Marine Spatial Planning in the German Exclusive

Economic Zone of the North and Baltic Seas

Nature Conservation Objectives and Principles

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)

2

Prepared by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation by utilising results from the research project “Technical nature conservation and legal nature conservation requirements in the wake of the expansion of the regional planning regime to the German EEZ” (FKZ 804 85 017), revised by TU Berlin, OECOS Environmental Planning, Prof. Dr. Rainer Wolf and RA Rüdiger Nebelsieck (LL.M). February 2006 Translation by Wohanka & Kollegen GmbH, Lorenzerstr. 12, D-84144 Geisenhausen

3

Contents

A. Introduction.................................................................................................... 4

1. Task of the nature conservation response and specifications.................. 4

B. Fundamentals ................................................................................................ 5

1. Landscape function and classification of EEZ............................................ 5

1.1 The EEZ as a natural landscape unit........................................................ 5

1.2 Classification of landscape units............................................................... 5

1.2.1 North Sea .......................................................................................... 5

1.2.2 Baltic Sea .......................................................................................... 8

C. Nature conservation requirements for spatial planning in the EEZ ....... 10

1. The implementation of the general principle according to § 1 ROG ...... 10

2. Principles (P) for safeguarding and development of the EEZ natural region............................................................................................................ 12

2.1 Marine nature and landscape ................................................................. 12

2.2 Open space and land use....................................................................... 15

3. Objectives (O) for safeguarding and development of the EEZ natural region............................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Subjects of protection of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive ....... 17

3.1.1 Priority areas for the marine nature in the North Sea EEZ .............. 17

3.1.2 Priority areas for the marine nature in the Baltic Sea EEZ .............. 17

3.1.3 Further HD-relevant structures outside the priority areas ................ 17

3.2 Bird migration.......................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Bird migration over the German EEZ of the North Sea.................... 18

3.2.2 Bird migration over the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea.................... 18

3.3 Benthic communities............................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Benthic communities in the German EEZ of the North Sea............. 19

3.3.2 Benthic communities in the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea............. 19

Annex ...................................................................................................................... 39

4

A. Introduction

1. Task of the nature conservation response and specifications As proved by § 1 of the German Federal Spatial Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz, ROG), individual functions in the German EEZ can be developed, arranged and ensured within the scope of the guidelines from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The task of this nature conservation response and specifications presented here is to further substantiate the notification of requirements with regard to spatial planning in the EEZ from the viewpoint of nature conservation first accomplished in the letter (N I 5 – 77 000 / 2) from 24 March 2005 through the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), and to prepare current findings as a nature conservation basis for the first compilation of a marine spatial plan in the German EEZ.

First of all, the special importance of the EEZ as a marine region and its natural regional function and classification will be presented in the following Part B. Building on that, the concrete requirements of marine spatial planning from the viewpoint of nature conservation will be formulated in Part C. The general principle of a sustainable spatial development for the EEZ will be substantiated in the first section of Part C. In addition, concrete requirements in the form of textual principles as well as textual and area-related objectives (Part C; Section 2 and 3) will be derived and justified. Finally, areas with pre-eminent importance for nature conservation – which should be secured within the scope of marine spatial planning as priority areas for the marine nature – will also be identified in this connection. Occasionally, areas with significance for nature conservation are (indirectly) protected, if they are located inside suitability areas (e.g. for windparks) where certain human activities are ruled out as defined by the German Federal Spatial Planning Act.

As a result, a nature conservation planning contribution regarding integration into the regional marine spatial plans for the EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea will be presented on the basis of the current state of knowledge1.

Concrete requirements necessary from a nature conservation viewpoint with regard to certain activities can only be conclusively developed in dependence of the planned development of these activities. They will be supplemented when the occasion arises, also in dependence on the results of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA), and are then to be worked into the corresponding objectives and principles as well as during the determination of priority, reserve and suitability areas for these activities.

1 The current state of knowledge is understood to mean the state of knowledge which could be made available for this contribution. The sources will be specifically referred to in the text, as well as ongoing research projects which will possibly lead to new findings in the course of the procedure regarding compilation of objectives and principles of regional planning in the EEZ. Particularly through the parallel efforts in the description and assessment of the current status of the individual subjects of protection in the course of the preparation of the environmental report and the subsequent public participation within the scope of the SEA, additional new findings could flow in, against the background of which the nature conservation concerns formulated here in a first step are to be reviewed and supplemented.

5

B. Fundamentals

1. Landscape function and classification of EEZ

1.1 The EEZ as a natural landscape unit The German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea represents a unique large-scale natural region and fascinating open space. At the same time, the German EEZ is part of attached extended seas and oceans with their large contiguous ecosystems. Their functionality is of special importance for the life on Earth.

The interlinked marine ecosystems enable the existence of a large diversity of species, communities and habitat-typical processes. The communities utilise and characterise their habitats, which are specific in their diversity and dynamic, and distinguish themselves through the existence of typical species.

The ecological functions of the EEZ encompass interactions of the living organisms (flora and fauna) with their habitats in the seabed including its subsoil, in the water column, on the sea surface and in the airspace above. The ecological conditional associations and interdependencies are decisively influenced by the geographical location, by climate, by light, by the morphology and by the substrate of the seabed as well as by the hydrology with water temperature, stratification conditions and the conditions of currents, wind, waves and turbulences as well as the tides.

The sea, also a habitat for a variety of highly mobile species, is – except for single geological elevations –characterised by large-scale openness and freedom from barriers, particularly in the water column and above the water. Even if prominent landmarks are frequently missing on the surface, the German EEZ in the North Sea and Baltic Sea also has spatial-structural classification features, according to which the various habitats and natural regions can be demarcated. In accordance with the dynamic of the habitat, the boundaries are not formed as sharp lines, but partially as broad transition regions between the natural regions.

1.2 Classification of landscape units

1.2.1 North Sea In the North Sea, a “coastal region” up to a water depth of approx. 10 metres and the adjacent seaward “offshore region” can basically be differentiated under natural regional aspects. On the basis of abiotic criteria such as light, morphology (with the water depth as an important factor), hydrography with characteristic water masses and sediment distribution patterns as well as the characteristic benthos communities subsequently configured according to the biotic criterion of distribution, a further subdivision of different natural regions is possible, which can be utilised in the marine spatial planning for better response, and if necessary, for formulation of specific requirements.

As a conspicuous, deep lead structure, the Elbe Glacial Valley (Fig.1: B) extends from the present-day Elbe River estuary to the northwest through the German Bight, turns northward slightly east of the White Bank (at 55° N), and flows finally into the central North Sea eastwards of the Dogger Bank. This lead structure, which is characterised by ultra-fine sands and silt, separates – westward in extended transition areas, eastward sharply through conspicuous slope areas – various water masses (amongst other things, in relation to the salinity; see also Table 1) and (sandy) sedimentary areas, what leads to varying hydrological conditions and definable colonisation regions for communities.

6

Fig. 1: Marine landscape classification of the German North Sea EEZ

7

Table 1: Landscape units of the German North Sea EEZ (modified according to RACHOR & NEHMER 20032) INITIAL DESIGNATION HYDROGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY SEDIMENT BENTHOS A Eastern German

Bight (North Frisian EEZ)

Alternating salinity with frontal systems between North Sea water and fresh-water input of large rivers; high nutrient concentration, higher pollutant concentration than in the rest of the EEZ; northward residual current (CCC)

From -10 to -43 m Fine, medium-grained and coarse sand regenerated from moraine material with stone fields and stone reefs

Predominantly Tellina fabula community (dominant species: ribbed-tellin and Spionidae-Annelida), adaptable; in the direction of the coast: sub-littoral variations of the Macoma balthica community

B Elbe Glacial Valley

Seasonal body of water, at times stratified, regionally with oxygen depletion; lower-salinity coastal waters can lie above higher-salinity water.

Elongated, on the eastern slope steeper hollow pattern to -50 m

Clay, silt and fine sand

Amphiuria filiformis community (dominant species: brittle star), in sub-regions burrowing megafauna; Nucula nitidosa community in the coastal silt and silt-sand areas)

C Southwest German Bight (coastal East Frisian EEZ with Borkum Reef Ground)

Influx of Atlantic water from the canal and the Western North Sea; eastern current

From -20 to -36 m Fine sand as well as coarsely sandy to pebbly and partially stony sediments

Predominantly Tellina fabula community (dominant species: ribbed-tellin and Spionidae), adaptable; as well as Goniadella Spisula community; high species diversity in biotope mosaics with often slighter colonisation densities

D Northwest German Bight (offshore East Frisian EEZ)

Under North Sea water influence; slight eastern current

From -30 to -40 m Silt and fine sand Amphiuria filiformis community (dominant species: brittle stars), in sub-regions burrowing megafauna

E Transition region between German Bight and Dogger Bank

Slight tidal dynamic with slighter amplitude; stratified body of water in the summer; higher salinity with slighter variability; oxygen deficiency possible

Depths from -38 (shallow bottom of the White Bank) to -50 m

Fine sand, very fine, partially more muddy sand

Amphiuria filiformis community (dominant species: brittle star), in sub-regions burrowing megafauna

F Dogger Bank Eddy and frontal formation on the slope positions; strong vertical mixing on the bank, body of water rarely stratified

Depths of -29 to -40, becoming shallower towards the West

Fine sands to occasional medium-grained sands; often containing shells, occasionally also stones

Offshore fine sand community: Bathyporeia Tellina community

G Central North Sea north of the Dogger Bank

Water is regularly stratified in the summer months

Depths > -40 m Sandy to muddy mixed substrates of the central North Sea

Benthos community of the central North Sea: Myriochele

2 RACHOR, E. & NEHMER P. (2003): Erfassung und Bewertung ökologisch wertvoller Lebensräume in der Nordsee. Abschlussbericht für das F+E-Vorhaben FKZ 899 85 310; gefördert durch das BfN: 175 S.

8

1.2.2 Baltic Sea The German Baltic marine area is located in a transition region between the Belt Sea (strongly influenced by the North Sea) and the Baltic proper (dominated by brackish water). Tides are practically without influence. An ecologically prominent separation between the varying water bodies is the Darß Sill. A limited water exchange takes place through the hardly 30 m deep Kadet Trench. This is why the German Baltic Sea can first of all be basically separated into the “Western Baltic Sea” (which stretches eastward to Kadet Trench/Darß Sill) and the “central Baltic Sea” (which is located eastward). Further sub-regions can also be subdivided here on the basis of the natural regional criteria already mentioned for the North Sea. From west to east, the quite strongly marine-characterised Bay of Kiel (A) accordingly differs from the Bay of Mecklenburg (B). The transition region of the Darß Sill (C) is subsequently followed by the Arkona Basin (D) and the Pomeranian Bay (E).

Fig. 2: Landscape classification of the German Baltic Sea EEZ

9

Table 2: Landscape units of the German Baltic Sea EEZ INITIAL DESIGNATION HYDROGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY SEDIMENT BENTHOS A Belt Sea EEZ

and Bay of Kiel Thermohaline stratification with ∅ salinity > 20, frequent oxygen depletion in the ground-proximate water layers; icing is rare

From -15 to -30 m Fine sand, sporadically also silt and clay, stones, residual sediments, heterogeneous sedimentary distribution

Marine species dominate; partially species-rich endofauna communities as well as very species-rich phytal communities

B Bay of Mecklenburg EEZ

Relatively slight current velocities; thermohaline stratification with regular oxygen depletion, ∅ salinity > 7 < 20; occasional icing

From -20 to -30 m Silt, clay in the central region, residual sedimentary areas in the peripheral regions

Marine species dominate; partially species-rich endofauna communities as well as very species-rich phytal communities

C Darß Sill Water exchange between central and western Baltic Sea through the Kadet Trench

From -18 to -25 m; Sill between Belt Sea / Mecklenburg Bight and Arkona Basin; the up to 25 m deep Kadet Trench is inter-bedded.

Medium-grained and coarse sand, gravel, residual sedimentary areas and boulder fields (reef)

Transition region, decrease of marine species (Macoma balthica; in deeper layers from -20 m also Abra alba, Arctica islandica societies as well as phytal communities in the Kadet Trench

D Arkona Basin EEZ

Relatively slight current velocities; thermohaline stratification with frequent oxygen depletion, icing is possible in the winter, salinity > 7

From -20 to -47 m Silt, clay Species-poor brackish water community of the central Baltic Sea with stenothermic cold water relicts in unique combination with fresh-water species

E Pomeranian Bay (with Adlerground and Odra Bank)

Relatively slight current velocities; icing is possible in the winter: (Adler Ground: rare freeze-over; Odra Bank: frequent wintry freeze-over), salinity > 7

Shallow bottom from -6 to -30 m

Medium-grained and coarse sand, gravel, rubble, extensive homogeneous sands in the central regions

Species-poor brackish water communities in unique combination with fresh-water species (Macoma balthica; Mya arenaria; Theoduxus fluviatilis)

10

C. Nature conservation requirements for spatial planning in the EEZ

1. The implementation of the general principle according to § 1 ROG The general principle of the marine spatial planning for the EEZ is a sustainable spatial development which harmonises the social and economic demands on the region with its ecological functions, and leads to a lasting, extensively well-balanced spatial plan. In this spirit, the spatial plan is to be developed within the scope of the guidelines of the UNCLOS and in harmony with international agreements.

Within the realm of marine environmental protection, this particularly includes: • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic

(OSPAR Convention), and • Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area

(Helsinki Convention)

The aforementioned agreements are generally supplemented by the European Law guidelines of the EU Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive (HD) as well as the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). Art. 20a GG [German Constitutional Law] with its essential contents (e.g. the general prohibition of ecological deterioration) is to be considered in terms of constitutional law.

In terms of an understandable derivation and classification, the BfN considers it necessary to prefix the objectives and principles of marine spatial planning guidelines or guiding principles in the sense of a model for the developments in the EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. These guidelines must take into consideration the distinctiveness of the region and meet the following requirements from a viewpoint of nature conservation for supporting a sustainable spatial development in the EEZ. The following formulated requirements for the spatial arrangement of the EEZ are also the basis for the nature conservation principles and objectives formulated in Sections 2 and 3.

(1) The spatial arrangement has to live up to the mandate of Art. 20a GG regarding safeguarding the natural assets. Economic activities in the entire region of the EEZ are to be configured and spatially arranged so that the natural assets and characteristic biotopes with the processes typical for them and preserving them will also be ensured in a sense of responsibility for future generations. To what extent human activities themselves contribute towards safeguarding the natural assets is also to be taken into consideration in this connection. The available natural assets are only to be utilised if provisions are made for the protection of the complex marine ecosystem. While doing so, already existing anthropogenic pressures are to be taken into consideration. The effects of human activities shall be monitored, and the activities shall be arranged and implemented so that they remain reversible.

(2) The spatial arrangement has to take into consideration the special importance of the large-scale and barrier-free natural region as well as its various dimensions and interdependencies. It preserves the openness and freedom from barriers as well as the various natural regional circumstances, and thus contributes towards safeguarding typical species and characteristic habitats with their typical functions. It also follows the ecosystem approach, i.e. an integrated approach for protection of functional contexts which exhaustively includes the load capacity and uptake capacities of the natural region and its ecosystems, and complies with European and national guidelines. In addition to regions economically used, the spatial planning also safeguards open spaces in the sense of largely unspoiled and undisturbed habitats and landscapes as a prerequisite for ecological regulation as well as for “landscape experience” and for basic research.

11

(3) The spatial arrangement has to support the endeavours regarding preservation of biological diversity and regarding establishment of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) as well as to keep open appropriate developmental options. It also contributes towards stopping the loss of biological diversity by the year 2010 and promotes the endeavours of CBD, OSPAR and the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) as well as the EU regarding development and protection of a network of well-managed marine protected areas on the basis of Art. 194 Para. 5 UNCLOS. The spatial arrangement supports and promotes the preservation and, as far as necessary and possible, also the restoration of the natural biodiversity, and also contributes outside of marine protected areas towards preservation of characteristic habitats and the natural processes proceeding there as well as the species diversity.

(4) The spatial arrangement has to consider the precautionary principle. The precautionary principal is of pre-eminent importance, especially in the marine environment. This is justified through the fact that the sea is burdened (sink function) via manifold input paths, furthermore through its special sensitivity and last but not least through the existing substantial knowledge deficits with reference to the marine environment. The precautionary principle obligates the state – with sufficient indications for the impairment of a protected environmental asset, even with knowledge gaps and uncertainties of natural scientific impact & causal analysis – to protection of this asset. Furthermore, the spatial arrangement is oriented towards the principles of best environmental practice and the best available technology. As far as possible, the marine spatial planning control contributes to the fact that negative impacts will be avoided and mitigated, that anthropogenic interventions and activities will be undertaken in periods which impair the marine living conditions as little as possible and that unavoidable impairments of the natural region will be compensated.

12

2. Principles (P) for safeguarding and development of the EEZ natural region

2.1 Marine nature and landscape (1) Marine nature and landscape as well as the biodiversity shall be permanently protected, maintained, developed and – insofar as necessary, possible and appropriate – restored. While doing so, the fundamental assessments of nature conservation law shall be fallen back upon, namely in conformity with the international law of the sea, international conventions such as CBD, OSPAR, HELCOM etc. and the law of the European Community.

(2) The EEZ shall be safeguarded as a natural region in its respective typical, natural characterisations and developed with its interdependencies and interactions regarding preservation of biological diversity. It is to be ensured that the species, populations and their corresponding habitats characteristic for the natural regions remain preserved in the long term with regard to their natural diversity as well as representative number and size. The characteristic feature and natural efficiency of the natural region shall be preserved or restored.

(3) The fragmentation (isolation) of habitats shall be avoided by establishing a habitat network with characteristic as well as particularly valuable areas for marine conservation within the German EEZ as well as in proportion to adjacent coastal waters and to states adjacent to the EEZ. In this spirit, areas with special importance for the marine nature (see Part C, Section 3) shall be functionally linked with each other through a coherent network of suitable regions and structures to guarantee dispersal processes and large-scale ecological (and genetic) connectivity of species and their habitats in the sea.

(4) The natural resources shall be utilised economically and considerately in accordance with the general principle of sustainability (sustainable use). While doing so, the precautionary principle as well as the concepts of best available technologies and the best environmental practice shall be comprehensively taken into consideration. Appropriate projects and facilities shall be concentrated on areas which are compatible with the requirements of nature conservation for the EEZ as a natural region, and the EEZ shall not be developed into a settlement area.

(5) Impairments of the natural balance shall be avoided, mitigated and compensated under consideration of the precautionary principle as well as the ecosystem approach. Human activities and projects shall not impair the efficiency of the natural balance and the landscape more than absolutely necessary. Unavoidable impairments shall be restricted to the absolutely necessary extent and be accordingly compensated. Cumulative negative effects shall be especially noted and avoided and mitigated through the spatial arrangement. Synergy effects (combinations of human activities, bundling and concentration) shall be utilised as far as they contribute to the relief of the marine nature.

(6) In areas no longer utilised on a long-term basis, the functions of natural balance shall be preserved or restored in their efficiency through renaturation or restoration. It is to be ensured that the natural region with its functions and biotopes is restored after abandonment of the human activities. Stationary projects shall only be permitted on a limited basis and be removed after completion of the activity, insofar as this renaturation is necessary for restoration of functions in their efficiency. Structures located in the seabed, such as foundations, cable or pipelines, shall only be removed if their renaturation causes fewer environmental effects than their retention.

13

Justification/Explanation3: The modified principle of § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG now also includes the “Marine Areas” in the formulations of principles for nature and landscape. At the same time, the expression “Nature and Landscape” will also be understood in a comprehensive sense – as in nature conservation law – in § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG.

In comparison with other principles of § 2 Para. 2 ROG, § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 contains a comparably detailed listing of principles decisive for nature and landscape. First of all, § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 1 ROG also includes the principle to permanently protect, maintain, develop and – insofar as necessary, possible and appropriate – to restore nature and landscape (see also Paragraph (1) in detail). Clause 2 also obliges to take the requirements of habitat connectivity into consideration (see Paragraph (3) about that). According to Clause 3, the natural assets are to be utilised economically and considerately (see Paragraph (4) about that). Impairments of the natural balance are to be compensated (see Paragraph (5) about that). With areas no longer utilised on a long-term basis, the soil shall be preserved or restored in its efficiency (see Paragraph (6) about that). The respective interactions are also to be taken into consideration during the safeguarding and development of the ecological functions and landscape-related human activities (see Paragraph (2) about that). The obligations with regard to protection of groundwater or preventive flood control are without practical relevance in the EEZ and therefore do not need to be discussed any further here.

Regarding (1): § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG also undertakes to permanently protect, maintain, develop and – insofar as necessary, possible and appropriate – to restore nature and landscape. The word “permanently” takes into consideration the principle of sustainability characterising the Spatial Planning Act. The protection objective “to maintain, protect and develop” nature and landscape is already known from terrestrial spatial planning, and from that point of view corresponds to the objectives of the nature conservation law (§ 1 German Federal Nature Conservation Act [BNatSchG]). With the more far-reaching objective “insofar as necessary, possible and appropriate”, also to “restore nature and landscape”, German legislators have adapted the principle of § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG to § 1 BNatSchG in the version valid since 4 April 2002. Even if § 1 and § 2 BNatSchG are not directly applicable within the scope of spatial planning in the EEZ due to lack of explicit extension, the close conformity of § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG to the wording and the underlying assessments from § 1 BNatSchG acknowledge that the nature conservation objectives regarding protection of the marine environment from § 18a in conjunction with § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG differ little from the objectives of § 1 BNatSchG in the final analysis. Since the principles of nature conservation and landscape conservation from § 2 BNatSchG are decisive for the realisation of objectives from § 1 BNatSchG (compare § 2 Para. 2 Clause 1 BNatSchG), the nature conservation principles also play an essential role for spatial planning in the EEZ, especially if they are applicable in terms of their wording or their meaning or purpose to the marine realm. In addition, biodiversity is also appropriately treated here with regard to guarantee of conformity with international guidelines from the CBD and the guidelines of the SEA Directive. The terms “maintain” and “restore” are generally to be understood in the sense of management of human activities with negative effects on the marine environment, that are to be guaranteed for maintenance during longer low-activity periods, and which enables a natural regeneration or to be removed for restoration (e.g. no longer utilised infrastructure) so that the regeneration is also achieved (compare Paragraph 6).

Regarding (2): The preservation of biodiversity and the determinant characteristic habitats and functions are also pertinent in sustainable planning as defined by the general principle from § 1 Para. 2

3 The justifications/explanations are to be understood as professional nature conservation justifications which refer to a corresponding interpretation of legal guidelines and principles.

14

Clause 1 ROG and the ecosystem approach with its unitary approach such as the consideration of interactions and interdependencies. In this connection, § 3 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 6 ROG also obligates to take into consideration the respective interactions with regard to the safeguarding and development of ecological functions and landscape-related activities. In addition, these obligations also follow the corresponding guidelines from the EIA Directive, which are now also to be found in the SEA Directive.

Regarding (3): § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 2 ROG combines the protection, maintenance and development of nature and landscape with the requirements of a habitat connectivity system. After the amendment of § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG, this combination now also applies to the marine areas of the EEZ.

The special features of the marine areas depicted above raise the question in a technical respect as to what extent the different but yet more continuous and barrier-free marine ecosystems identified and depicted there are dependent to the same extent as the terrestrial ecosystems safeguarded in marine spatial planning habitat connectivity systems. In the future, this is still to be researched and clarified in detail and on a smaller scale. However, more large-scale connectivity axes are to be ensured for the protection of the marine nature commensurate with the definition introduced above, according to which the airspace is also included, e.g. for the migration of birds above the EEZ or also in the sense of stepping stones or cross-linking elements for the benthos (compare also the formulations of objectives for “benthic communities” under 3.3.1 and 3.3.2; examples would be the Kadet Trench in the Baltic Sea and the Elbe Glacial Valley in the North Sea). Moreover, the Habitats Directive and the thus the simultaneously inherent connectivity idea has to be applied in the EEZ. Therefore § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 2 ROG also equally refers to the marine areas with regard to the obligations to take into consideration the requirements of habitat connectivity.

Regarding (4): In terms of sustainable use , § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 3 ROG also obligates to utilise the natural resources – particularly water and soil – economically and considerately. This now also applies to the marine areas. In this spirit, the spatial planning shall already ensure that the precautionary principle is followed, and projects and facilities will be steered into the least sensitive areas. The projects and facilities themselves shall also be planned, approved and implemented at these locations only with the help of the best available technology and under consideration of good environmental practice commensurate with OSPAR and HELCOM guidelines. The spatial arrangement shall not conflict with such environmental practice on the subsequent level. In addition, the international law of the sea places the use of resources in the regulatory authority of the coastal states, but not the permanent colonisation of the EEZ, so that the EEZ is not to be developed into a settlement area under exercise of civil rights (compare Wolf4).

Regarding (5): In terms of spatial planning, § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 4 ROG also undertakes to compensate impairments of the natural balance5. The sustainability requirement also contains immanently the compensation requirement. The criterion in this connection is the functionality of the natural balance, which has to be retained. Of special importance in this connection is the preservation of the function of migratory and dispersal routes as well as breeding, resting

4 WOLF, R. (2005): Grundfragen der Entwicklung einer Raumordnung für die Ausschließliche Wirtschaftszone. – Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht ZUR 16 (4): 176-184. 5 The applicability of § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 4 ROG is contentious for the region of the EEZ. According to differing opinion, § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 4 ROG does not apply here according to its meaning and purpose as well as its history of the origins. During the amendment of the German Federal Nature Conservation Act in 2002, legislators deliberately decided against the applicability of the legal nature conservation regulation of intervention in the EEZ, and also did not want to abandon this attitude during the creation of § 18a ROG in 2004. A final opinion on this legal issue is not possible within the scope of this professional nature conservation contribution.

15

and refuge areas of migratory and resting birds, marine mammals, fishes and invertebrate animals, for which a special responsibility also exists according to international conventions (Bern Convention; under the umbrella of the Bonn Convention: amongst other things, AEWA, ASCOBANS; Oslo-Paris Convention and Helsinki Convention) as well as according to European legal provisions (Habitats Directive, Birds Directive). If this is impaired through regionally significant plans or measures, the compensation is to be planned or provided directly with or the respective plans or measures. At the same time, an objective will also be pursued here with the SEA Directive and the correspondingly formulated obligation to also mention such measures within the scope of the environmental report as a principle of spatial planning in the EEZ.

Regarding (6): Pursuant to § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 Clause 5 ROG, the soil shall be preserved or restored in its efficiency in areas no longer utilised on a long-term basis. In comparison with human activities in the terrestrial environment, this spatial planning principle can therefore be implemented under eased conditions, since the mining right in § 52 German Federal Mining Law (BBergG) as well as the right of facility authorisation in § 4 Para. 1 Marine Facilities Ordinance (SeeAnlV) already recognises the concept of a temporally limited authorisation on the approval level. Moreover, pursuant to § 55 Para. 2 No. 3 BBergG or pursuant to § 12 SeeAnlV, project institutions are anyhow obligated to remove their facilities after discontinuance of the operation.

2.2 Open space and land use (1) The EEZ shall be preserved, developed and – if necessary, possible and appropriate – extensively safeguarded or restored in its functions as an ecologically intact open space in its importance for functional seabeds, for the water resources, the fauna and flora (biodiversity) and the climate. (2) The marine landscape is to be safeguarded in its natural characteristic and beauty. Its characteristic open-space structure is to be preserved. Substantial impairments of the experiential and recreational value of the marine landscape are to be avoided in the visual range of the coast. (3) Areas shall only be utilised economically and with as little fragmentation effects as possible. Spatially-demanding human activities shall only take up as much area as is absolutely necessary under consideration of an economic and considerate dealing with the natural assets on the seabed, in the water column and the airspace as well as the surface of the water. Dealing economically shall be achieved by route bundling and other facility bundling as well as minimisation of spatial requirement. Fragmentation effects shall be avoided as far as possible.

Justification/Explanation: In Part B, Section 1.1 it was explained why the EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea represents a unique large-scale natural region and fascinating open space. § 2 Para. 2 No. 3 ROG designates principles which should come into play for protection and development of open space structures in the corresponding EEZ.

Regarding (1): Pursuant to § 2 Para. 2 No. 3 ROG, the large-scale and comprehensive open space structure is to be preserved and developed. Open spaces are to be safeguarded in the importance for functional soils, soils, for the water resources, the flora and fauna as well as the climate or to be restored in their functions. From a professional nature conservation viewpoint, this principle from § 2 Para. 2 No. 3 ROG is of corresponding importance for the preservation of the EEZ as a large-scale and fascinating open space.

16

Regarding (2): In the legal justification for the amendment of § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG, the German legislators did not separately emphasise the protection of the marine landscape in the EEZ, i.e. its characteristic expanse and undisturbed nature. But according to the legal wording in § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG they not only defined the marine areas as a component of nature, but also of the landscape. Although the natural scenery in the EEZ may be hardly influenced through significant “landmarks” and thus much different than that on land, this changes nothing in the fact that protection of marine areas not only concerns “functional” nature conservation, but also an “optical” protection of landscape and natural assets. As far as that is concerned, Buchholz (20046) suggested the preservation of “open sea landscapes”, which largely showed the management of nature understood to be nearly endless, and will be perceived and preferred as such by the majority of the German society. And so the principle serves the preservation of this largely undisturbed natural scenery characterised by openness as it is above all perceived from land.

Regarding (3): This principle substantiates the principle of sustainable use (compare 2.1 Paragraph 4) in view of an economical use of the area and thus also takes into consideration § 2 Para. 2 No. 3 ROG, according to which use of open space are to be ensured under consideration of their ecological functions. This guarantee presupposes an economical use of the area through bundling and minimisation of spatial requirement as well as avoidance of fragmentation effects. The renaturation obligation from § 2 Para. 2 No. 8 ROG, which is based on the principle formulated here under 2.1 Paragraph 6 for the spatial arrangement of the EEZ, also supports this economical area use.

6 BUCHHOLZ, H. (2004): Raumnutzungs- und Raumplanungsstrategien in den deutschen Meereszonen. – In: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR) (Hrsg.): Informationen zur Raumentwicklung. – Bonn (BBR Eigenverlag): 485-489

17

3. Objectives (O) for safeguarding and development of the EEZ natural region

3.1 Subjects of protection of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive The following priority areas for the marine nature mentioned under 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are presented in the illustrations/maps of the annex7.

3.1.1 Priority areas for the marine nature in the North Sea EEZ (1) In particular, a pre-eminent importance for nature conservation is attached to the relevant habitat types and species (Annex I and II) commensurate with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) registered with the Commission. As a result, the following Natura 2000 sites are to be safeguarded as priority areas for the marine nature (O):

• “Borkum Reef Ground” (DE 2104-301) • “Dogger Bank” (DE 1003-301) • “Sylt Outer Reef” (DE 1209-301)

(2) In particular, a pre-eminent importance for nature conservation is attached to the relevant species commensurate with the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). The following area has been registered and declared a nature protection area under German law, and this area is to be safeguarded as a priority area for the marine nature (O):

• “Eastern German Bight” (DE 1011-401)

3.1.2 Priority areas for the marine nature in the Baltic Sea EEZ (1) In particular, a pre-eminent importance for nature conservation is attached to the relevant habitat types and species (Annex I and II) commensurate with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) registered with the Commission. As a result, the following Natura 2000 sites are to be safeguarded as priority areas for the marine nature (O):

• “Adler Ground” (DE 2104-301) • “Fehmarn Belt” (DE 1322-301) • “Kadet Trench” (DE 1339-301) • “Pomeranian Bay with Odra Bank” (DE 1652-301) • “Western Rønne Bank” (DE 1249-301)

(2) In particular, a pre-eminent importance for nature conservation is attached to the relevant species commensurate with the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). The following Natura 2000 site has been registered and declared a nature protection area under German law, and this area is to be safeguarded as a priority area for the marine nature (O):

• “Pomeranian Bay” (DE 1552-401)

3.1.3 Further HD-relevant structures outside the priority areas (1) The damaging or destruction of small-scale sandbanks, reefs and submarine structures made by leaking gases shall also be avoided outside the priority areas as particularly rare and sensitive habitats for the marine nature in the entire EEZ. (O)

7 If necessary, the exact location will be supplied later with the help of coordinate details.

18

3.2 Bird migration The following mentioned areas are presented in the illustrations/maps of the annex as “Areas with special importance for bird migration”8.

3.2.1 Bird migration over the German EEZ of the North Sea (1) The coastal side of the German Bight, an imaginary line which runs from Denmark’s westernmost point – “Blåvands Huk” – at a 45° angle to the Dutch island “Texel”, is of special importance for nature conservation for the bird migration over the North Sea on account of the assumed broad-front migration. Outside of areas with wind parks already approved or in the course of the approval procedure as well as outside the spatial planning priority areas and suitability areas for wind energy use, this region is to be kept free of effects impairing the bird migration, especially in order to preserve continuous migratory corridors (see Fig. 5: Explanatory map of the North Sea). (O)

3.2.2 Bird migration over the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea (1) Special importance for nature conservation is attached to the following marine areas for the bird migration over the Baltic Sea:

• “Fehmarn-Lolland” and • “Rügen-Schonen”

Outside of areas with wind parks already approved or in the course of the approval procedure as well as outside the spatial planning priority areas and suitability areas for wind energy utilisation, these areas are to be kept free of effects impairing the bird migration, especially in order to preserve continuous migratory corridors (see Fig. 6: Explanatory map of the Baltic Sea). (O)

8 If necessary, the exact location will be supplied later with the help of coordinate details.

19

3.3 Benthic communities The following mentioned areas are presented in the illustrations/maps of the annex as “Areas with special importance for benthic communities”9.

3.3.1 Benthic communities in the German EEZ of the North Sea (1) On account of representative and compacted occurrence of OSPAR and Red List species and according to habitats to be protected by OSPAR (compare North Sea list) in well-preserved conditions for the individual habitats and species, a special importance for nature conservation and special ecological cross-linking function (see also Art. 10 Habitats Directive) is attached to the benthic communities in the North Sea for the following areas:

• “Southern Mud Bank” • “Central Elbe Glacial Valley” • “Central North Sea” (see map of the North Sea in Annex 1)

The protection of benthic communities in these areas is to be ensured. (O)

3.3.2 Benthic communities in the German EEZ of the Baltic Sea (1) A special importance for nature conservation is also attached to the submergence band with compacted occurrence of Red List species (compare Baltic Sea list) outside the registered NATURA 2000 sites with regard to the benthic communities in the Baltic Sea in the following areas:

• “Bay of Kiel” • “Bay of Mecklenburg” • “Northern Darß” (see map of the Baltic Sea in Annex 2)

The protection of benthic communities in these areas is to be ensured. (O)

Justification/Explanation: The objectives regarding development and safeguarding of the EEZ natural region will be mentioned in Section 3. This occurs here in textual form. The regional reference is mentioned in the text and refers partially to specific areas which are located in the annexed maps for the regions of the German EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea10. On account of their character as objectives of spatial planning11, the required “priority areas for the marine nature” will be mentioned here in Section 3 from the viewpoint of marine nature conservation. The pictorial presentation with regard to these areas also occurs in the annexed maps12.

The annex lists of the BMU letter (N I 5 – 77 000 / 2) from 12 April 2005 illustrate that not all species and biotopes significant for nature conservation are covered with the reserve reports according to the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, and therefore the mandate for action of § 18a ROG regarding protection of the marine environment is not yet exhausted solely with a spatial planning safeguarding of NATURA 2000 areas as priority areas for the marine nature. In addition, the spatial arrangement especially has to take into consideration the areas significant for bird migration and for the benthos communities. This occurs through the presentation of “areas with special importance”.

As a result, the standards for the protection of the marine environment will also be taken into consideration in the UNCLOS, which specifies in Art. 194 Para. 5:

“The necessary measures regarding protection and preservation of rare or sensitive ecosystems as well as the habitat of endangered and threatened species or species

9 If necessary, the exact location will be supplied later with the help of coordinate details. 10 If necessary, the exact location will be supplied later with the help of coordinate details. 11 Compare RITTER, E.-H. (Ed.) 2005: Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung: S. 1262 12 The coordinate details are already available for the priority areas with the notification as NATURA 2000 areas.

20

threatened with extinction and other forms of marine fauna and flora are included amongst the measures taken in accordance with this part (XII).”

From this it ensues that according to the UNCLOS the rarity and sensitivity is (also) to be focussed upon within the ecosystem protection of the marine environment, furthermore to the degree of respective threat. This strengthens the anyhow underlying assumption that in addition to the following findings with regard to degree of endangerment and regarding need of the protection of marine habitat types (compare Chapter 4), the Red List is also to be focussed upon for an assessment of the marine environment protection objectives; for instance, further interest is to be focussed upon the 2004 OSPAR list of species and habitats threatened and/or declining in population size.

From a technical viewpoint, the available data and knowledge are enough – also for the majority of species and biotopes exceeding NATURA 2000 – to also identify the most significant areas in the EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea, which are to be safeguarded for the long-term preservation of these species and biotopes so important for the ecosystem. Such a designation is not possible at present solely for the fishes and Cyclostomata mentioned in the lists.

Regarding 3.1: The species and habitats mentioned under the criterion NATURA 2000 in the annex lists of the BMU letter (N I 5 – 77 000 / 2) from 12 April 2005 serve for identification of the already registered protected areas in the EEZ of the North Sea and Baltic Sea. On account of their pre-eminent importance, these areas are also to be appropriately safeguarded in the spatial planning as priority areas for the marine nature. But at the same time these areas are not only of appropriate importance for the mentioned NATURA 2000 species and habitats, they also represent important refuge areas and habitats for other species designated in the aforementioned annex, such as for benthic communities (the submergence band for the Baltic Sea described under 3.2.2 also continues in the NATURA 2000 Baltic Sea areas).

Explanation with regard to priority areas:

According to § 18a Para. 1 Clause 2 ROG, the provisions of § 7 Para. 1 and 4 to 10 ROG are to be correspondingly applied in the EEZ. According to § 7 Para. 4 ROG, stipulations can thus be made for the EEU, which designate areas…

- …which are planned for specific, spatially-significant functions or uses, thus excluding other regionally significant uses in this area provided that they are inconsistent with the priority functions, uses or objectives of spatial planning (priority areas),

- …where special importance is attached to specific, spatially-significant functions or uses when balanced with competing regionally significant uses (reserve areas),

- …which are suitable for specific, spatially-significant measures which are excluded elsewhere in the planning region (suitability areas).

Corresponding areas with “target character” for nature conservation will be designated here as priority areas for the marine nature, in which case a pre-eminent importance in the ecosystem is attached on account of their function, sensitivity, endangerment and ecologically functional importance for specific species and habitats.

At the same time, from the viewpoint of nature conservation it seems fundamentally possible for the EEZ to align the spatial arrangement system – and thus also the categories to include priority, reserve and suitability areas (the latter category only with regard to the utilisation demands) – to the three-dimensionality which characterises the natural region. That is to say that corresponding areas absolutely also necessitate the appropriate priority demand for a specific dimension (e.g. priority function for the marine nature on the seabed or in the airspace. On the other hand, other protective endeavours – particularly also depending on activities which have corresponding multidimensional effects – necessitate a multidimensional approach. So the safeguarding of areas with special importance for benthic communities (compare 3.3) particularly targets an appropriate protection against impairments on the seabed and the exclusion of activities which lead to changes of the seabed and its

21

communities, such as sand and gravel extraction, maricultures (direct nutrient input) or dragnet fishing, etc. Thus, the possibility may be opened to overlap priority areas in one region, but which then does not relate to the protection of the necessary dimensions of the natural region.

Regarding 3.1.1 (1) and 3.1.2 (1): The protected sites according to the Habitats directive in the EEZ registered with the European Commission are to be safeguarded as priority areas for nature conservation.

Regarding 3.1.1 (2) and 3.1.2 (2): The areas in the EEZ registered according to the Birds Directive and declared as nature protection areas are also to be safeguarded as priority areas for the marine nature.

Regarding 3.1.3: Spatial structures with their typical habitats – whose damaging or destruction shall also be avoided outside of special reserves, and thus priority areas – will be designated here. These structures and habitats can be clearly identified locally, and therefore can be spatially substantially so that target character is attached to the requirements formulated here. A decision of the European regulatory authority concerning the need of protection and significance of the habitats mentioned is also made irrespective of the obligations for establishment of the NATURA 2002 network. This will also be taken up here on a nature conservation basis within the scope of marine spatial planning as an objective outside of planned reserves. In the spirit of the sustainability principle, the spatial planning aims not only to integrate the reserves planned and relevant to marine nature conservation, but furthermore also to preserve the integrity of nature outside this area and to coordination with other use demands. This is why the mentioned structures are also relevant outside of planned reserves. According to the current state of knowledge, it has to be assumed that the structures mentioned here only appear on a small-scale basis outside the registered NATURA 2000 areas. Large-scale occurrences are already recorded and accordingly protected with the registered NATURA 2000 areas, which are to be incorporated as priority areas in the spatial planning.

Moreover, the claim formulated here also corresponds to the concept expressed by BUCHHOLZ (200413) for “preservation and creation of more extensive spatial availability” also for protective decisions first occurring in the future.

This availability claim also particularly applies in view of the enumeration of included “submarine structures made by leaking gases” (LRT 1180), because up to now unconfirmed references to deposits in the North Sea EEZ have only been on hand here since recently. On account of this fact and based on the current state of knowledge, the presumed deposits in the area south of the “Nordschillgrund” shall be briefly addressed:

The area south of “Nordschillgrund” and located directly on the boundary of the EEZ features fine sand as well as fine-sandy silt as sediment types. The water depth lies between 40 and 45 metres. The water body is often stratified during the summer. Structures described as “gas fountains” have been identified in the vicinity of the area directly adjacent to the Dutch EEZ, which depending on characteristic are to be protected as habitat type “Submarine structures made by leaking gases” (1180) of Annex I of the FFH Directive (see Fig. 3). Similar prerequisites also exist in the adjacent area directly east of the German EEZ, which also allude to the existence of this habitat type in the German EEZ. But no verification is available up to now. No attention has been focussed on this habitat type in the procedure for identification and recognition of NATURA 2000 areas in the German EEZ, since at that time it had not been presumed in the German EEZ and had not been found in the to date particularly large-scale benthos mappings. For the time being a further clarification of the

13 See footnote 6

22

circumstances – i.e. a concrete localisation and sampling of the search area – is required here on account of the importance in the Habitats Directive in order to verify corresponding occurrence if necessary. Appropriate sampling trips are planned by the German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) and BfN. Until the concrete circumstances in this area are clarified, uses which could impair this habitat type should be excluded in the vicinity of the search area.

Upon confirmed occurrence, the area is then to be classified and registered if necessary as a priority area for the marine nature on account of the occurrence of the HD habitat type. This is why for the time being the area demarcated in the explanatory map (Fig. 4) represents a search area in which an impairment of these structures is to be precluded in the sense of the precautionary principle.

LINDEBOOM et al. (2005), p. 67: “5.8. Other areas which possible qualify In addition to the five areas mentioned in the “Nota Ruimte”, from this study one can recognise that a few other areas possible qualify as zones worthy of protection. (See Figure 5.5) First and foremost, these are the aforementioned coastal areas outside the 20-metre depth line consisting of the sandbanks near the coast of the delta area (“Zeeuwse Banken”) and the “Borkumse Stenen” in the north of Schiermonnikoog. These areas and the reasons for their qualification are to be specified under the description of coastal waters. It is also possible that the area with a high concentration of gas streams or gas fountains in the parcels B3 and B6 qualifies. At the moment it is still not known whether biogenic structures – as mentioned in the Habitat Guideline – are also located around these streams. Probably a microflora exists there, which can lead to an emergence of these structures. Whether these can also actually emerge depends on the (future) lifespan of such streams and the extent of disturbances. More detailed examinations on this topic are desirable.”

Fig. 3: Fig. 5.6 and explanatory text (translated) from LINDEBOOM et al. (200514)

14 LINDEBOOM, H., VON KESSEL, J.G. & BERKENBOSCH (2005): Gebieden met bijzondere ecologische warden op het

Nederlands Continentaal Plat

23

Fig. 4: Search area for habitat type 1180 in the German North Sea EEZ

Regarding 3.2: Large areas of the German EEZ, which will only be covered to a marginal extent through the registered EU bird sanctuaries, are part of internationally significant migratory bird routes. They are to be appropriately safeguarded within the scope of region planning on account of this special importance for nature conservation. For years migratory birds have enjoyed special international protection as “migratory animal species” within the scope of the Bonn Convention (1979), the Bern Convention (1979) and the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (SEWA; 1995). In addition, Article 2 of the EU Birds Directive specifies that wild birds outside of reserves are also “to be kept at a status or brought to a status which particularly corresponds to the ecological, scientific and cultural requirements”. If migratory birds are forced to deviate from their traditional routes and to fly detours as a result, this has a negative influence on their energy balance, which in bottleneck situations can also influence the survival rates or the reproduction of respective populations.

Regarding 3.2.1 (1): Brief characterisation of the German Bight area in relation to bird migration:

In the southeast of the North Sea, Germany’s coasts border the sea area of the German Bight, over which a strong bird migration occurs throughout the year, but above all in the spring and autumn. The migratory area is closely interlocked with the adjacent marine areas and coasts of The Netherlands and Denmark. Every year it is crossed by tens of millions of migratory birds on their way to their breeding or winter quarters. A broad-front migration can generally be assumed in this connection (Exo et al. 200215), whereby the migratory intensity diminished seawards from the coast. The width of a band of high migratory intensity varies,

15 EXO, K.-M., HÜPPOP, I. & GARTHE S. (2002): Offshore-Windenergieanlagen und Vogelschutz. Seevögel, Heft 23: 83-95.

24

yet always extends 80 to over 100 kilometres before the coast of Schleswig-Holstein (KNUST et al. 200316).

The high importance of the German Bight for bird migration can be derived above all from the migratory schedule observations conducted from Helgoland. A total of 97 sea birds, waterfowl, wading birds and coastal bird species were registered there in the period from 1990-2001. Amongst others, Pink-footed Geese, Little Gulls, Red-throated Divers, Grey Geese as well as Brent Geese are included amongst the species which alone pass through the 10-20 km wide Helgoland sea area with substantial portions of their biogeographical population. The south-eastern part of the German Bight is of decisive importance as a migratory route, above all for Pink-footed Geese, of which during winter flights almost the entire Spitzbergen breeding population – but at least nearly half the population with regular departure migration – passes through the area. During the homeward migration, a percentage of more than half the biogeographical population could be calculated for the Little Gull, which is also protected according to Annex I of the EU Birds Directive. In addition, predatory birds and songbirds use the area as a passage area. Findings from DIERSCHKE (2001)17, which were obtained with the help of the former “North Sea” research platform, show that appreciable bird migration also occurs in the outer areas of the German Bight. Almost 100 migratory bird species, a majority of them songbirds, were able to be identified for the summer months May to August. It confirmed the increasing intensity of migratory events towards the coast.

16 KNUST, R., DAHLHOFF, P., GABRIEL, J., HEUERS, J., HÜPPOP, O. & WENDELN, H. (2003): Untersuchungen zur Vermeidung und Verminderung von Belastungen der Meeresumwelt durch Offshore-Windenergieanlagen im küstenfernen Bereich der Nord- und Ostsee. UBA F&E Vorhaben 200 97 106: 453 S. 17 DIERSCHKE, V. (2001): Vogelzug und Hochseevögel in den Außenbereichen der Deutschen Bucht (südöstliche Nordsee) in den Monaten Mai bis August. Corax 18: 281-290

25

Table 3: Extrapolated number of migrating birds (with the exception of songbirds) in one year (in the l owermost 200-500 metres of airspace), in an approximately 10-20 km wide region of the sea area around Helgoland (only species with n > 50). The maximum annual total of all migratory observations – in which random observations are also included, and their proportion for extrapolation (in %) – is also indicated. (Source: DIERSCHKE 200318) Species Extrapolated

number of birds Maximum actual annual total (1990-2001)

% Year

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata 27,220 2,700 9.9 1996Black-throated Diver Gavia arctica 596 48 8.1 1998Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena 472 57 12.1 1998Great-crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus 224 38 17.0 1996Northern Gannet Puffinus griseus 574 351 61.1 1996Sooty Shearwater Morus bassanus 13,936 5,450 39.1 1996Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 20,808 6,722 32.3 1996Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 972 233 24.0 1998Mute Swan Cygnus olor 318 166 52.2 1998Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus 508 143 28.1 1998Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 1,212 367 30.3 2000Bean Goose Anser fabalis 240 74 30.8 1993Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus 65,440 18.041 27.6 1999Great White-footed Goose Anser albifrons 314 274 87.3 1993Grey Goose Anser anser 28,798 5,587 19.4 2000Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis 15,430 3,463 22.4 2000Brent Goose Branta bernicla 140,272 17,397 12.4 1994Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 2,362 848 35.9 1995Eurasian Widgeon Anas penelope 26,092 17,844 68.4 1995Eurasian Teal Anas crecca 4,482 651 14.5 2000Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 712 294 41.3 1995Northern Pintail Anas acuta 5,386 1,617 30.0 1995Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 378 118 31.2 1994Common Pochard Aythya ferina 224 165 73.7 1995Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula 576 137 23.8 1995Greater Scaup Aythya marila 170 41 24.1 1992Common Eider Somateria mollissima 75,968 10,938 14.4 1995Common Scoter Melanitta nigra 199,098 14,438 7.3 2000Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca 876 120 13.7 1998Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 526 65 12.4 2000Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 2,934 275 9.4 1996Common Merganser Mergus merganser 480 81 16.9 1996Osprey Pandion haliaetus 110 42 38.2 1993Western Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 206 75 36.4 1995Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 542 287 53.0 1998Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 250 62 24.8 2000Merlin Falco columbarius 728 203 27.9 1992Eurasian Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 5,206 2,153 41.4 1995Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 1,278 391 30.6 1996Eurasian Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria 7,768 2,401 31.3 1994Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 8,164 1,360 16.7 1994Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 266 42 15.8 1998Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 10,566 2,857 27.0 1992Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 2,208 483 21.9 1992Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata 9,638 2,002 20.8 2000Common Redshank Tringa totanus 2,044 419 20.5 1993

18 DIERSCHKE, V. (2003): Quantitative Erfassung des Vogelzugs während der Hellphase bei Helgoland. Corax 19, Sonderheft 2: 27-33

26

Species Extrapolated number of birds

Maximum actual annual total (1990-2001)

% Year

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 1,352 224 16.6 1998Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus 308 93 30.2 1995Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos 252 59 23.4 1996Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 850 270 31.8 1993Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 814 514 63.1 1995Knot Calidris canutus 4,284 1,507 35.2 1993Sanderling Calidris alba 166 54 32.5 1995Dunlin Calidris alpina 7,520 763 10.1 1998Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea 166 41 24.7 1993Ruff Philomachus pugnax 196 30 15.3 1998Great Skua Stercorarius skua 126 41 32.5 1998Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus 250 63 25.2 1998Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus 1,950 1,405 72.1 1995Common Gull Larus canus 61,348 8,610 14.0 1998Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus 65,848 8,784 13.3 1998Little Gull Larus minnitus 56,182 17,807 31.7 2001Black Tern Chlidonias niger 1,714 632 36.9 1995Common/Arctic Tern Sterna hirundo/paradisaea 106,112 21,694 20.4 1992Little Auk Alle Alle 412 632 153.4 1995

A line running from Denmark’s westernmost point– “Blåvands Huk” – at a 45° angle to the Dutch island “Texel” represents the approximate, seaward boundary of the area with strong amounts of migratory birds (compare Fig. 5). Due to the planned use of the sub-areas through wind energy facilities, only two continuously free corridors ensue from the southwest to the northeast, or inverse running main migratory direction. Even if particularly these corridors are to be protected to safeguard the bird migration against further impairments (compare hachure in Fig. 5), the other areas still unplanned to date also have a relevant importance for bird migration, because with certain species this also occurs cross-wise to the main migratory direction.

Therefore this region outside the areas with wind parks already approved or in the course of the approval procedure as well as outside the present or future priority areas and suitability areas for use of wind energy identified within the scope of marine spatial planning is to be kept free of effects impairing the bird migration. The concerns of bird migration are to be reconsidered under consideration of the current state of knowledge within the scope of determination of future suitability and priority areas for wind energy facilities through changes of the regional development plan.

The approval status 2 December 2005 (10 approved wind parks in the North Sea) will be designated here as areas with approved wind parks (compare No. 1-9 and 14 in Fig. 5). The prospective wind parks capable of approval up to the time of the formulation of the regional development plan per ordinance will be designated here as wind parks in the course of the approval procedure (compare No. 10-13 and 15-18 in Fig. 5). Under priority areas/suitability areas which will be identified within the scope of the marine spatial planning at hand here for use of wind energy, the following will be understood under consideration of the status of discussion currently known to us:

1. The “Northern Borkum” area identified on 19 December 2005 as a special suitability area according to § 3a Para. 1 SeeAnlV, since according to § 18a Para. 3 ROG this is to be determined as an appropriate priority area according to § 7 Para. 4 Clause 1 No. 1 ROG, as well as…

27

2. …further areas in the south-eastern region, the areas designated (sub-area of the south-eastern cluster, see Fig. 5) as “anticipated areas for suitability areas” in the German Federal Government Strategy for use of wind energy at sea (BMU 200219)

Fig. 5: Explanatory map referring to the area with special importance for bird migration (shaded blue) as well as offshore use of wind energy in the German North Sea EEZ and the remaining continuous corridors

The double designation here not only addresses priority areas, but at the same time suitability areas, since the objective of reservation outside these areas shall be achieved due to the fact that the described areas will be identified in the course of marine spatial planning not only as priority areas for use of wind energy (as § 18a ROG already predetermines for the adoption of suitability areas according to § 3a SeeAnlV), but at the same time will also be identified as suitability areas as defined by § 7 Para. 4 Clause 1 No. 3 ROG with exclusion effect elsewhere. Subsequent findings must be considered during the updating of spatial planning.

Regarding 3.2.2 (1): In addition to the presumed broad-front migration, particularly with regard to nocturnal migrants, the following three main migratory routes can be differentiated for the bird migration over the western Baltic Sea:

• South Sweden – Danish islands (Lolland and others) – Fehmarn • South Sweden (Schonen) – Rügen, as well as • …coming from the Baltic States/Finland/Siberia, and following the narrowing “funnel”

in the Baltic Sea in the direction southwest/west (IFAOE 200420)

19 BMU – Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2002): Windenergienutzung auf See: Strategie der Bundesregierung zum Ausbau der Offshore-Windenergienutzung. Umwelt, Heft 3: 206-210 20 IFAOE – Institute for Applied Ecology (Adaptation/2004): Fachgutachten Vogelzug zum Offshore- Windparkprojekt “Baltic I”, Pilotvorhaben Mecklenburg-Vorpommern im Auftrag der Offshore Ostsee Wind AG

28

The two aforementioned routes also cross the German Baltic Sea EEZ with their main areas of emphasis, and will be subsequently characterised more precisely. The last-mentioned route in the EEZ does not lead to any clearly definable concentration zone up to now, since according to findings up to now the main emphases of this migration lie above all along the Mecklenburg coast as well as along the southern coast of Sweden and the Danish islands up to Fehmarn, so that only in the Fehmarn-Lolland region does a concentration of this migratory route also reinforce the importance of the “Fehmarn-Lolland” area (compare the following area characterisation for this purpose).

On account of this special importance, this region outside the areas with wind parks already approved or in the course of the approval procedure as well as outside the present or future priority areas and suitability areas for use of wind energy identified within the scope of spatial planning is to be kept free of effects impairing the bird migration. The concerns of bird migration are to be reconsidered under consideration of the current state of knowledge within the scope of determination of future suitability and priority areas for wind energy facilities through changes of the regional development plan.

The approval status 2 December 2005 (1 approved wind park in the Baltic Sea) will be designated here as areas with approved wind parks (compare No. 3 in Fig. 6). The prospective wind parks capable of approval up to the time of the formulation of the regional development plan per ordinance will be designated here as wind parks in the course of the approval procedure (compare No. 1 and 2 in Fig. 6).

Among the priority areas/suitability areas which will be identified within the scope of the spatial planning at hand here for use of wind energy, the areas “Kriegers Flak” and “Western Adler Ground” will be understood as special suitability areas identified on 19 December 2005 according to § 3a Para. 1 SeeAnlV, since according to § 18a Para. 3 ROG these are to be determined as an appropriate priority areas according to § 7 Para. 4 Clause 1 No. 1 ROG.

Fig. 6: Explanatory map referring to the areas with special importance for bird migration as well as offshore use of wind energy in the German Baltic Sea EEZ

29

The double designation for the Baltic Sea also not only addresses priority areas, but at the same time suitability areas, since the objective of reservation outside these areas shall be achieved due to the fact that the described areas will be identified in the course of spatial planning not only as priority areas for use of wind energy (as § 18a ROG already predetermines for the adoption of suitability areas according to § 3a SeeAnlV), but at the same time will also be identified as suitability areas as defined by § 7 Para. 4 Clause 1 No. 3 ROG with exclusion effect elsewhere.

Brief characterisation of the “Fehmarn-Lolland” area in relation to bird migration:

The Fehmarn Belt is amongst the most important concentration points of bird migration in Europe (KOOP 200421). Migrating land birds as well as water birds use the region between the islands of Fehmarn and Lolland – also known as part of the “bird flight path” – twice a year in considerable concentrations. According to estimations, the Fehmarn Belt is annually passed through alone in the autumn by 100 million birds, above all songbirds. As a result, it takes up a pre-eminent position in the Eurasian bird migration system. Table 4: Fehmarn Belt predatory bird migration (KOOP 200422)

Species Number Common Buzzard 10,000 Eurasian Sparrowhawk 7,000-10,000 Honey Buzzard 4,000-8,000 Western Marsh Harrier 500 Red Kite 200 Osprey 200 Common Kestrel 200 Rough-legged Buzzard 100 Merlin 100 Hen Harrier 100 Eurasian Hobby 50 Peregrine Falcon 30 White-tailed Eagle 10

Table 5: Daily maxima of selected species over Fehmarn and Falsterbo in comparison (source: Koop 200423) Species Daily

Maximum Fehmarn

Date Annual Total

Daily Maximum Falsterbo

Date Average 1973-2000

Red-throated Diver 1,100 11.02.1956 230 12.10.1989 211Black-throated Diver 9 15.10.1985 57 10.09.1991 Tundra Swan 92 24.10.1960 109 01.11.1998 141Great White-footed Goose 990 24.10.1981 157 25.09.2001 203Grey Goose 1,400 08.10.1991 2,890 31.10.1998 1,781Barnacle Goose 42,000 09.10.2004 50,000 22,400 28.09.1993 6,357Brent Goose 10,710 11.10.1974 50,000 6,534 03.10.1982 7,572Eurasian Widgeon 3,600 18.09.1981 5,920 29.09.2001 5,017Northern Pintail 200 13.09.1987 169 29.09.2001 542Common Eider 158,000 09.10-1975 300,000 * 33,365 16.10.1988 98,856Common Scoter 4,000 05.08.1960 1,185 17.09.2001 2,424Red-breasted Merganser 110 24.09.1983 3,000 13.10.1994 1,163Honey Buzzard 7,954 21.8-10.9.2004 4,000-8,000 2,240 11.09.1974 4,513Red Kite 37 10.10.2004 331 18.01.2001 860White-tailed Eagle 2 05.04.2003 6 (2003) 6 15.10.1999 12Western Marsh Harrier 75 03.09.2004 162 18.08.2001 847

21 KOOP, B. (2004): Vogelzug über Schleswig-Holstein. Der Fehmarn-Belt – Ein “bottle neck” im europäischen Vogelzugsystem. Ornithologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Schleswig-Holstein und Hamburg e.V. 22 See footnote 21 23 See footnote 21

30

Species Daily Maximum Fehmarn

Date Annual Total

Daily Maximum Falsterbo

Date Average 1973-2000

Hen Harrier 6 13.10.1985 52 05.10.2002 180Eurasian Sparrowhawk 440 27.08.1990 10,300 * 3,468 05.10.1999 18,629Common Buzzard 7,000 02.10.1954 6,226 15.10.1999 11,503Rough-legged Buzzard 18 09.10.1975 420 18.10.2001 610Osprey 28 03.09.2004 147 (2004) 41 15.08.2001 279Common Kestrel 34 17.09.1977 70 29.08.1999 418Merlin 13 12.10.2001 44 03.10.1999 188Eurasian Hobby 5 03.09.2002 50 8 10.09.1992 40Peregrine Falcon 5 11.09.2002 12 (2003) 4 08.09.2002 34Common Crane 32 02.04.2003 1,626 06.10.2002 439Dunlin 130 29.08.2001 2,677 21.07.1996 4,749Bar-tailed Godwit 110 01.06.1987 238 22.07.1995 204Little Gull 191 02.05.2004 141 08.11.1996 245Black-headed Gull 1,200 04.05.1978 9,926 01.07.2000 5,809Common Gull 137 25.03.2002 3,742 01.07.2000 942Sandwich Tern 144 27.07.2002 31 22.07.1999 Common Tern 270 26.08.2003 800 (2003) 330 05.08.2000 1,057Stock Pigeon 250 02.10.1955 1,407 10.10.1984 7,461Wood Pigeon 40,000 10.10.2004 124,000 12.10.1990 206,579Common Swift 450 27.08.2000 3,500 12.08.2001 7,465Woodlark 11 21.03.1999 744 07.10.2000 1,020Skylark 3,000 14.03.1981 1,074 29.10.2002 1,302Sand Martin 5,500 22.08.2001 70,000* 202 15.08.2001 3,579Barn Swallow 1,600 28.08.2000 12,175 07.09.1984 22,386House Martin 450 29.08.2001 1,140 04.09.2002 5,484Tree Pipit 600 28.08.2000 20,420 24.08.1985 19,142Meadow Pipit 2,730 20.04.1998 27,800 * 1,881 29.09.2002 8,260Yellow Wagtail 5,000 21.05.1975 8,029 03.09.1984 38,956White Wagtail 200 08.04.1971 6,400 * 65 08.09.2002 1,158Fieldfare 375 11.04.1952 15,000-20,000 13,110 03.11.1981 9,301Redwing 3,000 24.10.1971 12,954 28.10.2000 4,763Blue Tit 500 15.10.1975 30,000 28.09.2003 18,006Great Tit 601 17.10.2003 425 13.10.2001 487Eurasian Jay 1,200 02.10.1955 25,000 05.10.1999 1,570Jackdaw 600 21.11.1976 15,560 19.10.1988 32,588Rook 2,000 21.11.1976 6,900 20.10.1976 7,246Hooded Crow 245 26.10.1955 1,550 20.10.1976 4,402Starling 4,372 11.04.1960 56,570 18.10.1980 126,579Chaffinch 90,000 10.10.1999 300,000 * 1,060,245 05.10.1975 746,241Brambling 23,065 23.04.2001 Greenfinch 1,000 09.10.1955 11,590 25.10.2002 31,729Goldfinch 380 25.04.1998 987 27.10.2001 1,009Siskin 6,580 23.04.2001 10,790 21.09.2001 25,709Linnet 1,138 02.10.1961 5,485 29.09.2002 24,559Common Crossbill 300 28.09.1990 1,480 05.09.2002 1,280Reed Bunting 200 29.08.1981 579 21.09.2002 1,136 * Calculated from migratory intensities

As the shortest connection between Germany, Eastern Denmark and Sweden, the Fehmarn Belt represents an important stepping stone for land birds on the migratory route from Scandinavia towards Central Europe. With orders or magnitude of approx. 10,000 to 25,000 predatory birds per departure migration season (see Table 4), internationally significant migratory bird concentrations will be reached, which meet the IBA criterion, Category “A 4 iv” (globally important concentrations, “bottleneck site”).

31

The Fehmarn Belt also has a pre-eminent importance for water bird migration. Here, various migratory routes bundle, which run parallel to the coast coming from the east or over the open Baltic Sea. At least 300,000 Common Eiders, 50,000 – 80,000 Barnacle Geese, 50,000 – 80,000 Brent Geese as well as more than 500,000 waders and over 1,000 divers cross the area on their way from their Scandinavian to West Siberian breeding areas to the mudflats. There are no alternative routes to the Fehmarn Belt, which could be used by greater numbers.

The Fehmarn Belt represents a nodal point of bird migration. Whereas with land birds the prevailing migratory direction in the departure migration season runs from northeast to southwest, water birds cross the area from an eastern to western direction in this period. The homeward migration runs in the opposite direction.

Brief characterisation of the “Rügen-Schonen” area in relation to bird migration:

In addition to the Fehmarn Belt, the “Northern Rügen Sea Area” is amongst the most important concentration points of bird migration over the Baltic Sea. In its range it stretches north of the west side of Darß to north of the east side of Rügen towards southern Sweden. The high relative importance of the area in the bird migration system ensues from its pre-eminent importance for several narrow-front migratory birds, a form of bird migration which is characterised with only a few species. The narrowly restricted migratory routes – also without bundling landscape features – of these species ensues from the dependence on a few spatially-restricted resting areas. The cranes and bean geese of the subspecies fabalis – which migrate over southern Sweden towards their overwintering areas – are amongst the narrow-front migratory birds which pass through the “Northern Rügen Sea Area” with substantial portions of their biogeographical population. Furthermore, the area is passed through by a majority of the populations of Brent Geese, Barnacle Geese, Tundra Swans, Common Scoters, Common Eiders, Divers as well as Wader species such as Bar-tailed Godwit, Knot and Grey Plover and numerous songbird species which spend the winter in Central and Western Europe.

The area is amongst the most important migratory routes in Europe for the Common Crane. In the spring, the species first gathers in the Rügen-Bock region, which is regarded as the most significant resting area in Europe with up to 40,000 Common Cranes (TUCKER & HEATH 199424). The Scandinavian portion of the population with a size between 10,000 to 30,000 animals migrates from there directly northward towards the breeding areas (see Fig. 7). And so internationally significant migratory bird concentrations will be achieved, which meet the IBA criterion, Category “A 4 iv” (globally important congregations, “bottleneck site”).

One of the main migratory directions in the “Northern Rügen Sea Area” runs during the departure migration from north to south (see example in Fig. 7) as well as in the opposite direction for the homeward migration. But numerous water bird species also cross the area westward or eastward.

24 TUCKER, G.M & HEATH, M. F. (1994): Birds in Europe: Their Conservation Status. Cambridge, U.K., BirdLife Conservation Series No. 3: 600 p.

32

Fig. 7: Spring migration of cranes over the Baltic Sea and southern Sweden (Source: ALERSTAM 199025)

Regarding 3.3: Furthermore, the environmental ministers of the member states of the Helsinki Convention and the OSPAR Convention have also committed themselves to setting up a network of well-managed marine protection areas by 2010 (Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Work Programme on Marine Protected Areas, Bremen 2003). In addition, within the scope of OSPAR they have adopted a directive for identification of marine protection areas for the North-East Atlantic (Guidelines for the Identification and Selection of Marine Protected Areas; List of Threatened and Diminishing Habitats and Species in the OSPAR Maritime Area ANNEX 10 (Ref. § A-4.44 b (i), Bremen 2003), which amongst other things plans to protect threatened and in their populations diminishing habitats and species in these areas to be identified. For this task, the safeguarding of all habitat types according to the EU Habitats Directive with the help of registered FFH areas does not sufficiently cover the safeguarding of the benthos communities significant for the marine nature, since a series of Red List species and the habitat of “sea pens and burrowing megafauna communities” (EUNIS Code: A4.362/A4.3621) to be protected in the North Sea according to OSPAR as well as important areas with stepping stone and cross-linking functions are not found in the NATURA 2000 areas. In addition, the general requirement – i.e. the protection of representative parts all (natural) communities and biotopes – is not sufficiently taken into consideration with the Habitats Directive.

Regarding 3.3.1 (1): Large parts of the offshore seabed of the German North Sea consist of fine-sandy and partially muddy sediments. As is known, these very species-rich marine biotopes in anthropogenically unaffected condition and their characteristic species will not be taken into consideration by the European Habitat and Species Directive. However, such species and habitats are considered in the criteria regarding the establishment of a coherent protection area network in the Northeast Atlantic (OSPAR).

25 ALERSTAM, T. (1990): Bird migration. Cambridge University Press: 420 p.

33

The distribution pattern of the German Bight benthic communities has been described in the principle from HAGMEIER (192526) and SALZWEDEL et al. (198527). The streams of data since the 1990s (above all KÜNITZER et al. 199228, RACHOR & NEHMER 200329: here for the entire EEZ to north of the Dogger Bank) also confirm the described pattern. The small-scale, high-resolution data currently collected within the scope of environmental impact studies for the establishment of wind parks also confirm the general image already outlined by Hagmeier, but have only marginal expressiveness for the preparation and evaluation of the large-scale distribution pattern of the benthic communities and their temporal variability.

According to the aforementioned sources, the Elbe Glacial Valley is colonised by an Amphiuria filiformis community characteristic for fine-sandy muddy soils. The “burrowing megafauna” to be protected in accordance with OSPAR can develop here in undisturbed regions with sufficient silt proportion. However, this region of the German Bight is in parts substantially degraded through the extensive influence of eutrophication and the large-scale use of ground trawling nets (above all heavy beam trawls) in the fishing industry, so that above all long-lived, slow-growing and large invertebrate animals have become rare.

The current analysis of an area-wide study of the entire German Bight30 shows that the most significant and stable undisturbed muddy areas in the German EEZ are situated in the northern end of the Elbe Glacial Valley and north of the Dogger Bank in the outermost tip of the “Duck’s Bill”.

Commensurate with the OSPAR list of endangered and diminishing species (OSPAR 04-06-E) and the Red List of endangered biotopes and species, two particularly specific regions can be identified in the central EEZ of the North Sea for which it is important to safeguard the benthos.

The analyses of the large-scale study for identification of ecological priority areas in the North Sea recognise two areas here with important ecological cross-linking function, which had even been identified earlier as valuable areas31. This concerns the areas “Southern Mud Bank” and “Central Elbe Glacial Valley”. Essential regions of mud habitats and their characteristic species will be conserved on a long-term basis through the prevention of these areas from impairments of benthos habitats.

Brief characterisation of the “Southern Mud Bank” area in relation to benthos communities:

The Southern Mud Bank lies in the central Elbe Glacial Valley in the north-western region of the German EEZ. Fine-sandy silts particularly predominate in the deepest region of the Elbe Glacial Valley with water depths up to 50 metres. The afore mentioned studies of the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven and the BfN also substantiate a relatively compact and undisturbed occurrence of Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus). This species is a characteristic species of the biotope “muddy soils with burrowing megafauna communities” to be protected in accordance with OSPAR. In addition, more benthos species of the Red List (RACHOR & NEHMER 200332) settle here than in the surrounding areas of the Elbe Glacial Valley. The likewise (according to OSPAR) characteristic sea pens (Virgularia sp., Pennatula sp.) could not be identified. However, the habitat conditions for a possible resettlement in this area are probably given.

26 HAGMEIER, A. (1925): Vorläufiger Bericht über die vorbereitenden Untersuchungen der Bodenfauna der Deutschen Bucht mit dem Petersen-Bodengreifer. Ber. Dt. Wiss. Kommn. Meeresforsch. N. F. 1: 247-272. 27 SALZWEDEL, H., E. RACHOR, E. & GERDES, D. (1985): Benthic Macrofauna Communities in the German Bight. In: INSTITUT FÜR MEERESFORSCHUNG BREMERHAVEN (Hrsg.): Veröffentlichung des Instituts für Meeresforschung Bremerhaven, 20: 199-267 28KÜNITZER, A., BASFORD, D., CRAEYMEERSCH, J.A., DEWARUMEZ, J.M., DÖRJES, J., DUINEVELD, G.C.A., ELEFTHERIOU, A., HEIP, C., HERMANN, P., KINGSTON, P., NIERMANN, U., RACHOR, E., RUMOHR, H., DE WILDE, P.A.J. (1992): The benthic infauna of the North Sea: species distribution and assemblages. ICES J. mar. Sci., 49: 127 – 143. 29 RACHOR, E. & NEHMER, P. (2003): Erfassung und Bewertung ökologisch wertvoller Lebensräume in der Nordsee. Abschlussbericht für das F+E-Vorhaben FKZ 899 85 310; gefördert durch das BfN: 175 S. 30 See footnote 29 31 BOEDEKER, D. et al. (2001): Ökologisch besonders wertvolle Gebiete im Deutschen Nordseebereich 32 See footnote 29

34

Table 6: Benthic species of conservation importance in the “Southern Siltbank” area Species / Taxon Red List Status33 Buccinum undatum EN Amphiuria filiformis VU Astropecten irregularis VU Halichondria panicea VU Psammechinus miliaris VU Abra nitida AE Acanthocardia echinata AE Aporrhais pespelecanni AE Chaetopterus variopedatus AE Chaetozone setosa AE Corbula gibba AE Corymorpha nutans AE Glycera alba AE Lagis koreni AE Levinsenia gracilis AE Magelona alleni AE Nephrops norvegicus34 AE Ophiothrix fragilis AE Phaxas pellucidus AE Pontophilus bispinosus AE Processa nouveli holthuisi AE Scalibregma inflatum AE Sigalion mathildae AE Trachythyone elongata AE Turritella communis AE Mysella bidentata NT EN = endangered

VU = vulnerable AE = assumed to be endangered NT = near threatened

The studies by RACHOR & NEHMER (200335) show that relatively many endangered benthic invertebrates settle in these areas, which are characteristic for fine-sandy, muddy soils. According to in-house BfN studies and AWI findings, the area still has a relatively cohesive and thus undisturbed occurrence of Norway lobster.

Brief characterisation of the “Central Elbe Glacial Valley” area in relation to benthos communities:

The predominant number of macrozoobenthic taxa of muddy soils propagates via larvae with the current in the open body of water (pelagic). As a result of the limited lifespan of the larvae in the water column, the distribution distances are limited and a single area for their protection is insufficient. Therefore and because of the dependence of many populations of the inner German Bight on larval supply from the central North Sea, a second area is mentioned in the western region of the central Elbe Glacial Valley. Fine sands, muddy fine sands and fine-sandy silts are found here at a depth of 40 metres, for which the area depicts a representative region in the middle of the Elbe Glacial Valley in the German Bight. Moreover, in comparison with surrounding marine areas it also has quite a few rare and endangered species of the Red List (RACHOR & NEHMER36), which are characteristic for these areas.

33 According to RACHOR, E., ed. (1998): Rote Liste der bodenlebenden wirbellosen Meerestiere. – Schriftenreihe f ür Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 55: 290-300. Categories translated according to IUCN red list categories. 34 Species of the habitat “Sea pen and burrowing megafauna communities” listed in the “OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats” (OSPAR, 2008) 35 See footnote 29 36 See footnote 29

35

Table 7: Benthic species of conservation importance in the “Central Elbe Glacial Valley” area Species / Taxon Red List Status37 Buccinum undatum EN Amphiuria filiformis VU Astropecten irregularis VU Echinocyamus pusillus VU Abra nitida AE Acanthocardia echinata AE Aricidea minuta AE Corbula gibba AE Corymorpha nutans AE Glycera alba AE Glycera lapidum AE Lagis koreni AE Limnoria aff. lignorum AE Magelona alleni AE Phaxas pellucidus AE Scalibregma inflatum AE Trachythyone elongata AE Turritella communis AE Mysella bidentata NT

EN = endangered VU = vulnerable AE = assumed to be endangered NT = near threatened

Brief characterisation of the “Central North Sea” area in relation to benthos communities:

The area lies northwest of the German Dogger Bank in the transition towards the central North Sea and features muddy-sandy habitats in water depths over 40 metres. Moreover, a good cross-linking with the fauna of the northern North Sea is ensured here. The body of water is stratified during the summer months. It is the only area of the German EEZ in the “central North Sea” and thus the only area in this natural region. It features an above-average proportion of rare and endangered benthos species. Moreover, it is one of the few areas in which the Icelandic Cyprine (Arctica islandica) – regarded as endangered in the OSPAR (Northeast Atlantic) convention area – is still developing small populations. This species can be very old (> 75 years), and accordingly requires longstanding undisturbed areas.

In the transition area to more sandy areas in the direction of Dogger Bank, the region is demarcated in the range of the 40-metre depth line.

37 See footnote 33

36

Table 8: Benthic species of conservation importance in the “Central North Sea” area Species / Taxon Red List Status38 Buccinum undatum EN Tridonta montagui EN Amphiura brachiata VU Amphiuria filiformis VU Arctica islandica39 VU Echinocyamus pusillus VU Spisula elliptica VU Abra nitida AE Acanthocardia echinata AE Aricidea minuta AE Chaetozone setosa AE Corymorpha nutans AE Glycera alba AE Lagis koreni AE Phaxas pellucidus AE Scalibregma inflatum AE Mysella bidentata NT EN = endangered

VU = vulnerable AE = assumed to be endangered NT = near threatened

Regarding 3.3.2 (1): In the Baltic Sea, the most important benthic communities with a high number of Red List species are found in a spatially narrowly restricted depth range. In the summer months, this region lies beneath the warming, effluent and edulcorated water masses from the central Baltic Sea, and above the regularly expanding oxygen deficiency zones in the deeper areas. As a result, these especially good habitat conditions often extend band-like along a certain depth range on the edges of the individual Baltic Sea basins and troughs. Here this phenomenon will be described as a “submergence band”. Depending on the local hydrogeographic conditions, the band shifts into the shallower or deeper region. In the EEZ in the Bay of Mecklenburg it lies at a depth of approx. 15-20 metres. Especially long-lived marine mussel species (Arctica islandica, Astarte spp.) with an abundant concomitant fauna are able to settle here. The populations of Icelandic Cyprine (Arctica islandica) are the only – at present, Germany-wide, possibly even Europe-wide – regularly reproducing populations. Generally, the sediment is fine-sandy.

All data concerning this have not yet been evaluated at present. Moreover, studies by the Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemünde (IOW) concerning the exact location of the band in the German EEZ within the scope of a BfN research project (FKZ 802 85 210) are still ongoing. Presumably it shifts in the western part of the Baltic Sea into shallower regions, and into deeper zones in the eastern region. The results from the aforementioned research projects will be available in mid-2006.

According to the current state of knowledge, 3 areas with special importance can therefore be fundamentally identified outside the NATURA 2000 areas in the Baltic Sea EEZ. With a safeguarding of these areas against impairments of benthos habitats, essential submergence band regions and their characteristic species will be secured on a long-terms basis and protected against impairments. But only the aforementioned studies will be able to provide insight into the exact location of the submergence band.

38 See footnote 33 39 Species of the 2004 Initial OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats

37

Brief characterisation of the “Kiel Bight” area in relation to benthos communities:

The area lies west of the Fehmarn Belt and is very likely the westernmost portion of the “submergence band”. It lies in the eastern region of the Bay of Kiel, and is regularly supplied with oxygen-rich and high-salinity water from the Great Belt. “Mega ripple fields” develop in the regions with especially high current velocities and corresponding sediments. The sedimentary composition can alternate on a small-scale heterogeneous basis between rather muddy or sandy sediments and coarser residual sediments. The salinity (PSU) can exceed 24 in ground-proximate water layers, whereas it can fall below 14 near the surface. The very species-rich benthic fauna in the “submergence band” consists above all of marine mussels, snails, polychaetes and crustaceans. Characteristic species are Abra alba, Astarte spp., Arctica islandica, Macoma calcarea, Lagis koreni, Scoloplos armiger and Ophiura albida.

Brief characterisation of the “Mecklenburg Bight” area in relation to benthos communities:

The area to be protected is part of the “submergence band,” which in the EEZ in Bay of Mecklenburg is quite clearly characterised through the special hydrographical conditions at a depth of approx. 15-20 metres. Characteristic species here are Arctica islandica and Astarte spp., which reach their eastern distribution boundary here in still well-developed populations.

The Bay of Mecklenburg extends near the coast to Lübeck and towards Bay of Wismar as an extended basis east of the Fehmarn Belt and west of the Kadet Trench. More than 70% of the entire water exchange between the central Baltic Sea and the North Sea occurs through the two troughs. Accordingly, the “Bay of Mecklenburg” is characterised by zones with stronger current, which strongly decelerate in the central deep region and the peripheral locations. Soil fauna extinction events will be regularly registered in the summer months as a result of oxygen deficiency. The sediments are very heterogeneous, in the peripheral locations with alternating sandy regions, residual sediments and boulder fields. Fine sands and muddy sediments dominate in the deeper regions. Table 9: Benthic Species of proven conservation importance

Species / Taxon IUCN Red List Status40 Halitholus yoldia-arcticae EN Arctica islandica VU Astarte borealis VU Astarte elliptica VU Corbula gibba AE Eulalia bilineata AE Nereimyra punctata AE Parvicardium ovala AE Pectinaria koreni AE Terebellides stroemi AE EN = endangered

VU = vulnerable AE = assumed to be endangered NT = near threatened

Brief characterisation of the “Northern Darß” area in relation to benthos communities:

The area is located east of the Kadet Trench. In this region at the transition from the Bay of Mecklenburg into the Arkona Basin the “submergence band” expands on the seabed, and is particularly colonised by species-rich communities of longstanding marine mussel species.

The area lies in the transition region of the spur of the Gedser Reef with residual sediments and boulders to the sandy regions before Darß-Fischland. The body of water is dominated more by the water masses of the central Baltic Sea. Accordingly, the salinity fluctuates between 7 and 16. The eastern occurrence of Icelandic Cyprine (Arctica islandica) and the Astarte species are found in the region of the “submergence band”. The easternmost propagation areas for the reproduction of marine benthic species are partially known here.

40 See footnote 33

38

Table 10: Benthic species of proven conservation importance Species / Taxon IUCN Red List Status41 Phoxocephalus holbolli EN X Arctica islandica VU Astarte borealis VU Bathyporeia pilosa P Tubificoides benedeni NT

Further regions of the “submergence band” lie completely within the SCIs “Adler Ground”, “Pomeranian Bay with Odra Bank” or in the “Pomeranian Bay” bird sanctuary already registered as NATURA 2000 areas and are treated here as priority areas.

41 According to RACHOR, E. (Ed.1998): Rote Liste der bodenlebenden wirbellosen Meerestiere. – Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 55: 290-300 sowie GOSSELCK, F., ARLT, G., BLICK, A., BÖNSCH, R., KUBE, J., SCHROEREN, V. & VOSS, J. (1996): Rote Liste der benthischen wirbellosen Tiere des deutschen Meeres- und Küstenbereichs der Ostsee. – Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 48: 41-51

Annex 1: Areas of special importance for marine conservation in the German North Sea EEZ

40

Annex 2: Areas of special importance for marine conservation in the German Baltic Sea EEZ