Draft online platform (Fact Sheet)
1. Habitat type
code & name
AA.A1C Baltic photic rock and boulders characterized by perennial algae
Photo of habitat type
 Please upload 1 or 2 photos of the habitat type
 Photo description (describe habitat and location of the photo):
No photo 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
Description
Baltic bottoms in the photic zone with at least 90% coverage of rock, boulders or stones of more than 63
mm in diameter. Perennial attached algae such as Fucus spp., perennial red algae or kelp cover at least
10% of the seabed and more than other perennial attached erect groups. In areas of low salinity, the
dominating species can be plants with their roots between and their canopy spreading over the
boulders. Mapping should take place during the months when the vegetation is fully developed. Salinity
range: all; Exposure range: all, more common in exposed areas; Depth range: photic zone usually down
from about 0.5 meters.
Five sub-biotopes with different dominant species of algae can be identified. ‘Baltic photic rock and
boulders dominated by Fucus spp.’ (AA.A1C1) can be identified where Fucus spp. such as Fucus radicans,
F. serratus or F. vesiculosus constitute at least 50% of the biovolume of the perennial attached algae. The
biotope is found in the photic zone, usually at a depth of 0.5 – 5 meters and in salinities over 5 psu. It’s
distributed in the whole Baltic Sea except in the Bothnian Bay and the most eastern part of the Gulf of
Finland.
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial non-filamentous corticated red algae’ (AA.A1C2)
can be identified where corticated red algae species such as Furcellaria lumbricalis constitute at least
1
50% of the biovolume of the perennial attached algae. The biotope is found in the photic zone, usually at
a depth of 2 – 10 meters and in salinities over 5 psu. It’s distributed in the whole Baltic Sea except in the
Bothnian Bay and the most eastern part of the Gulf of Finland.
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial foliose red algae’ (AA.A1C3) can be identified
where foliose perennial red algal species such as Coccotylus spp., Phyllophora spp. and Delesseria spp.
constitute at least 50% of the biovolume of the perennial attached algae. The biotope is found in the
photic zone, usually at a depth of 2 – 10 meters and in salinities over 4 psu. It’s distributed in the whole
Baltic Sea except in the Gulf of Bothnia north of the Archipelago Sea and the eastern half of the Gulf of
Finland.
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by kelp’ (AA.A1C4) can be identified where perennial
attached kelp species such as Saccharina latissima and Laminaria digitata constitute at least 50% of the
biovolume of the perennial attached algae. The biotope is found in the photic zone, usually at a depth of
2 – 10 meters and in salinities over 11 psu. It’s distributed only in the Sound and the Belt Sea.
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial filamentous algae’ (AA.A1C5) can be identified
where perennial filamentous algal species such as Polysiphonia spp, Aegagrophila linnaei, Cladophora
rupestris constitute at least 50% of the biovolume of the perennial attached algae. The biotope is found
in the photic zone, usually at a depth of 0.5 – 10 meters and in all salinities. It’s distributed in the whole
Baltic Sea.
Characteristic species
Fucus spp., Furcellaria lumbricalis, Coccotylus truncatus, Phyllophora spp., Deleseria sanguinea,
Saccharina latissima, Laminaria digitata , Polysiphonia spp., Cladophora rupestris, Sphacelaria spp.
Indicators of quality
Lower limit of vegetation, especially Fucus spp. where applicable; amount of epiphytic algae.
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 yet been
mapped by HELCOM.
MAES relationships
Marine - Marine inlets and transitional waters
Marine - Coastal
MSFD relationships
Littoral rock & biogenic reef
Shallow sublittoral rock & biogenic reef
EUSeaMap relationships
Shallow photic rock or biogenic reef
IUCN ecosystem relationships
9.2 Subtidal rock and rocky reefs
9.7 Makroalgal/Kelp
Other relationships
Level 5 of the HELCOM HUB classification (2013). This habitat has five subhabitats on HUB level 6;
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by Fucus spp.’ (AA.A1C1),
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial non-filamentous
corticated red algae’ (AA.A1C2),
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial foliose red algae’
(AA.A1C3),
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by kelp’ (AA.A1C4), and
‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial filamentous algae’
(AA.A1C5).

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:
3
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:
This biotope occupies the major part of photic hard substrate in the entire Baltic Sea.
The species composition is very typical and characteristic for the Baltic Sea due to the
low salinity. Fucus species and Furcellaria lumbricalis are often the dominating species,
which is unusual in the subtidal. In areas with low salinity, the biotope is instead
dominated by perennial green algae, which is unique to the Baltic Sea.
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 situation: The biotope is common throughout the Baltic Sea. Sub-biotopes have
differing distribution in the area; the distribution of the sub-habitat ‘Baltic photic rock and
boulders dominated by kelp’ (AA.A1C4) is restricted to the Sound and Belt Sea and only ‘Baltic
photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial filamentous algae’ (AA.A1C5) occur in the
Bothnian Bay.
Recent (past 50 years): The biotope extent has decreased throughout the Baltic Sea over the
last 50 years due to reduction in Secchi depth, in some areas it is estimated that up to 50% of
the extent is lost. On the whole Baltic Sea scale the reduction is <25%.
Historic (past 250 years): No data available.
Future (next 50 years): A small further reduction of extent is predicted for the coming 50 years.
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):

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:
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.
The quality of the habitat has declined during the past 50 years, but there are no
quantitative measures of the decline.

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.
Baltic
Sea

Current area of Recent trend in
habitat (km2) quantity (last 50 yrs)
Recent trends in
quality (last 50 yrs)
no data
Decreasing
Decreasing
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.
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.
 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
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
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)
10
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
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
7.0
7.1
restoring alluvial situations,
reducing pollutants in water
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
Measures related to spatial planning
6.0
6.1
6.2
7
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
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 related to hunting, taking and
fishing and species management
Other species management measures
Regulation/ Management of hunting and
taking
regulation of hunting (periods, species), collection
permits for plants, berries etc., regulation of game
density
11
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
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

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 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
Annex 1-types according to the Habitats Directive. For marine types, please also indicate the OSPAR
or Helcom status if relevant.
The habitat has five sub-biotopes which according to HELCOM Red List Assessment 2013 are
given the following threat categories:
AA.A1C1 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by Fucus spp.’: LC (A1)
AA.A1C2 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial non-filamentous corticated
red algae’: LC (A1)
AA.A1C3 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial foliose red algae’: LC (A1)
AA.A1C4 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by kelp’: LC (A1)
AA.A1C5 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial filamentous algae’: 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):
12
Effort required
Low
Medium
High
Time
(years)
None
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 opinion
-
Subsequent expert discussions in the HELCOM Red List of Biotopes assessment
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
A1
<25%
EU 28+
<25%
A2a
No data
available
No data
available
A2b
No data
available
No data
available
A3
No data
available
No data
available
The values above are based on collected data, expert judgement and expert discussions.
Criterion B: Restricted geographic distribution
13
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
EU 28
EU 28+
B1
EOO
No data
available
No data
available
B2
a
b
c
AOO
No data
available
No data
available
a
b
B3
c
No data
available
No data
available
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
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
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
C/D3
Extent
affected
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
Relative
severity
No data
available
No data
available
C3
Extent
Relative
affected
severity
(%)
(%)
No data
No data
14
EU 28+
available
No data
available
available
No data
available
D1
Criterion D
EU 28
EU 28+
Extent
affected (%)
No data
available
No data
available
Relative
severity
(%)
No data
available
No data
available
available
No data
available
available
No data
available
D2
Extent
Relative
affected
severity
(%)
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
available
No data
available
available
No data
available
D3
Extent
Relative
affected
severity
(%)
(%)
No data
No data
available
available
No data
No data
available
available
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.
1
This table possibly will be filled automatically in the online platform
15
Category
EU
28
EU
28+
A1
LC
LC
A2a
DD
DD
A2b
DD
DD
A3
DD
DD

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
LC
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.
Based on the HELCOM Red List Questionnaire, expert opinion and subsequent expert
discussion all sub-biotopes of this biotope were deemed to be Least Concern (LC) according to
criteria A1 in the HELCOM Red List of Biotopes assessment. Detailed distribution data is lacking,
so EOO and AOO cannot be calculated. The gathered data was not detailed enough to assess
the quality of all sub-biotopes.

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.
AA.A1C1 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by Fucus spp.’
AA.A1C2 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial non-filamentous corticated
red algae’
AA.A1C3 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial foliose red algae’
AA.A1C4 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by kelp’
AA.A1C5 ‘Baltic photic rock and boulders dominated by perennial filamentous algae’
16
EU 28+
LC
A1

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.
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.
17