, depth and wave exposure. The sub-biotope AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ has a restricted distribution at 0-1 m depth in extremely sheltered areas at low salinity (<4 psu). The sub-biotope AA.H1B8 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.)’ is also found in shallow (0-2 m depth) and sheltered areas with low salinity (<5 psu). The sub-biotope AA.H1B1 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’ is found between 0.2-4 m depth in sheltered sites with up to 6 psu. The sub-biotope AA.H1B3 ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum and/or Myriophyllum sibiricum)’ has a similar distribution but a more narrow depth range (0.2-2 m). AA.H1B6 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Ranunculus spp.’ is also found up to 6 psu but is restricted to extremely sheltered sites. The sub-biotope AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’ is found in a wider range of salinity (2-15), depth (0.2-7 m) and wave exposure (low to moderate). Which species dominate depend partly on the salinity range, the kind of sediment but also on the growth season. The sub-biotope AA.H1B2 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltii’ is found at 0-4 m depth throughout the salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea and in low to moderate exposure. The subbiotope AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ differs most strongly from the other sub-biotopes in distribution, occuring mainly at moderate to high exposure and in salinities of 5 psu or higher. The sub-biotope is typically found deeper than the other sub-biotopes (1-6 m) and often marks the lower depth limit distribution of soft bottom vegetation. The sub-biotope is absent from areas with low salinity in the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia. Characteristic species Stuckenia pectinata, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Zostera marina, Ruppia maritima, Zanichellia palustris, Myriophyllum spicatum, Najas marina, Chara tomentosa, Ranunculus peltatus subsp. baudotii, Eleocharis sp. Indicators of quality - Classification Please indicate equivalent classification types as relevant, including: 2 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... Annex 1 relationships The relationship between HUB biotopes and Annex 1 habitats has not yet been mapped by HELCOM. MAES relationships Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters Marine - Coastal MSFD relationships Littoral sediment Shallow sublittoral mud EUSeaMap relationships Shallow muds IUCN ecosystem relationships 9.6 Subtidal Muddy 9.9 Seagrass Other relationships Correspondence to EUNIS (2004) depending on subhabitat: A5.54 Angiosperm communities in reduced salinity A5.542 Association with [Potamogeton pectinatus] A5.543 Vegetation of brackish waters dominated by [Ranunculus baudotii] A5.5343 [Ruppia maritima] in reduced salinity infralittoral muddy sand A5.545 [Zostera] beds in reduced salinity infralittoral sediments Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013). This habitat has eight sub-habitats on HUB level 6; AA.H1B1 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’ AA.H1B2 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltii’ 3 AA.H1B3 ‘Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum and/or Myriophyllum sibiricum)’ AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’ AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ AA.H1B6 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Ranunculus spp.’ AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ AA.H1B8 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.)’ 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 Pannonian Steppic For marine types: Marine Atlantic Marine Baltic Marine Black Sea Marine Macaronesia Marine Mediterranean Justification: The biotope is common on photic muddy sediment in the entire Baltic Sea. Most of the subbiotopes have a very typical and characteristic species composition for the Baltic Sea with a dominance of species with freshwater origin. 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) Area of Occupancy (AOO) Current estimated Total Area (km2) Comments EU 28 EU 28+ 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+. 95% 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 is common in most parts of the Baltic Sea. Most subbiotopes are present across the Baltic Sea coastline but the subbiotope AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ is absent from areas with low salinity in the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia. Recent: The subbiotope AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’ has declined by >25% during the last 50 years. The biotope has declined to a varying extent in different Baltic Sea regions with the strongest decline in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In some bays and lagoons conditions have changed so intensively that the biotope has disappeared completely. 7 The subbiotope AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ has exhibited a strong decline in the highly eutrophicated areas of the Southern Baltic Sea and it is even known to have disappeared. A comparison of the current with the historical distribution status of Najas marina within the German Bodden areas of Mecklenburg Western Pomerania (Southern Baltic Sea) resulted in a nearly total loss of the biotope. There are no data to support similar declines in other Baltic Sea areas but the biotope is largely restricted to lagoons which is an endangered biotope complex. The subbiotope AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ has declined >25% during the last 50 years. The biotope has declined to varying extents in the different Baltic Sea regions, with the largest decline recorded in the Southern Baltic Sea. The remaining subbiotopes have declined less than 25% during the last 50 years. Historical: No data available. Future: No estimates available. 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): 8 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: 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. The quality of the biotope has declined during the past 50 years, at least in some areas, but there are no consistent data to quantify the decline. Average current trend in quality: EU 28 EU 28+ Stable Increasing Decreasing Unknown Stable Increasing Decreasing Unknown 4. Country/regional sea trends 9 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 No data Recent trends in quality (last 50 yrs) No data Please upload all the territorial data sheets for this habitat type 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): Eutrophication (H01.05), Epidemics (wasting disease; K03.03), Fishing (bottom trawling F02.02.01), Water traffic (D03, G01), Construction sand extraction C01.01, dredging J02.02.02, dumping J02.11.01, dykes, embankments and artificial beaches J02.12), Ditching (J02.01), Other threat factors (aquaculture F01) Future Threats (Habitat directive article 17): Eutrophication (H01.05), Fishing (bottom trawling F02.02.01), Epidemics (wasting disease; K03.03), Ditching (J02.01), Water traffic (D03, G01), Construction (sand extraction C01.01, dredging J02.02.02, dumping J02.11.01, J02.12, modification of hydrographic function J02.05, dykes, embankments and artificial beaches J02.12), Other threat factors (aquaculture F01), Climate change (M02), Oil spills (oil spills in the sea H03.01) Observed declines of the spatial distribution of the subbiotopes AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’ and AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ are mainly caused by increased eutrophication and connected effects. Decreasing light penetration depth, massive growth of ephemeral algae and increased siltation rates cause massive alterations in the biotopes of sheltered coastal areas. The enclosed characteristic of bays and lagoons intensify the eutrophication impacts. Coastal 10 constructions (e.g. dredging for deepening of harbour access channels, ditching and construction of leisure facilities) and increased tourism has led to a further degradation of the biotope. The threat level is particularly high in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In the future climate change (increasing exposure levels, temperatures) or increasing aquaculture in bays may cause additional threats. The main causes of the observed declines of the spatial distribution of the subbiotope AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ are (1) the “wasting disease” that caused about 90% of the North European stock to disappear in the 1930 and also affected the Zostera beds in Danish waters (Möller 2008) and (2) eutrophication of the Baltic Sea that has resulted in significant decline of eelgrass meadows in mainly Danish, German, Swedish and Polish coastal areas (Möller 2008). Eutrophication has decreased the depth where Zostera dominated biotopes can receive enough light and may in addition cause a shift from eelgrass meadows to communities dominated by fast-growing macro-algae. Climate change is predicted to lower the salinity level in the northern parts of the Baltic Sea due to an increase of precipitation, which may threaten Zostera marina in the northernmost areas where it currently exists on the limits of its salinity tolerance (HELCOM 2013). 6. Con ser vati on and ma nag em ent 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. All actions to reduce eutrophication of the Baltic Sea are important for the conservation of the declining subbiotopes. For the subbiotopes that mainly occurs in bays with limited water exchange with the open ocean (subbiotopes AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’ and AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’), combatting local sources of eutrophication is essential. Conservation measures are also important, such as area protection and restrictions on coastal constructions and dredging in shallow coastal lagoons and archipelago areas. Conservation and management needs 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 Examples No measures No measures needed for the conservation of the habitat/species Measures needed, but not implemented No measure known/ impossible to carry out specific measures species migrations, habitat changes due to climate change, glacier retreat, monitoring changes without intervention 11 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 6 Other marine‐related measures Restoring marine habitats 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 Restoration can be a viable mesure for the subbiotope characterized by Zostera marina 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 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 12 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 Measures related to urban areas, industry, energy and transport 8.0 Other measures 8.1 8.2 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 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 Management of coastal constructions (e.g. dredging for deepening of harbour access channels, ditching and construction of leisure facilities) measures to reduce collision, maintenance of semi natural roadsides, protection of birds on high voltage systems, regulations to manage traffic density Prohibition of anchoring 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 Annex 1-types according to the Habitats Directive. For marine types, please also indicate the OSPAR or Helcom status if relevant. 13 The habitat has eight subhabitats which according to HELCOM Red List Assessment 2013 are given the following threat categories: AA.H1B1 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’: LC (A1) AA.H1B2 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltii’: LC (A1) AA.H1B3 Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum and/or Myriophyllum sibiricum)’: LC (A1) AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’: NT (A1) AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’: NT (A1) AA.H1B6 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Ranunculus spp.’: LC (A1) AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’: NT (A1) AA.H1B8 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.)’: LC (A1) 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): The subbiotope AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ can be slow to recover after strong decline (>20 yrs) and intervention may speed up the recovery. For the other subbiotopes natural recovery can probably occur within 10 years. (According to expert opinion by S.Wikström, 2014). 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 Questionnaire raw data - Expert opinion - Subsequent expert discussions in the HELCOM Red List of Biotopes assessment - HELCOM Biotope information sheets for biotopes AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy 14 sediment dominated by Charales’, AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ and AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ 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 >25% >25% A2a NoData NoData A2b NoData NoData A3 NoData NoData The values above were calculated based on collected data, expert judgement and expert discussions. The assessment is only made on the subbiotopes AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’, AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ and AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ that have the highest threat category. For the remaining subbiotopes the estimated decline was <20% during the past 50 years (A1). 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 B1 B2 B3 15 B EU 28 EU 28+ EOO NoData NoData a NoData NoData b NoData NoData c NoData NoData AOO NoData NoData a NoData NoData b NoData NoData c NoData NoData NoData NoData 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 16 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 NT NT A2a DD DD A2b DD DD A3 DD DD 1 Category EU 28 EU 28+ B1 DD DD B2 DD B3 DD Category EU 28 EU 28+ C/D1 DD DD DD C/D2 DD DD C/D3 DD Category EU 28 EU 28+ C1 DD DD DD C2 DD DD C3 DD Category EU 28 EU 28+ D1 DD DD DD D2 DD DD DD D3 DD DD Category E EU 28 EU 28+ DD DD Overall Category & Criteria EU 28 NT A1 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. This table possibly will be filled automatically in the online platform 17 EU 28+ NT A1 This habitat type has been listed as Near Threatened A1 based on the subbiotopes AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’, AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ and AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ that have the highest threat category. During the last 50 years the distribution of the three Near Threatened biotopes has declined >25%. The biotopes have declined to varying extents in the different Baltic Sea regions with the strongest decline in the Western and Southern Baltic Sea. In some bays and lagoons conditions have changed so intensively that the biotopes have disappeared completely. The other subbiotopes have been assigned threat category Least Concern based on A1 (HELCOM Red list assessment 2013). The assessment was based on collected data, expert judgement and expert discussions. 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 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. AA.H1B1 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus and/or Stuckenia pectinata)’ AA.H1B2 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Zannichellia spp. and/or Ruppia spp. and/or Zostera noltii’ AA.H1B3 Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum and/or Myriophyllum sibiricum)’ AA.H1B4 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Charales’ AA.H1B5 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spiny naiad (Najas marina)’ AA.H1B6 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by Ranunculus spp.’ AA.H1B7 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by common eelgrass (Zostera marina)’ AA.H1B8 ’Baltic photic muddy sediment dominated by spikerush (Eleocharis spp.)’ 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). 18 HELCOM RED LIST Biotope Expert Team 2013 and Baltic Sea Working Group for the European Red List of Habitats 2014 and Sofia Wikström. 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. 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. 19