Download Priority Marine Features in Scottish territorial waters

Priority Marine Features in Scottish
territorial waters
External peer review feedback
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), on behalf of Marine Scotland, has developed a list of
Priority Marine Features (PMFs) in territorial waters. The recommended list contains 56
habitats and species, excluding seabirds, which SNH believe to be priorities for conservation
action in territorial waters. It is intended that this list will be used to support advice on marine
biodiversity, help deliver new marine planning and licensing systems set out in the Marine
(Scotland) Act 2010, as well as guide future research priorities. A subset of the PMFs
(known as MPA search features1) is being used to underpin the selection of Nature
Conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
Alongside the SNH process, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) has identified
a recommended list of features in offshore waters. The offshore and territorial waters lists
have recently been combined into a single recommended list of Priority Marine Features in
Scotland’s seas, which will be subject to public consultation. For the avoidance of doubt, this
feedback report refers to the recommended list in territorial waters, unless explicitly stated.
Various marine and taxonomic specialists were consulted throughout the development of the
recommended PMF list and an external review of the overall process was completed by an
independent expert. A targeted six-week peer review of the draft list, and evidence used to
develop it, was then held during late summer 2010. The list, accompanying Commissioned
Report2, and background spreadsheets were sent to a wide range of specialists and interest
groups, seeking feedback on whether we had correctly interpreted the available evidence
base in support of developing the list.
1.2
Summary
The overall purpose of the peer review was to ensure the assessments we made in
developing the draft list were accurate and based on the most appropriate data. We invited
reviewers to comment on whether they agreed with our assessments and specifically to
consider:
whether we used the best available evidence in our assessments; and
whether we correctly interpreted that evidence.
A range of consultees responded to the peer review, including the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee (JNCC); Marine Scotland Science (MSS); academics from the University of
Glasgow, Heriot-Watt University, Scottish Association for Marine Science and National
Museums of Scotland; several non-governmental environmental organisations including
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
(WDCS), the Moray Firth Sea Trout Programme and Scottish Environment LINK; as well as
some independent marine consultants.
Overall the feedback we received was positive, with useful points in relation to clarifying and/
or improving our assessments of particular features. The following sections provide an
overview of the feedback we received through the peer review, together with our responses,
1
MPA search features will be used to underpin the selection of Nature Conservation MPAs. MPA search features
represent species, habitats and other features of conservation importance for which spatial measures are thought
to be an appropriate conservation measure. These include features from the PMF list, as well as black guillemot
and several larger-scale features such as shelf deeps and fronts.
2
Howson C., Steel S., Carruthers, M. and Gillham K. (2012). Identification of Priority Marine Features in Scottish
territorial waters. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 388
and a description of the changes we have made to the list in light of the feedback received.
The recommended list of PMFs in Scottish territorial waters is appended.
2
2.1
2.1.1
PEER REVIEW FEEDBACK AND OUR RESPONSE
Starting lists
Rare algae
A comment was received that the Important Plant Areas list of rare algae could usefully have
been used as an additional starting list.
This specific list was not one of the conservation mechanisms that we considered at the
outset of the process. At this stage, there is not scope to consider additional starter lists;
however, any rare algae listed within the Important Plant Areas report that were not included
in the original long-list will be considered at the first review (see 4.4).
2.1.2
Seabirds
The PMF list covers a range of marine habitats and species, but does not include seabirds.
Concerns were raised through the peer review about the effect this could have on the
prioritisation and resources assigned to future work on seabirds.
We do see seabirds as an intrinsic and valuable part of Scotland’s marine ecosystem and
the list includes features (e.g. sandeels) which help to support various seabird life stages.
However, the PMF list was never intended to cover seabirds themselves, as it was felt that
there was already a range of initiatives for seabirds underway. The lack of seabirds on the
recommended list does not reflect that they have failed to qualify as PMFs, as they were not
considered against the criteria in the first place.
The PMF list will help to provide a framework for SNH and others to support decisions being
made about where best to focus conservation effort for other marine species and habitats.
Seabirds should not be disadvantaged through being excluded from this process, as it would
be our intention to consider them for future funding and conservation action within their own
context alongside PMFs.
The development of the MPA search features list provides an example of seabirds being
prioritised in conservation initiatives, alongside PMFs. The MPA search features list has
been progressed by JNCC, Marine Scotland and SNH to underpin the selection of Nature
Conservation MPAs. It includes a subset of the PMFs, black guillemot Cepphus grylle, and
several larger scale features. Black guillemot was included because it is a distinctively
Scottish species which would benefit from spatial protection, but cannot be classified as a
qualifying interest of SPAs. For reference, PMFs for which spatial protection measures are
appropriate, but which are already covered by Natura through a listing on Annex I or II of the
Habitats Directive3 (e.g. bottlenose dolphin, serpulid reefs), are excluded from the list of MPA
search features.
3
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
2.2
Importance criteria
2.2.1
Proportional Importance - vagrancy
Feedback was received through the peer review that several of our assessments against
Proportional Importance for various cetacean species and one turtle should be revisited.
For leatherback turtle, it was recommended that we amend our assessments to reflect that it
is a rare but regular visitor to Scottish waters, rather than a vagrant. We have updated our
spreadsheets accordingly.
In addition, it was recommended that the following cetaceans would more accurately be
described as vagrants, rather than as having no proportional importance and/ or being rare
in Scottish waters: blue whale; Cuvier's beaked whale; false killer whale; humpback whale;
Northern right whale; pygmy sperm whale; sei whale; Sowerby's beaked whale; and striped
dolphin. For striped dolphin, contrasting feedback advised that this species was only very
rarely recorded in Scottish waters until the 1990s, but there have been frequent records
since that time.
We have revisited our assessments against Proportional Importance for these species,
however ultimately we have not re-classified any as vagrants. Although we recognise that
there are varying definitions of the term ‘vagrant’, for these assessments we have taken it to
mean an individual which is outside the expected range for its species.
We do not consider Scottish waters to be outside the expected range of any of the above
cetaceans. For example, although records are very rare in Scottish waters, blue whale is a
cosmopolitan species occurring in almost all oceans and we do not consider Scottish waters
outside of its expected range. Nevertheless as a rarely sighted offshore species, we have
assessed Scottish territorial waters as not proportionally important.
Similarly, based on the descriptions provided by MacLeod et al. (2006)4 and information
provided within the IUCN red list assessments, we do not consider Cuvier’s beaked whale
and Sowerby’s beaked whale to be outside of their expected range in Scottish waters.
Nevertheless, as both are considered to be primarily deepwater species, we have assessed
Scottish territorial waters as not proportionally important.
These changes would not have affected the PMF status of any of the above species.
2.2.2
Proportional Importance and Decline/Threat of Decline - geographic context of
assessments
Comments were received through the peer review seeking clarification on the geographical
context of assessments made against Decline/Threat of Decline and Proportional
Importance criteria.
All assessments for Decline/ Threat of Decline and Proportional Importance were made at
the scale of Scottish territorial waters. However, for many marine features it is difficult to
make straightforward assessments for these categories at the scale of Scottish territorial
waters, due to a relative lack of data. In some instances it was considered possible to make
a reasoned judgement against a particular category through extrapolating from information
from other territorial waters, or offshore waters. Applying expert judgement, as appropriate,
4
MacLeod C.D., Perrin W.F., Pitman R., Barlow J., Ballance L., D’Amico A., Gerrodette T., Joyce G., Mullin K.D.,
Palka D.L., Waring G.T. (2006) Known and inferred distributions of beaked whale species (Cetacea: Ziphiidae). J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. 7(3):271–286.
sometimes helped us to assign a more meaningful category (i.e. other than ‘unknown’) to
features.
The geographical area used to make assessments against Proportional Importance and
Decline/ Threat of Decline for mobile species was naturally slightly less clear than for sessile
features. However, in many cases it was still possible to apply judgement in relation to
relative distribution and abundance, or habitat preference, where known.
The geographical context for assessments against Decline/ Threat of Decline for mobile
features was considered relative to the known or expected range of the species (or specific
population if available) i.e. including areas beyond 12nm for some species.
2.2.3
Decline/ Threat of Decline – application of judgement
Feedback was received through the peer review that further explanation of the assessments
made against the Decline/ Threat of Decline criteria would be useful, especially in relation to
cetaceans. This was particularly requested in relation to where judgement was applied in
considering recent versus historic declines, geographic context of assessments and
evidence of decline and/ or threat.
In making our assessments it was necessary to interpret the Decline/ Threat of Decline
criteria in the specific context of a particular feature, taking account of life history
characteristics (where known). For example, species longevity for a particular feature was
relevant in assessing the threshold between historic and recent decline. Recoverability was
also taken into account. Where it was judged that a particular species could not recover from
historic population decline in Scottish waters (e.g. Northern right whale, Atlantic bluefin tuna)
it was assessed as declined, but then removed from further consideration. We do not intend
to try and reverse the declines in such species through implementation of local
management. However, for other species (e.g. sei whale) which have suffered historical
declines, but have recovered and/ or we judge may have the potential to recover,
assessment against the Decline/ Threat of Decline criteria was made in light of all existing
available data, including historic. (Note that sei whale has not been recommended as a
PMF, because Scottish territorial waters are not proportionally important for this species).
We assessed sei whale as in decline due to anthropogenic causes, as a result of past
hunting pressure. Although we recognise that this species is no longer exploited for
commercial whaling in the North Atlantic, this pressure is recognised as a major cause of
historic decline. The current status of sei whales is not clearly understood, although IWC5
report that there is little evidence of recovery of this species in the north-east Atlantic.
Features were also assessed as in decline, or under threat of decline, where threats or
pressures were considered well documented, even where there was a lack of evidence to
link specific causes and effects. It is often difficult, and perhaps particularly so in the case of
mobile, largely non-commercial species such as cetaceans and basking shark, to distinguish
the effects that various pressures could be having on a species at an individual or population
level. Although any one pressure in itself might not be sufficient to cause decline of a
species in Scottish territorial waters, we consider that the combined action of various
identified pressures could be enough to put it under threat of decline.
As noted at 2.2.2, the geographical context for assessments against Decline/ Threat of
Decline for mobile features such as cetaceans was considered relative to the known or
expected range of the species (or specific population if available) i.e. including areas beyond
12nm for some species.
5
http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/status.htm. <accessed Feb 2011>
2.2.4
Rarity
Comments received through the peer review highlighted concern that features were
excluded from the PMF list due to rarity.
This was not the case. Features were not excluded due to rarity; rather rarity was not used
as the basis for selecting features. As an example the fan mussel Atrina fragilis, which is
rare in Scottish territorial waters, was not excluded from the list. Fan mussel qualifies as a
severely declined species for which Scottish territorial waters are considered to be
proportionally important. We do not think that rarity in itself (whether due to edge of range or
natural rarity) should qualify a feature for inclusion on the list unless the feature is also
known to be proportionally important in Scotland and in decline/ at risk of decline or have
functional importance. As a further example, the brown seaweed, Fucus distichus, is rare but
is not threatened or proportionally important in Scotland. It was therefore not included on the
list.
2.2.5
Data Deficiency
Feedback was received through the peer review process that a separate list of
species/habitats for which data are deficient would be useful, especially where such features
may be of conservation importance.
As a result we have now appended a list of data deficient features to the commissioned
report (Appendix 5). In context of this list, features were defined as data deficient where
there were not enough data to make assessments against one or more of the other
importance criteria. These features could not pass the importance criteria and were therefore
not included on the PMF list. Recording them on the separate ‘data deficient’ list will enable
them to be flagged as features which might be sensible targets for research. It also provides
a register of features that may need to be reviewed for their inclusion on the PMF list as and
when new data become available. The list does not include data deficient features for which
it was possible to assess that Scottish territorial waters are not proportionally important.
Such features would not qualify as PMFs for this reason, regardless of the assessments
made against the other importance criteria.
It is recognised that many of the other features considered through the process to identify
PMFs would benefit from availability of additional data, for example to facilitate more detailed
interpretation against the criteria or to better understand how conservation action might be
implemented. The data deficient list does not capture that information, only recording those
species and habitats for which it was felt that the current prioritisation process could not be
completed. Data quality and gaps will be assessed for each of the PMFs through follow up
contracts to provide descriptions, interpretation and mapping of each feature (see 4.3).
2.3
Management criteria
2.3.1
Deferring the application of management criteria
Feedback indicated support for our approach of applying the management criteria to the
recommended list of PMFs, rather than to aid identification of PMFs, on the basis that
features should be included on the list as a result of scientific and ecological need rather
than availability of management options. Alongside this, concerns were raised that any
future application of the management criteria should not exclude features because identified
management actions are logistically or socio-economically difficult to implement.
In response, we do not intend to exclude PMFs from the list on the basis of future application
of the management criteria. Where there is found to be insufficient knowledge of the feature
to inform management actions, the species or habitat would be considered as a research
priority.
2.3.2
Management of commercial fish PMFs
A separate concern linked to implementation of management measures relates specifically
to commercial fish PMFs and whether fisheries measures will be the only management tools
implemented.
Overall, we anticipate that fisheries measures will largely be the most appropriate form of
management for commercial fish and that Marine Scotland Science will take lead
responsibility for implementing such measures. However, some of the commercial fish PMFs
are also search features for MPAs in Scottish territorial waters (sandeels, common skate);
while other commercial species (e.g. orange roughy, blue ling) are search features for MPAs
in Scottish offshore areas. Cod and whiting were considered for inclusion on the list of MPA
search features, however advice from MSS was that an extremely large area would need to
be managed for these species in order to be effective, and that temporal restrictions might
be a more useful form of management.
2.4
Rationalisation of provisional pass list
2.4.1
Removal of features where climate change is the main threat
Responses to the peer review process were divided as to whether removing features whose
major threat was considered to be climate change from the PMF list was appropriate. On
one hand it was suggested that although climate change is important, its effects at a local
scale are not amenable to management in the way that other pressures (e.g. fishing,
aquaculture) are. In contrast it was suggested that features potentially affected by climate
change should not have been removed before the management criteria were applied, to
enable any potential international management measures to be identified. It was also
suggested that for these features, increased emphasis should be placed on management of
other human induced pressures so as to lessen the cumulative impact.
We recognise the potential effects of climate change as being important. This is why threat
from climate change was assessed and we have created the specific list at Appendix 4. We
acknowledge that these features may be given lower priority in future than if they had been
included on the PMF list itself.
We feel measures implemented as part of SNH’s broader climate change programme would
be more appropriate. As such, we have not ruled out the possibility of implementing, or
promoting the implementation of, management measures at a strategic level and feel that
the separate list will be a useful tool to support such efforts.
Features where the major reason for decline, or threat of decline, was considered to be
‘climate change and anthropogenic factors’ have not been excluded from the PMF list. For
these features, specific consideration will be given to mitigating additional human induced
pressures which could cause cumulative impact on top of climate change. In these cases a
range of management options would be considered.
2.4.2
Grouping, or combining related features
Various comments were received through the peer review in relation to our process of
grouping individual features into PMF complexes or biotope/species groups. Overall the
process of rationalising the PMF list into important habitats, with finer-scale biotopes and
species nested within these, was supported. The exercise was considered helpful in
providing a clear indication of the overlaps between the various features included on the
PMF list. However, it was also noted that caution should be applied when implementing
management measures for grouped PMFs, so as to ensure that adequate protection is
afforded at the level of the individual components of the PMF.
We acknowledge the importance of ensuring effective management measures are
implemented at the level of PMF components. We recognise that some of these PMFs
contain habitats and species with different environmental tolerances, sometimes with slightly
different distributions. This will be taken into account in implementing effective management.
We have considered these issues through the process of identifying PMFs and in initial
follow-up work to describe the features and consider management options. However, more
detailed consideration will be given at the stage where management measures are put in
place for particular features. For example, in the case of MPA search features, detailed
ecological guidance is being prepared at the level of each component species/biotope within
grouped features to help support application of the MPA Selection Guidelines.
2.5
Discussion and references
2.5.1
Level of detail and references
Comments were received through the peer review that the PMF report draws on relatively
few references and could benefit from a more comprehensive literature review.
In light of this we have consulted additional references for cetaceans and for other specific
PMFs, including cold-water coral reefs. However, we have not sought to address these
comments to a greater extent within the report, as we feel it is beyond the scope of the
current project. The intention of the report is to provide a concise description of the
processes undertaken to prioritise the various pre-existing lists of habitats and species of
conservation importance in Scottish territorial waters. Detailed descriptions and guidance
documents are being prepared (based on more comprehensive literature review) for each of
the identified PMFs through contracts which are underway. We will address the comments
relating to level of detail and wider referencing of literature more fully through these
contracts.
2.5.2
Climate change discussion
An additional concern was that our discussion on climate change within the commissioned
report is brief, with limited reference to effects of ocean warming and ocean acidification.
We recognise that both ocean warming and ocean acidification are consequences of climate
change with significant implications. As such we have now included reference to these
issues within the introduction to Appendix 4. We have also referred to ocean acidification
and warming, where appropriate, under the PMF summaries provided in Appendix 6. For
example, under ‘cold-water coral reefs’, we have recognised that Lophelia pertusa is
sensitive to ocean warming and ocean acidification. However we have not added a detailed
section on climate change to the main body of the report. We feel that this is beyond the
scope of the project, the aim of which was to outline the process by which we prioritised a list
of marine habitats and species of conservation importance in Scottish territorial waters and
not to give detailed accounts of specific issues.
2.6
MPA Selection Guidelines and search features
A number of comments received during the peer review relate specifically to the MPA
Selection Guidelines and application of MPA search features in identifying areas of search
for nature conservation MPAs. These comments are not directly related to the process of
identifying PMFs in Scottish territorial waters. Such feedback has been addressed through
revisions to the MPA Selection Guidelines instead.
2.7
Re-assessment of Pass/Fail for specific features
2.7.1
Fish species
Comments were received that the assessments made against various fish species should be
reviewed and that the draft fish PMFs may need to be reconsidered.
In light of these comments, a meeting was held in late November 2010 involving specialists
from SNH, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Marine Scotland Science
(MSS). Species on the draft list of PMFs in Scottish territorial waters were considered
alongside those on three other recently compiled draft lists: the provisional list of PMFs for
Scottish offshore waters; a list containing species of interest to Recreational Sea Anglers
(RSA); and a list of species considered to be suffering critical fishing mortality, compiled by
MSS.
Ultimately no changes were made to the recommended list of territorial fish PMFs as a result
of this meeting. Discussions confirmed that the fish included on the list were appropriate
based on the starting lists used in the process and the criteria that have been applied. For
example, the following fish which are of concern to recreational sea anglers and/ or
considered to be suffering critical fishing mortality, were never considered in the PMF
process because they do not exist on any of lists of conservation importance used at the
outset:
haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus);
conger eel (Conger conger);
pollack (Pollachius pollachius);
flounder (Platichthys flesus);
blonde ray (Raja brachyuran);
smoothhound dogfish (Mustelus mustelus);
turbot (Psetta maxima);
wolffish (Anarhichas lupus).
Except for wolffish, which is considered to be a primarily offshore species, all these fish have
been added to a register of features which will be considered for inclusion on the PMF list at
the next review.
Other species of concern to recreational sea anglers and/ or fisheries include:
porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus);
plaice (Pleuronectes platessa);
tope (Galeorhinus galeus);
spotted ray (Raja montagui);
thornback ray/ roker (Raja clavata).
These species were assessed, but did not qualify as PMFs in Scottish territorial waters
largely through not passing the Proportional Importance criterion. Porbeagle shark, however,
is included on the Scottish offshore waters PMF list and so will be recommended for the
combined list. Tope has been included on our data deficient list and will be reviewed for
inclusion when further data are available on the importance of Scottish territorial waters.
2.7.2
Other features
A number of other features were reassessed in light of comments and/ or supplementary
information received through the peer review process. These are discussed in section 3
below.
3
CHANGES TO THE PMF LIST FOLLOWING PEER REVIEW
3.1
Sea trout (Salmo trutta)
Sea trout is now included as a PMF in Scottish territorial waters.
Our original assessments indicated that sea trout should ‘pass’ based on the importance
criteria used to assess whether a feature should qualify as a PMF. We had assessed
Scottish sea trout populations as being of national (and possibly regional) importance, and
as being in severe decline. In addition we agree with peer review comments that sea trout
has functional importance as a key food species. These assessments were sufficient for sea
trout to meet the criteria for a PMF. However, the species was unfortunately then omitted
from the draft list. We are glad that the peer review process was able to draw this oversight
to our attention.
3.2
Modiolus modiolus beds on open coast circalittoral mixed sediment
(SS.SBR.SMus.ModMx)
The biotope ‘Modiolus modiolus beds on open coast circalittoral mixed sediment’ is now
included as a component of the ‘horse mussel beds’ PMF.
This biotope was originally assessed as having no proportional importance within Scotland.
However, feedback indicated that Scottish territorial waters may be nationally important,
based on known records of this biotope in Shetland and Orkney.
3.3
Ruppia maritima
(SS.SMp.SSgr.Rup)
in
reduced
salinity
infralittoral
muddy
sand
The biotope ‘Ruppia maritima in reduced salinity infralittoral muddy sand’ is now included as
a component of the ‘seagrass beds’ PMF.
This biotope was originally assessed as having no proportional importance within Scotland.
However, feedback indicated that we should consider revisiting this assessment. Based on
known records in Orkney, Shetland, the Outer Hebrides and the Cromarty Firth, we have reassessed Scottish territorial waters as being nationally important for this biotope.
3.4
Kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment (SS.SMp.KSwSS)
The ‘kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment’ PMF now specifically excludes
the following two sub-biotopes:
Mats of Trailliella on infralittoral muddy gravel (SS.SMp.KSwSS.Tra); and
Filamentous green seaweeds on low salinity infralittoral mixed sediment or rock
(SS.SMp.KSwSS.FilG)
The original assessments were made against the higher level biotope (KSwSS) and the
biotope passed at this level. However, KSwSS is a very widespread biotope containing subbiotopes which, in our view, vary significantly in terms of their functional importance. As
such, we felt it was important to rationalise this PMF through consideration at the level of the
sub-biotope components. Those sub-biotopes which are considered to lack functional
importance were excluded (i.e. SS.SMp.KSwSS.Tra and SS.SMp.KSwSS.FilG). Borderline
sub-biotopes were retained within the PMF definition in consideration of the fact that the
higher level KSwSS biotope had already passed the criteria.
3.5
Kelp and seaweed
(IR.MIR.KT)
communities
in
tide-swept
sheltered
conditions
The biotope ‘kelp and seaweed communities in tide-swept sheltered conditions’ (which is a
component of the tide-swept algal communities PMF) now specifically excludes the following
two sub-biotopes:
Laminaria saccharina with foliose red seaweeds and ascidians on sheltered tideswept infralittoral rock (IR.MIR.KT.LsacT); and
Filamentous red seaweeds, sponges and Balanus crenatus on tide-swept variablesalinity infralittoral rock (IR.MIR.KT.FilRVS)
From the descriptions provided in the Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland
04.056, these sub-biotopes by definition are restricted to south-western Britain. It was
therefore considered inappropriate to include them on the list of PMFs in Scottish territorial
waters.
3.6
Deep sponge communities (circalittoral) (CR.HCR.DpSp)
The biotope ‘deep sponge communities (circalittoral)’ is now included as a component of the
‘Northern sea fan and sponge communities’ PMF (formerly called ‘Northern sea fan
communities’).
The original assessments made against this biotope were largely based on the online
mapping available through the Marine Habitat Classification 04.05. However, relatively
recent records of the biotope from northeast Shetland, west of the Hebrides, off the coast of
Mingulay, the Firth of Lorn and in the mouth of Loch Sunart, are not yet available through
this source. Taking these records into account, Scottish territorial waters are assessed to be
proportionally important for deep sponge communities.
3.7
Serpulid aggregations
The PMF name has been changed from ‘serpulid reefs’ to ‘serpulid aggregations’ and
explanatory text has been included to make clear that the size of the biogenic structure is
immaterial to the definition of this PMF. We consider that all aggregations of Serpula
vermicularis are of conservation importance, whether they fall within a strict definition of
‘reefs’, or consist of smaller clumps.
6
Connor DW, Allen JH, Golding N, Howell KL, Lieberknecht LM, Northen KO, Reker JB (2004) The Marine
Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet
version)
4
4.1
NEXT STEPS IN RELATION TO THE PMF LIST
Finalising the report & recommended list of PMFs in Scottish territorial waters
The recommended list of PMFs in Scottish territorial waters is provided in Appendix A. This
list has been agreed within SNH and is available through the SNH website. The
accompanying Commissioned Report No. 388 Identification of Priority Marine Features in
Scottish territorial waters has also been published and made available online.
4.2
Combining JNCC and SNH lists into a single list of recommended PMFs for
Scottish waters
Alongside the SNH process, JNCC has developed a complementary list of PMFs for Scottish
offshore waters. These two lists have now been combined into a single list and submitted to
Marine Scotland as recommended PMFs across Scotland’s seas. We anticipate that the
combined list of recommended PMFs will be subject to public consultation before being
considered for formal adoption by Scottish Ministers.
4.3
Future review of the PMF list
A timetable for future review of the species and habitats included on the list will be
considered at the stage when the combined list of recommended PMFs is agreed. It is
thought likely that a five-yearly review timetable, tying in with Scottish Biodiversity List review
timeframes, might be appropriate. In the meantime, and to aid future review, any species or
habitats flagged up as features which may merit future consideration or re-assessment for
inclusion on the list of PMFs in territorial waters are being recorded on a review register.
5
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Recommended list of Priority Marine Features (PMFs) in Scottish
territorial waters
Habitats
Priority Marine Feature
Component biotopes/ species
(biotope/ common name)
Blue mussel beds
Burrowed mud
Cold-water coral reefs
Flame shell beds
Horse mussel beds
Inshore deep mud with
burrowing heart urchins
Intertidal mudflats
Kelp and seaweed
communities on sublittoral
sediment
Low or variable salinity
habitats
7
Component biotopes/
species (biotope code/
species name)
Mytilus edulis beds on littoral sediments
Mytilus edulis and Fabricia sabella in
littoral mixed sediment
Mytilus edulis beds on sublittoral sediment
Mytilus edulis beds on reduced salinity
infralittoral rock
Seapens and burrowing megafauna in
circalittoral fine mud
Burrowing megafauna and Maxmuelleria
lankesteri in circalittoral mud
Tall seapen
Fireworks anemone
Mud burrowing amphipod
Lophelia reefs
Limaria hians beds in tide-swept
sublittoral muddy mixed sediment
Modiolus modiolus beds with hydroids
and red seaweeds on tide-swept
circalittoral mixed substrata
Modiolus modiolus beds on open coast
circalittoral mixed sediment
Modiolus modiolus beds with fine hydroids
and large solitary ascidians on very
sheltered circalittoral mixed substrata
Modiolus modiolus beds with Chlamys
varia, sponges, hydroids and bryozoans
on slightly tide-swept very sheltered
circalittoral mixed substrata
Brissopsis lyrifera and Amphiura chiajei in
circalittoral mud
Littoral mud
Kelp and seaweed communities on
7
sublittoral sediment
LS.LBR.LMus.Myt
LS.LSa.St.MytFab
Faunal communities on variable or
reduced salinity infralittoral rock
Kelp in variable or reduced salinity
Submerged fucoids, green or red
seaweeds (low salinity infralittoral rock)
Sublittoral mud in low or reduced salinity
(lagoons)
Bird’s nest stonewort
Baltic stonewort
Foxtail stonewort
Small brackish water snail
IR.LIR.IFaVS
SS.SBR.SMus.MytSS
IR.LIR.IFaVS.MytRS
SS.SMu.CFiMu.SpnMeg
SS.SMu.CFiMu.MegMax
Funiculina quadrangularis
Pachycerianthus multiplicatus
Maera loveni
SS.SBR.Crl.Lop
SS.SMx.IMx.Lim
SS.SBR.SMus.ModT
SS.SBR.SMus.ModMx
SS.SBR.SMus.ModHAs
SS.SBR.SMus.ModCvar
SS.SMu.CFiMu.BlyrAchi
LS.LMu
SS.SMp.KSwSS
IR.LIR.KVS
IR.LIR.Lag
SS.SMu.SMuLS
Tolypella nidifica
Chara baltica
Lamprothamnium papulosum
Hydrobia acuta neglecta
The following sub-biotopes are specifically excluded: Mats of Trailliella on infralittoral muddy gravel
(SS.SMp.KSwSS.Tra); & Filamentous green seaweeds on low salinity infralittoral mixed sediment or rock
(SS.SMp.KSwSS.FilG)’
Priority Marine Feature
Component biotopes/ species
(biotope/ common name)
Maerl beds
Maerl or coarse shell gravel
with burrowing sea
cucumbers
Native oysters
Northern sea fan and
sponge communities
Seagrass beds
Sea loch egg wrack beds
Serpulid aggregations
Submarine structures made
by leaking gases
Tide-swept algal
communities
Tide-swept coarse sands
with burrowing bivalves
8
Component biotopes/
species (biotope code/
species name)
Maerl beds
Neopentadactyla mixta in circalittoral shell
gravel or coarse sand
SS.SMp.Mrl
SS.SCS.CCS.Nmix
Ostrea edulis beds on shallow sublittoral
muddy mixed sediment
Native oyster
Caryophyllia smithii and Swiftia pallida on
circalittoral rock
Mixed turf of hydroids and large ascidians
with Swiftia pallida and Caryophyllia
smithii on weakly tide-swept circalittoral
rock
Deep sponge communities (circalittoral)
Northern sea fan
Zostera noltii beds in littoral muddy sand
Zostera marina/angustifolia beds on lower
shore or infralittoral clean or muddy sand
Ruppia maritima in reduced salinity
infralittoral muddy sand
Ascophyllum nodosum ecad mackaii beds
on extremely sheltered mid eulittoral
mixed substrata
Serpula vermicularis reefs on very
8
sheltered circalittoral muddy sand
Submarine structures made by leaking
gases
Fucoids in tide-swept conditions
Halidrys siliquosa and mixed kelps on
tide-swept infralittoral rock with coarse
sediment
Kelp and seaweed communities in tide9
swept sheltered conditions
Laminaria hyperborea on tide-swept,
infralittoral mixed substrata
Moerella spp. with venerid bivalves in
10
infralittoral gravelly sand
SS.SMx.IMx.Ost
Ostrea edulis
CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSwi
CR.HCR.XFa.SwiLgAs
CR.HCR.DpSp
Swiftia pallida
LS.LMp.LSgr.Znol
SS.SMp.SSgr.Zmar
SS.SMp.SSgr.Rup
LR.LLR.FVS.Ascmac
SS.SBR.PoR.Ser
No code
LR.HLR.FT
IR.HIR.KSed.XKHal
IR.MIR.KT
IR.MIR.KR.LhypTX
SS.SCS.ICS.MoeVen
As well as the serpulid reefs biotope this PMF specifically includes smaller aggregations of Serpula vermicularis
The following sub-biotopes are specifically excluded: Laminaria saccharina with foliose red seaweeds and
ascidians on sheltered tide-swept infralittoral rock (IR.MIR.KT.LsacT); & Filamentous red seaweeds, sponges
and Balanus crenatus on tide-swept variable-salinity infralittoral rock (IR.MIR.KT.FilRVS)
10
Recent data suggests that the community associated with this biotope may also be present in waters deeper
than is characteristic of infralittoral biotopes. Pending further assessment and classification, this PMF includes
examples of the community associated with SS.SCS.ICS.MoeVen even where it lies outside the typical depth
range of the biotope.
9
Species
Priority Marine Feature
Taxon group
Species name
Burrowing sea anemone
Pink sea fingers
White cluster anemone
Sea anemones, sea fans and seapens
Sea anemones, sea fans and seapens
Sea anemones, sea fans and seapens
Arachnanthus sarsi
Alcyonium hibernicum
Parazoanthus anguicomus
Northern feather star
Fan mussel
Starfish and feather stars
Snails, clams, mussels and oysters
Leptometra celtica
Atrina fragilis
Heart cockle
Snails, clams, mussels and oysters
Glossus humanus
Ocean quahog
European spiny lobster
Snails, clams, mussels and oysters
Lobsters and sand hoppers
Arctica islandica
Palinurus elephas
Eel
Bony fish (catadromous)
Anguilla anguilla
Bony fish (anadromous)
Salmo salar
Bony fish (anadromous)
Lampetra fluviatilis
(marine part of life cycle)
Atlantic salmon
(marine part of life cycle)
European river lamprey
(marine part of life cycle)
Sea lamprey
Bony fish (anadromous)
(marine part of life cycle)
Petromyzon marinus
Bony fish (anadromous)
Salmo trutta
Bony fish (anadromous)
Osmerus eperlanus
Bony fish
Bony fish
Lophius piscatorius
Clupea harengus
Atlantic mackerel
Cod
Bony fish
Bony fish
Scomber scombrus
Gadus morhua
Ling
Norway pout
Bony fish
Bony fish
Molva molva
Trisopterus esmarkii
Saithe (juveniles)
Sandeels
Bony fish
Bony fish
Sand goby
Bony fish
Pollachius virens
Ammodytes marinus &
Ammodytes tobianus
Pomatoschistus minutus
Whiting (juveniles)
Bony fish
Merlangius merlangus
Basking shark
Common skate
Sharks, skates and rays
Sharks, skates and rays
Spiny dogfish
Bottlenose dolphin
Sharks, skates and rays
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Cetorhinus maximus
Formerly Dipturus batis now
split provisionally into D. cf.
flossada and D. cf. intermedia
Squalus acanthias
Tursiops truncatus
Harbour porpoise
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Phocoena phocoena
Killer whale
Minke whale
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Orcinus orca
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Risso's dolphin
Short-beaked common
dolphin
White-beaked dolphin
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Grampus griseus
Delphinus delphis
Whales, dolphins and porpoises
Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Harbour/common seal
Grey seal
Seals
Seals
Phoca vitulina
Halichoerus grypus
Otter
Otter
Lutra lutra
Sea trout
(marine part of life cycle)
Sparling
(marine part of life cycle)
Anglerfish (juveniles)
Atlantic herring (juveniles
and spawning adults)