Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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)