Regione Lazio Direzione Regionale Ambiente CM-GIZC Viale Del Tintoretto, 432 00142 Roma Revision February 2012 Project Part-Financed by European Union

Regione Lazio Direzione Regionale Ambiente CM-GIZC Viale Del Tintoretto, 432 00142 Roma www.cmgizc.info revision february 2012 project part-financed by European Union

Eu project COASTANCE REPORT PHASE B1 COMPONENT 5 Analysis of environmental features characterising protected coastal areas PARTNERSHIP

Region of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace (GR) - Lead Partner

Regione Lazio (IT)

Region of Crete (GR)

Département de l’Hérault (FR)

Regione Emlia-Romagna (IT)

Junta de Andalucia (SP)

Ministry of Communications & Works of Cyprus (CY)

Dubrovnic Neretva County Regional Development Agency (HR) INDEX Introduction on COASTANCE project and aims ...... 2 Introduction on Component 5 ...... 5 Objectives of the study ...... 7 1. Framework and methodology ...... 9 1.1 Reference Framework ...... 9 1.2 Methodology and activities carried out ...... 10 2. Coastal defence works ...... 11 2.1 Seawalls ...... 11 2.2 Artificial reefs (offshore) ...... 12 2.3 Nearshore breakwaters (submerged) ...... 13 2.4 Groins (impermeable) ...... 14 2.5 Groins (composite) ...... 15 2.6 Groins (permeable) ...... 16 2.7 Beach nourishment ...... 17 2.8 Beach drainage ...... 18 2.9 Windbreak fences ...... 18 2.10 Dune grass planting ...... 19 2.11 Dune reprofiling ...... 21 2.12 Access management ...... 22 2.13 Artificial headlands ...... 22 2.14 Adaptive management (strategic retreat)...... 23 3. Environmental effects induced by coastal defense works ...... 24 3.1 Hard structures ...... 24 3.2 Beach nourishment ...... 26 3.3 Drainage systems ...... 29 3.4 Coastal dunes management operations ...... 29 4. International policies and legislation ...... 32 4.1 International policies and legislation ...... 32 4.2 Natura 2000 network ...... 36 4.3 Red lists ...... 38 4.4 Synthesis of the policies and legislation taken into account ...... 39 5. Protected habitat classification...... 40 5.1 Classification criteria ...... 40 5.2 Physiographic macro-categories ...... 43 5.2.1 Marine habitats ...... 45 5.2.2 Wetlands and halophytic habitats ...... 46 5.2.3 Dune habitats ...... 48 5.2.4 Cliff habitats ...... 50 6. Protected, sensitive and/or endangered species classification ...... 52 6.1 Protected, sensitive and/or endangered flora species ...... 52 6.2 Protected, sensitive and/or endangered fauna species...... 56 7. Bibliography ...... 59 published by Regione Lazio

Edited by: Silvia Bellacicco (Regione Lazio - Consultant) Optimisation, layout and graphic: Manuela Di Cosimo (Regione Lazio - Consultant) Producted by: ISPRA (Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) Scientific responsible: Luisa Nicoletti ISPRA Authors: Daniela Paganelli, Elena Pallottini, Paola La Valle, Stefania Ercole, Loretta Lattanzi External collaborators: Corrado Teofili (WWF) COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Introduction on COASTANCE project and aims

Coastal erosion and flooding represent a major threat for the well- being and prosperity of the 70mi Europeans living within 500m from the coastline and their assets of 500-1000 bi€. The loss of se- riously impacted areas due to erosion is estimated to be 15 km2/ year. The UN-IPCC estimates that by 2020, due to Climate Change, 50% of Europe’s coastal wetlands will disappear as a result of sea level rise, at a cost of 5,400 mi€/year. According to the EC EURO- SION project, the regulatory EIA framework, the knowledge-based and traditional measures to control the erosion control have been weak or inappropriate. COASTANCE (Regional action strategies for coastal zone adaptation to climate change) proposes innovative techniques for mid- long term coastal protection Master Plans capitalizing on the Good Practices developed under several European projects (INTERREG IIIB & INTERREG IIIC-RFO). It focuses on those practices that resulted from scientific studies and the understanding of coastal erosion phenomena obtained in previous experiences. The concrete results – Realistic Submersion Risk Forecast Systems, Specific EIA/SEA Procedures and concrete coastal protection Master Plans will be proposed as Governance and Public Policy Tools for erosion control by regional, national and EU Administrations. COASTANCE focuses on the entire Mediterranean basin. The partners have jurisdiction on 3700 km of coast of which 1600 km are beaches representing 5 out of 7 EU MED member States that cover 95% of EU MED coastline and all characteristic coastal typologies of the Mediterranean: • Low-land areas around big river mouths with long beaches (East Macedonia-Thrace, Languedoc-Roussillon, Hérault, Emi- lia-Romagna) • Mixed rocky and sandy coastlines (Crete, Lazio, Andalusia, Cyprus) By achieving such a complete geographic coverage, the COASTAN- CE partners have the entire set of characteristics related to erosion phenomena in the Mediterranean and thus their work will lead to the development of coherent, plausible and applicable results. The increasing erosion phenomena and marine flooding risks ari- sing on the mid-long term related to the climate change effects

2 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

(sea level rising, extreme storm events, increasing frequency and intensity etc.) pushes Public Administrations towards a strategic approach for the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) with a particular emphasis on coastal protection. The loss of rivers solid transport (due to hydraulic works, bridles, crossbars, dams, on rivers), the presence of hard protection works and harbours along the coasts (that intercept the natural distribution of sediments) and the climate changes effects, increased the vulnerability of coastal stretches, today affected by widespread erosion processes and marine flooding hazards. In this framework, it is evident the need of a strategic and sustainable management of coastal sediments, paying attention to the new environmental aspects involved in the related activities. It is noteworthy that the E.U. project EUROSION stressed both the “Shortage of coastal sediments…” (Finding n°1) and the improperness of the “Current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practices...” (Finding n°2) in addressing coastal erosion matter. COASTANCE project is based on two main operational purposes: a) Capitalization of knowledge and resources already acquired in the field of coastal protection: • sustainable Technologies for exploiting sand stocks (behind river barrages, upstream harbour structures, geological sea bottom deposits, etc.) based on Eurosion project, Beachmed, Beachmed-e/GESA/RESAMME Subprojects; • sustainable Technologies for coastal protection and adaptation (marine-climate survey, beach nourishments, soft structures, use relocation etc.) based on Eurosion project, Beachmed, Beachmed-e/NAUSICAA/MEDPLAN/ICZM-MED Subprojects, Plancoast, Cadseland projects; • environmental Impact Assessments of the new technologies (dredging activities, nourishment work etc.) and Strategic En- vironmental Assessment on coastal plans based on Beachmed, Beachmed-e/EUDREP/POSIDUNE Subprojects. b) Mid to long term planning actions for climate change effects adaptation of coastal zones in line with the EU Directive 2007/60/ EC: • development of Territorial Action Plans for adapting coastal zones to climate change, against erosion effects and submersion risk: Analysis of the erosion and submersion phenomena, Plans for coastal protection management, Guidance and Recommendations for the development of Coastal Protection Management Plans based on previous EU projects findings (eg. Safecoast, Comrisk and Messina); • definition of Sediment Management Plans (SMPs) for both offshore and littoral deposits exploitation (location, characteristics, radius of competence/beaches to feed, exploitation

3 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

technology, treatments needed); • appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment Protocols in order to assure the right procedures in intervening along coastal zone. COASTANCE project develops in 3 technical Components: • C3 - Coastal risks: Submersion and Erosion; • C4 - Territorial Action Plans for Coastal Protection and Mana- gement; • C5 - Guidelines for Environmental Impacts focused on coastal protection works and plans; plus a Communication & Dissemination Component and a Mana- gement & Coordination Component.

4 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Introduction on Component 5 Guidelines for Environmental Impacts Studies focused on coastal protection works and plans

The Component 5 aims to establish specific technical guidelines for Public Administrations of Europe responsible for coastal defence/management planning, in order to be as a support in mandatory procedures such as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) focused on coastal protection works and plans. In detail, the precise recipients of these guidelines in European Pu- blic Administrations have been identified as both technical offices in charge with coastal defense and management planning (coastal works, plans arrangement) and offices in charge with environmental assessment of coastal defense and management plans (EIA and SEA procedures). The environmental impact procedures for coastal works and plans in Europe are mandatory under specific laws: • For the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), the COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Amend. 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC;

ANNEX II ...(omissis) 10. Infrastructure projects (k) Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defense works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works;

• For the SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment), the Directi- ve 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment. Coastal defense and management plans are then included.

Component 5 consists of 2 Phases: • Phase A: study of the framework, existing experiences and we- aknesses on environmental impact studies for coastal works/ plans in EU evolution; • Phase B: design of specific guidelines for the arrangement

5 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

(and the evaluation) of the environmental impacts studies on coastal works and plans. The Phase A develops two actions: A1. Analyses of existing experiences / case study on this issue; A2. Interviews through specific questionnaire to EU Public Admi- nistrations (PAs) in charge with coastal protection/management in order to scout the practical problems and the needs that PAs usually face drawing environmental impact studies.

The Phase B develops three actions: B1. In-depth examination of environmental specificities of protected coastal areas for the choice of environmental components with particular reference to the ones listed in the international legislation; B2. Design of specific guidelines on environmental impacts studies for EU PAs which plan coastal works, with a special focus on sensitive and/or protected coastal areas; B3. Sharing the guidelines with National Authorities (ENV Ministri- es) of involved MS.

This technical report contains the results of action B1, i.e. the method used to create the matrix forms “work/impact vs habitat/ species” presented in the Report B2.

6 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Objectives of the study

The coastal environment is characterized by landscapes of great naturalistic value, but also hosts a number of economic resources, such as urban and industrial centers, roads, infrastructures and tourist activities. The earth-sea interface is particularly affected by environmental degradation, both because of coexisting con- flicting interests and due to the typical fragility of transitional environments. This fragility translates into erosion, which today affects more than 20,000 km of European coasts, i.e. 20% of the total coastal surface (EUROSION, 2004). The problems linked to the increasingly fast and very severe coastal erosion we can observe at a global level have brought our research to concentrate on themes like coastal defense and protection of the coastal-marine environment, in order to achieve an integrated management of the coast and of its economic resources and activities. It is therefore vital to protect not just biodiversity, but also the whole coastal environment by planning and managing coastal zones so as to preserve the ecological, economic and social resources they represent. This implies the need for strong implementation tools that will help apply criteria integrated management to the territory. Therefore, within the framework of Component 5 of the European project COASTANCE, ISPRA intends to develop specific guidelines to support Environmental Impact Assessment studies focused on the realization of coastal defense works in protected areas. In particular, this report (Task B1) will present the proposed methodology, the classification categories for coastal defense works, a synthesis of these operations’ effects on the marine-coastal environment, and a list of classification criteria for habitats and protected species. A subsequent report (Task B2) will provide the conceptual model (structure, impact, habitat), whose aim is to identify the expected stress for each type of coastal defense structure and for each habitat category (and related habitat types and fauna categories). Moreover, we will evaluate the possibility of applying the identified methodology to coastal planning. Finally, in order to verify its applicability, the proposed method will be tested in a sample area of the Tyrrhenian coast of the Lazio Region (between Capo Portiere and Torre Paola, Latina province).

7 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

This area, affected by localized erosion phenomena (ISPRA, 2009), is characterised by a great variety of environments (sandy beaches, dunes, coastal lakes, reefs) and protected species (especially bird populations), thus hosting many protected natural areas (SPAs and SCIs of the Natura 2000 Network, the Circeo National Park and Ramsar sites).

8 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

1. Framework and methodology

1.1 Reference Framework

This project’s reference framework is represented by the coastal zone. Since a univocal coastal zone definition currently does not exist even in legal terms1, and considering the need to define the reference framework for this work, it was decided to choose an operational definition for the project’s objectives (which are the preparation of Guidelines supporting Environmental Impact As- sessment studies focused on the realization of coastal defense works in protected areas). For the purposes of this work, the Study Area (Figure 1.1.1) is delimited seaward by the closure depth (i.e. the boundary of the ac- tive beach) (1) or, in the presence of Posidonia oceanica meadows (a type of priority habitat according to the Directive 92/43/EEC), by the lower depth limit of the meadow itself (2). The landward boundary of the Study Area depends on the different situations, and can be the landward fixed dune (3), the coastal vegetation landward limit (4), or the wetlands limit, if present (5). In highly urbanized areas, the boundary is represented by the first urban settlements (buildings or roads) (6). When coastal defense operations are expected to have environmental effects on spatial contexts other than the Study Area (as defined above), the methodological approach shall be ade- Figure 1.1.1 quately integrated, with specific reference to all other spatial fra- Study Area. meworks involved.

(2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6)

((

1 ICZM Protocol defines the coastal zone as “the geomorphologic area either side of the seashore in which the interaction between the marine and land parts occurs in the form of complex ecological and resource systems made up of biotic and abiotic components coexisting and interacting with human communities and relevant socio-economic activities”. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:034:0019:0028:IT:PDF)

9 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

1.2 Methodology and activities carried out

It is well known that the effects on the environment of the realization of coastal defense works are not negligible and that these effects may tend to be “amplified” in the presence of sensitive habitats and/or species. The COASTANCE project’s methodological approach is based on the assumption that coastal defense works –together with anthropogenic activities in general– may have different impacts on the environment, depending on the different habitats and species involved. This approach aims to create a matrix system matching the different coastal defense works with the potential impacts generated, and the different types of habitats (and associated species) with the single effects, thus highlighting the specific weakness of each habitat considered. This way, given a certain type of habitat (and the associated species) and a certain type of defense work, it will be possible to identify, a priori, the expected effects and, subsequently, the stresses generated. The results will be collected in a new operational guide for Environmental Assessments Studies. The guide will not only be useful for the preparation phase, but also for the assessment phase, and it will indicate the critical environmental parameters (or the parameters to be monitored) for each type of habitat and intervention. For the preparation of this report, ISPRA carried out the following activities through bibliographic research: • Classification of the main coastal defense works, sorted by category. • Study of the environmental effects on the biotic field induced by the main categories of coastal defense works; • Identification of the Italian protected marine-coastal habitats and classification into physiographic categories.; • Definition of the methods used to match protected flora and fauna species with habitat categories. In particular, in order to identify proper habitat categories and, more generally, protected coastal environments, this work involved the study of international laws and policies currently valid in Italy for the protection of habitats and species, with exclusive and specific reference to the laws that are useful to identify them. The study of these laws made it possible to pinpoint the types of habitats (then classified into categories) and the species currently protected by the Italian law. Indeed, given the great geographical and habitat variety of Italian coasts, we think that the results obtained – in terms of habitats and species identified – are also reasonably valid for the rest of the Euro-Mediterranean area, considered by the COASTANCE project.

10 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

2. Coastal defense works

The coastal defense works categories are analyzed in the framework of Component 4 of the COASTANCE project. This report describes and classifies by category the most traditional coastal defense works in the Mediterranean context, keeping into account not only their functionality, but also, and above all, their main effects on the environment. For each category identified, the report provides a brief description of the intervention and of the effects it normally induces on the surrounding environment. Concerning the type of material if the choice of a material over another does not significantly change the effects induced, please refer to the bibliography (Wallingford et al., 2000; Pranzini, 2004; APAT, 2007). Concerning the coastal dune re-profiling operations and defense works on dunes, special attention was paid to the materials used to build the different structures (windbreaks, fences and footways). This is because, compared to the hard structures used for traditional works, structures used to re-profile or defend coastal dunes have a “short” life and are more subject to rapid demoli- tion, for both natural (storms) and anthropogenic (wear, vandalism) causes. In both these cases, we can observe a dissemination of materials in the environment and it is therefore particularly important to use biodegradable and environment-friendly raw materials such as bionets, reed fences, stranded wood and plants, etc., in order to minimize their polluting impact on the environment. Should the materials not be biodegradable, it is always necessary to duly assess the impact generated by the dissemination/dama- ging of the material used.

2.1 Seawalls

Brief description Seawalls (figure 2.1.1) are built by positioning hard structures of varying shapes, nature and size on the foreshore. Seawalls are sometimes also placed on the dry beach, up to the backshore and (if present) the front of the dune. They include different types of structures, such as nearshore reefs, breakwaters, etc. (APAT, 2007).

11 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Main expected effects The use of seawalls causes landscape transformation and beach loss (Pranzini, 2004). These structures are often subject to undercutting due to the increased deepening of the seabed in front of the structure2 (Wallingford et al., 2000; APAT, 2007). Also, with a significant parallel component of the waves, the size of the coastal stretch affected by erosion could increase3: this translates into a loss of dry beach and erosion of nearby coasts (Pranzini, 2004). Since seawalls interfere with cross-shore sediment transport, these structures prevent sand movement from the submerged beach to the dry beach. Thus, in case of extreme events causing sediment transport towards the submerged beach, the beach-dune system suf- fers from a final loss of sediment that is detrimental for the whole system (Wallingford et al., 2000). Building these structures all the way up to the front of the dune, covering all or part of the dry beach, causes a direct destruction of the dune habitat (plants), makes the beach-dune transition stretch more rigid and prevents sediment exchan- ge between the two environments. (Wallingford et al., 2000). Figure 2.1.1 2.2 Artificial reefs (offshore) Seawall scheme. (http://www.snh.org.uk/ publications/on-line/heritagemanagement/ Brief description erosion/images/fig-a21.gif). Artificial reefs are segmented reefs placed at a distance from the shore and more or less parallel to the shoreline depending on wave motion characteristics and on the type of littoral sediment flow (figure 2.2.1). These structures’ uppermost portion is built so that it is always above sea level, except in cases of very heavy sea. This category also includes platform-islands –i.e. circular, usually emerging structures– placed at a certain distance from the shore (Pranzini, 2004).

Main expected effects Artificial reefs reduce the energy of wave motion and create a low-energy zone behind the structure, where we can observe an increase in turbidity and the redeposition of sediments, probably coming from the stretch in front of the structure (Pranzini, 2004). Depending on the distance between the reefs and the shoreline, and on the extension of the gaps between the reefs, the shoreline can have a festoon-like appearance, with sand deposition in

2 The reflection of the waves at the bottom of the seawalls causes conditions of high energy and a seaward loss of sediments.

12 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

the protected zone and erosion in the con- tiguous sectors and in front of the gaps. Sometimes, the refraction and diffraction phenomena can lead to the formation of tombolos connecting the beach to the reefs and intercepting sediment transport along the shore, causing greater erosion of the downstream beaches, on which the reefs normally have negative effects (Pranzini, 2004). On the other hand, if the newly formed tombolos are stable, it is possible new foredunes may form in the backshore (Wal- lingford et al., 2000). Just like nearshore reefs (see par. 2.1), offshore artificial reefs can suffer from undercutting at the foot of the structure. Wave reflection at the base determines an offsho- Figure 2.2.1 re-bound flow and causes longshore currents to move away from Artificial reefs. (http://www.coastalsystemsint. com/media/pop_32nd_conststruction.htm). the shore, creating a big sandy bar at a certain distance from the shoreline. Another aspect worth mentioning is the occurrence of rip currents, i.e. offshore-bound currents that originate between two reefs, and which are potentially very dangerous for bathers (Pranzini, 2004). Artificial reefs deeply interfere with the littoral transport process and can therefore have great repercussions on the morphologic variations of the beach-dune systems and on the habitats along the coastal stretch that is directly or indirectly affected by the induced modifications (Wallingford et al., 2000). The undercutting phenomena at the foot are absent or minimal in platform islands. The sedimentary flow in the nearby stretch is only marginally reduced and if they are well- planned, these structures can favor the creation of slightly emerging tombolos that can be easily surpassed by waves in case of heavy sea, only partially interfering with longshore transport (Pranzini, 2004).

2.3 Nearshore breakwaters (submerged)

Brief description This category includes submerged breakwaters (or reefs) built at a certain distance from the shoreline and more or less parallel, with the uppermost part always below sea level or at water level (figure 2.3.1). They can consist of single structures or series of structures.

Main expected effects Nearshore breakwaters work just like artificial reefs (causing reduction of cross-shore and longshore transport, shoreline varia-

3 The sediments drifting offshore due to the reflected waves move along the shore on sea-bottoms, giving very little contribution to the nourishment of the downstream beaches.

13 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Figure 2.3.1 (a) Nearshore breakwaters scheme (APAT, Manuali e Linee guida 44/2007). (b) Nearshore breakwaters at Ostia (RM) (Google Earth).

tions, formation of rip currents, undercutting at the foot of the structure, turbidity increase in the protected sectors) (Pranzini,

2004; APAT, 2007), even if their impact on coastal processes is Figure 2.4.1 less severe since the interference with wave motion is only partial, (a) Effects due to the realization of enabling part of the energy associated to it to reach the beach, impermeable groins. (b) Example of an impermeable groin, Ladispoli (RM). thus ensuring protection in any case. This effect causes a forward ((a)http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/coasts/ movement of the dry beach, and if this is large and wide enough, protection/faq.html; (b) APAT, Manuali e Linee it can enhance aeolian transport towards inland. In case of long guida 44/2007). and uninterrupted structures, the shoreline in front of them will be more regular, with positive effects even on the backshore and on the coastal dune, if present; on the other hand, in the case of short reefs with openings, the shoreline will have a more festoon-like appearance. Pranzini (2004) reports that following the creation of submerged breakwaters, the medium sea level between the reef and the shore piles up, thus inducing a wave motion increase on the dry beach and increased currents along the shore. The latter can ero- de the beach behind the reef and facilitate the creation of wide cusps.

2.4 Groins (impermeable)

Brief description This category includes transition groins and groins built with impermeable materials

14 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

(APAT, 2007). Usually, these structures are perpendicular to the shoreline, and their aim is to intercept and reduce the longshore transport (figure 2.4.1).

Main expected effects Groins deeply alter littoral transport mechanisms by intercepting sands and causing a general expansion of the upstream beach and (severe) erosion phenomena downstream. They also change the orientation of the shoreline, which generally takes a “sawtooth” profile (Bush et al., 2001; Charlier et al., 2005). Finally, the seaward shift of the foreshore in front of the groin makes the beach slope steeper, with subsequent variations in the sediments’ granulometry (Pranzini, 2004). On top of the above-mentioned modifications in the beach’s profile and dimensions, and of the shoreline’s orientation, it is also worth mentioning a groin’s effect on the littoral sedimentary balance. The seaward movement of the shoreline on the upstream side of the groin may cause part of the sediments to overcome the structure and to scatter offshore, therefore being definitively subtracted from the littoral sedimentary balance (APAT, 2007). Moreover, stationary eddies can originate within the cells created between nearby groins, thus increasing offshore-bound sand loss (Pranzini, 2004).

2.5 Groins (composite)

Brief description A way to avoid the formation of stationary eddies is to add small perpendicular structures are added to the head of the groin, giving it a T-head shape and thus making the structure more energy-absorbing (Pranzini, 2004; figure 2.5.1). This kind of solution is particularly indicated for lit- torals with coastal dunes, since the T-head shape prevents undercutting phenomena at the foot of the groin.

Main expected effects Usually, composite groynes are more effective in keeping the local position of the Usually, composite groins are more effective in maintaining Figure 2.5.1 the shoreline in its previous position. The current that originates Examples if composite groins: (a) modified “T”-shape; (b) “T”-shape; (c) straight; (d) upstream gets directed sideways, thus reducing sediment drift. slanted; (e) “L”-shaped; (f) “dog-paw” shape; This shape can favor sand deposition both upstream and down- (g) “Y”-shape. (h) Effects of a “T” groin. (APAT, stream, thus balancing the beach portions situated between adja- Manuali e Linee guida 44/2007). cent groins (APAT, 2007).

15 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

The functioning principles of T-head groins are the same as the ones for detached parallel reefs/breakwaters (par. 2.2/2.3), but the shape of the beach behind the structure essentially depends on the waves rather than on the littoral drift, as it is the case for parallel breakwaters (APAT, 2007).

2.6 Groins (permeable)

Brief description This category of structures includes submerged groins, permeable groins4, and notched groins5 (Pranzini, 2004).

Main expected effects Permeable groins intercept the granulometric component involved in the formation of the beach. Compared to the impermeable groins they derive from, they have the advantage of limiting beach erosion downstream and preventing the development of a sawtooth-shaped shoreline (APAT, 2007; figure 2.6.1). By lifting up the sea-bottom that maintains the original slope, permeable groins favor the seaward shift of the shoreline. Once they are covered by sand, they no longer interfere with sediment flow, and they can be overcome by the sediments without the need for sediments to get around their head (Pranzini, 2004). This minimizes the impact on downstream beaches, which are affected by Figure 2.6.1 the consequences of a sedimentary deficit only in the initial phase Effects of a permeable groin. (http://www.snh. (filling-up phase). org.uk/publications/on-line/heritagemanagement/erosion/images/fig-a15.gif).

4 Emerging poles fixed in the sea-bottom, placed at a certain distance one from the other, with variable openings (transparency is usually around 30%). 5 Emerged groins characterized by an opening separating the part built on the land from the one offshore.

16 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

2.7 Beach nourishment

Brief description Beach nourishment consists in the replenishment with suitable sediments of the (emerged or submerged) beach. The material is partially “processed” through the use of land equipment (land moving), and partially redistributed along the equilibrium profile. With this technique, the shore gets expanded and nearby beaches can benefit from the sediment losses coming from the areas of intervention (figure 2.7.1). Beach nourishment operations often associate the dum- ping of sandy sediments with the construction of groins and/or parallel breakwaters (protected beach nourishments), in order to create a sort of “cell” structure that reduces to a minimum any loss of the sediments dumped during the nourishment procedure. In this particular category of operations (beach nourishment in general), we must consider that the realization phase includes the building phase (when the sediment is placed on the dry beach) and the period of time needed for the wave-influenced sediment to be redistributed and to create a new equilibrium profile. Figure 2.7.1 Beach nourishment operations (Regione Main expected effects Lazio). Sand replenishment can induce variations in the morphology and in the substrate’s granulometry. When the nourishment is suc- cessful, these changes can be due to the seaward shifting of the beach’s equilibrium profile, which results in a widening of the emerged beach. Another effect is linked to the temporary increase (Van Dolah et al., 1984; Green, 2002) of suspended particulate (and therefore, turbidity), mainly due to the fine fraction of the nourished sediment. These effects are not significant if compared to the natural turbidity variations. In the case of heavy wave motion, after beach nourishment we can witness an even greater increase of suspended particulate. This is due to fine fraction loss, which is also favored by the low degree of compression of the sediments reple- nished. The turbidity levels, however, return to the initial values within a short time (Green, 2002). A persistent turbidity could also be caused by the use of materials whose mineralogical characteristics (hardness) are too different from those of the original beach. Finally, in the case of protected beach nourishments, it is necessary to consider all the effects normally associated with the construction of rigid structures, such as the interruption of transport along the shore.

17 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

2.8 Beach drainage

Brief description This category includes defense operations designed on the basis of the assumption that beaches made of well- drained sediments are more stable (www.shoregro.com; figure 2.8.1). The unsaturation of the sand along the foreshore is artificially induced by in- serting a draining pipe along the shoreline, whose aim is to remove water in case of heavy sea. The excess water is then re-pumped into the sea or used for fish-farming installations (Pranzi- ni, 2004). These systems can control (and fight) erosion not only of beaches, but also of the dunes behind them, if present (Wallingford et al., 2000; www. shoregro.com). Main expected effects By eliminating water in the swash zone, drainage systems increase the beach’s capacity to absorb energy associated with wave motion, thus reducing sand fluidification and favoring deposition. The sand deposited forms a Figure 2.8.1 berm that can protect the foot of the dune in extreme weather and (a) Beach drainage system (www.shoregro. sea conditions (Wallingford et al., 2000; Vicinanza et al., 2006). com); (b) Example of beach drainage systems (along the dotted line). Finally, another expected physical effect reported in the literature ((a) http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on- (www.shoregro.com) is the lowering of the aquifer level caused by line/heritagemanagement/erosion/images/ drainage works. fig-a17.gif; (b) http://www.shoregro.com/pdfs/ Shoregro%20Technology%20Introductio.pdf). 2.9 Windbreak fences

Brief description Windbreak fences are structures built to control and contrast wind erosion mechanisms and to therefore help sand deposition. This result is obtained by placing porous screens perpendicular to the main direction of the wind, so as to reduce its speed and induce the deposition of the transported sediments (figure 2.9.1). Windbreak fences are usually made of a series of upright poles with a windbreak screen fixed on them. These structures can be built on the top of the dune, along the crest (especially if there is a longitudinal road), on the dune’s stoss side or at the dune’s toe. They can either be constructed with one series of screens or with several series along separate levels that partially overlap on one

18 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

another, or they can form cells whose orientation differs from that of the shoreline, thus running parallel, perpendicular or dia- gonal depending on the area’s wind dynamics and on the local morphological and topographical characteristics (figure 2.9.2).

Main expected effects The creation of windbreak fences involves the formation of wind deposits whose size depends on the wind’s transport rate. If the deposit contains beached plant material, this could cause a rapid colonization by psammophilous vegetation which, in case of favorable development conditions, also helps increase and stabilize the deposit itself. Windbreak fences protect vegeta- Figure 2.9.1 tion both directly (mechanic protection) and indirectly (by retai- Example of windbreak fence structure. ning plants capable of enriching dune sand with nutrients and by (Beachmed-e/ POSIDuNE subproject report). condensing and retaining atmospheric humidity, a fundamental water source for the xerophile vegetation). Furthermore, the structure also reduces the size of the trampled surfaces and effecti- vely retains sand transported by the wind. Finally, windbreak fences with a cell structure are particularly effective in reducing the wind’s transport rate towards the backdune areas (Bovina et al., 2003; AA.VV., 2007); this action is useful in case of dunes subject to human trampling, where the quantity of sediment transported inland can be considered to be permanently lost from the sedimentary balance of the beach- dune system. Figure 2.9.2 Chess-shaped windbreak fences. (Picture by 2.10 Dune grass planting Giancarlo Bovina, Beachmed-e/ POSIDuNE subproject report). Brief description Coastal dune grass planting techniques are mainly aimed at favoring and accelerating plant colonization and the stabilization of wind deposits (figure 2.10.1). The main techniques used to achieve this result are: • Grass planting (using seeds, plant cuttings, or nursery plants) without using the substrate; • Grass planting (using seeds, plant cuttings, or nursery plants) using the substrate;

19 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Figure 2.10.1 • Support to the re-growth of spontaneous vegetation (using Example of a dune grass planting intervention only the substrate without planting new plants). (Beachmed-e/ POSIDuNE subproject report). Before planting the vegetation in question, the substrate can be prepared by fertilizing the soil or by using geotextiles to counter wind erosion.

Main expected effects Dune grass planting aims to activate and/or increase feedback mechanisms between the vegetation and the physical component, and this results in the formation, growth and stabilization of sand deposits. When the planting operations are carried out with seeds or plant cuttings, it is best to pick these materials directly from the site of intervention. If the necessary precautions are taken, striking and seed-picking activities cause little or no damage to the vegetation and plant communities, and also ensure the local origin of the materials used. The effects on the environment are generally lighter using nursery plants (AA.VV. 2007), although in this case it is vital to guarantee that these plants have a local origin (Piotto et al., 2010). In fact, in order to minimize any possible effects of “botanical pollution” on psammophiles, it is absolutely necessary to use species belonging to the local flora, selected according to the ecological needs, and their resistance and dune-fixing abilities (Wallingford et al., 2000; AA.VV., 2007).

20 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Figure 2.11.1 2.11 Dune reprofiling Dune reprofiling scheme (http://www.snh.org. uk/publications/on-line/heritagemanagement/ Brief description erosion/appendix_1.5.shtml). Coastal dune reconstruction is done by placing sediments that are compatible with those existing on site, and by reprofiling the slope according to the deposit’s morphologic characteristics (Wal- lingford et al., 2000; AA.VV., 2007; figure 2.11.1). Reprofiling operations are often associated with the placing of windbreak fences and/or semi-rigid structures at the dune toe (e.g. groups of reinforced dunes, natural-fiber bags filled with sand), with the aim of stabilizing the rebuilt deposit (Wallingford et al., 2000). Another solution that serves these purposes is to place beached vegetable material on the surface of the rebuilt dune; this gives the dune extra protection against the wind and wave attack (Wallingford et al., 2000).

Main expected effects The deposition of sand on the littoral area inevitably (but intentio- nally) causes a modification in the morphology of the zone of intervention (i.e. the dune and the adjacent dry beach) and possible granulometric and mineralogical variations in the sediment if the new sand is very different from the original one (AA.VV., 2007). These effects can be limited by previously performing a careful analysis of the nature of the new sand, although it should be noted that quarry sands cannot possibly present the very same texture and composition as the local sediment, which has already undergone the oxidation, selection and sorting processes that are typical of the sub-aerial coastal environment.

21 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

2.12 Access management

Brief description This category includes all the structures (made with different materials), aimed at protecting the dunes from erosion and at safeguarding the vegetation from trampling effects (figures 2.12.1 and 2.12.2). The most common structures used to control beach user pressure on coastal dunes are footways. The- se can be built using a great array of materials and may have very different characteristics, varying from wooden solid structures, to “lighter” footways, built with coconut-fiber bio-nets and chestnut-tree poles. Windbreaks can be considered to belong to this category if their functions include preventing bather access to the dune (e.g. if they are placed at the foot of the dune), though their main objective remains fa- Figure 2.12.1 voring the formation and stabilization of aeolian sand deposits. Management of the access to the dunes: some examples (http://www.snh.org.uk/publica- Main expected effects tions/on-line/heritagemanagement/erosion/ Footways constitute the fixed pathways on which beach users appendix_1.4.shtml). cross the dunes. They therefore protect the dune from human trampling, which could cause irreversible damage to the vegetation (Bovina et al., 2003; AA.VV., 2007). Footways also prevent the creation of preferential trampling paths, which generate erosion lines along which the wind deeply carves the dune, triggering the formation of blowouts. When placing the upright poles to build the footway, it is very important to pay particular attention not to damage the vegetation present, also because the operation causes sediment movement and a partial reprofiling of the dune (AA.VV., 2007).

2.13 Artificial headlands

Brief description These structures are designed to stabilize the shoreline on a regional level. This is obtained by piloting erosion areas through placing artificial headlands that stabilize and control the evolution of the adjacent coastal stretches and therefore confer the beach a more stable configuration (figure 2.13.1) (Pranzini, 2004). Artificial headlands reproduce the natural hydrodyna- mic conditions of promontories situated near small Figure 2.12.2 downstream bays with a curved coastal profile (APAT, 2007). Footway along the littoral zone of Sabaudia (LT). (Picure by ISPRA).

22 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Main expected effects wave-front and that presents the typical saw-tooth profile (APAT, 2007). The growth of beach surface along the structure is greater when the portion of the structure extending from the coast presents a concave shape directed towards the prevalent wave-front. Wave diffraction along the curved side minimizes the formation of whirlpools and the occurrence of undercutting phenomena at the foot of the structure (APAT, 2007).

2.14 Adaptive management (strategic retreat)

Brief description This strategy implies the retreat to a safe distance of the works and infrastructures situated near a coastal zone highly affected by erosion (figure 2.14.1). This choice means that the erosion pheno- menon has been accepted (and not actively countered), and that the territory has adapted to the environmental conditions while trying to prevent further damage. The implementation of this strategy is easier in low-urbanization Figure 2.13.1 areas than in highly urbanized areas, due to the difficulties linked Footway along the littoral zone of Sabaudia (LT). (Picure by ISPRA). to shifting a great number of infrastructures inland.

Main expected effects The main expected effect of the strategic retreat is the loss of dry territory, and this affects natural (habitats and species) and socio- economic aspects.

Figure 2.14.1 Strategic retreat scheme. (EUROSION Project, 2004)

23 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

3. Environmental effects induced by coastal defense works

This chapter contains a brief bibliographic review of the effects induced by the coastal defense works (hard structures, beach nourishment, drainage systems, and dune management) on the biotic field. The effects on the physical field have been described in chapter 2. Finally, although no significant scientific production was found on the noise and vibration-related impacts caused by coastal defense structures, these impacts (short-term) will nevertheless be considered in the structure-specific matrices (object of Task B2).

3.1 Hard structures

The effects induced on the beach environment by hard structures for coastal defense are quite known for sea-walls and parallel breakwaters (Jaramillo et al., 2002; Chapman and Bulleri 2003, Martin et al. 2005; Pinn et al., 2005; Dugan and Hubbard, 2006), while the effects related to groins and transversal structures in general are less studied. The main effect of the construction of hard structure is that it causes a variation/loss of habitat, which strongly affects the composition (diversity, abundance and biomass) and trophic structure of the benthic communities present, as observed by many Authors (Fletcher et al., 1997; Meyer-Arendt and Dorvlo, 2001; Chapman and Bulleri, 2003; Martin et al., 2005; Dugan and Hubbard, 2006). It is well-known that coastal defense structures create new rocky bottoms in soft-bottom marine environments. These new patches of hard bottom can favor the settlement and growth of previously absent sessile species (Chapman and Bulleri 2003). In particular, several Authors have observed the settlement of invasive and pre- dator species that can alter interaction mechanisms among species (Chapman and Bulleri, 2003; Bulleri and Airoldi, 2005; Morei- ra et al., 2006). For instance, Gonzales et al. (2008) have observed that the introduction of non-indigenous species causes not only a modification in the original habitat, but also a greater competition among species, with negative effects on the native populations. Moschella et al. (2005) report that some types of structures (known as LCS, or low-crested coastal defense structures) can be considered to be a poor surrogate of natural rocky bottoms (with popula-

24 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

tions that are qualitatively similar to those found in natural rocky bottoms) and can therefore modify the natural distribution limits of the hard bottom species. Bulleri et al. (2000) state that although hard structures in the marine environment act as a surrogate of rocky environments, the associated populations are quite different from the natural rocky bottom populations present nearby. These differences are linked to factors such as structure composition (woods, masses, concrete blocks etc.), age, and physical/ geometric characteristics, which impose steep orientation and exposition gradients that can significantly affect the development of the benthic populations (Connel and Glasby, 1999; Glasby, 2000; Pinn, et al., 2005, Gacia et al., 2007). Another non-negligible effect on benthic macrofauna are the changes in larval supply and food availability caused by the hydrodyna- mic variations induced by the construction of hard structures, which can hinder longshore transport along the coast (Pinn et al., 2005; Dugan and Hubbard, 2006; Walker et al., 2008). A very interesting study was carried out by Martin et al., (2005) and concerns the ecological effects of LCSs. The Authors have observed that LCSs inevitably cause changes in the sediments and in the infauna (especially landward); these changes can be even greater if additional structures are present, or following beach nourishment. The effects’ intensity mainly depends on the type of benthic population originally present. Generally, an increase in biodiversity (in terms of increase of hard bottom species) is considered to be a negative effect, as it means that there has been a change in the original environmental conditions, while these structures’ potential role as fish nurseries is seen as a positive aspect as it increases the number of species of commercial value. Walker et al. (2008) have studied the effects induced by the realization of groins, with specific reference to benthic macrofauna (Australia, Gold Coast). These Authors report that, as expected, groins modify both the conditions of deposition and the physical conditions of the beach, thus determining a spatial variation in granulometry and sorting; the variations have been observed in a range of 10-15 m from the groins. These changes affect the composition of the benthic communities present on both sides of the groin. On the groin’s upstream side (subject to deposition) the increase in macrofauna abundance is greater than on the downstream side (subject to erosion). At the same time, a great difference in the macrofauna composition has been observed on both sides of the structure, even if this effect is spatially limited (it tends to zero at 10 m). It is evident that a more severe impact can be observed both during and immediately after the realization of the structure (Walker et al., 2008). Another effect linked to the construction of hard structures is

25 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

mobile fauna aggregation (mainly fish) (Sanchez-Jerez et al., 2002; Duffy-Anderson et al., 2003), as hard structures provide food availability, shelter from predators and suitable sites for reproduction and recruitment (Martin et al., 2005). The debate is still open as to whether artificial structures are only beneficial to local fish populations, or if they can have positive effects at a broader spatial scale, e.g. for regional fisheries (Sanchez-Jerez et al., 2002, Duffy- Anderson et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2005). The habitat change induced by the presence of hard structures can also have important effects on the distribution of fish, turtles and birds (Moiser and Witherinton, 2002; Dugan and Hubbard, 2006; Rice, 2006). For instance, Dugan and Hubbard (2006) have observed that these effects are mainly due to the narrowing of the upper beach and the reduction of the quantity of wracks deposited on the beach. Finally, the dry beach vegetation can be directly affected during the structure’s construction period (building phase), but it can also suffer long-term effects (positively and negatively) related to the sedimentological and morphologic variations taking place when the work is operational, as described in detail in Chapter 2.

3.2 Beach nourishment

This paragraph contains a brief bibliographic review of the effects induced by beach nourishments on the biotic department. Even though beach nourishments are an environmental-friendly coastal defense option, the literature reports about important positive and negative effects on the different environments like the phytobenthos, the zoobenthos, marine phanerogams, terrestrial arthropods, and the avifauna (OSPAR, 2009; Speybroeck et al., 2006; Nicoletti et al., 2006; Defeo et al., 2009). As a whole, the effects of beach nourishments are mainly due to the nature (quality) and quantity of sediments to be deposited on the beach affected by erosion, and with the technical and project modalities of the beach nourishment project, such as timing, volumes of nourished sediments and technologies employed (Speybroeck et al., 2006; OSPRAR, 2009). Generally, the effects can be either direct – e.g. the death of organisms due to suffocation/ burial – or indirect, such as the reduction of the number of preys for shorebirds (Peterson et al., 2006; Speybroeck et al., 2006; De- feo et al., 2009). The existing literature mainly refers to the effects induced by beach nourishments with marine sand. The most significant effects, especially on the marine environment, concern the benthic and fish assemblages, while the effects on the other biotic components (e.g. plankton) are negligible. In general, sand repleni-

26 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

shment causes suffocation and burial phenomena, the alteration of the bottoms inhabited by the populations, changes in the population’s dynamics (with important effects on the nursery and reproduction areas) and the reduction of trophic resources (Nico- letti et al., 2006; Speybroeck et al., 2006; OSPAR, 2009). It has been observed that where beach nourishment activities have produced great modifications in the bottom’s granulometry, there have been significant variations even in the composition of benthic organisms, and a subsequent modification in the beach’s ecology (Rakocinski et al., 1996). In general, temporary alterations in the abundance, diversity and composition of the intertidal fauna have been reported, with a duration varying from a few weeks to several months (B.N.P., 1995). Van Dolah et al. (1984) have observed that the main recruitment mechanisms taking place after a beach nourishment are the migration of adults and juveniles from adjacent areas, vertical migration, and the introduction of organisms on the beach. Many studies focus on the intertidal and/or subtidal environment species that perform vertical migrations in order to survive after beach nourishment (Maurer et al., 1986; B.N.P., 1995; Green, 2002). A recent study on the arthropodofauna, carried out along some beaches in Delaware (USA), has highlighted that the use of gravel and coarse sand has negative effects on the horseshoe crab’s egg deposition. On the opposite, this species’ deposition phase is positively influenced by sediment porosity (Jackson et al., 2007). Se- veral effects of beach nourishments on the arthropodofauna are reported by Fanini et al. (2009). The Authors have observed that whilst arthropod fauna (especially supralittoral fauna) is generally particularly sensitive to the substrate’s grain size and to the quality changes generated by beach nourishment, the amphipod crustacean T. saltator is sensitive to other abiotic variables, such as the size of the beach and the penetrability of the bottom, and it is not directly influenced by the beach nourishment. Specific studies carried out along the Lazio region’s coasts to evaluate the effects of beach nourishments with relict sand on Do- nax trunculus populations (a species of commercial interest) (La Valle et al., 2007; La Valle and Nicoletti, 2008) have shown that even though burial causes the bivalve to disappear after nourishment, it reappears about four months later, after the end of the activities. The Authors have suggested that if the timing of beach nourishment operations is adequately planned within specific periods (e.g. in spring for Donax trunculus) and before the juvenile recruitment period, the effects on the marine environment could be minimized thus avoiding important economic consequences on local fishing. Several studies have been carried out to assess the effects of

27 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

beach nourishments on marine phanerogams, in particular Posido- nia oceanica (Ruiz et al., 1993; Ruiz and Romero, 2003, Nicoletti et al. 2005). The expected short-term effects on the P. oceanica beds are essentially linked to the increase in water turbidity. It is known in literature that a decrease in brightness caused by an increase in suspended fine sediments reduces the production of leaves, and, if the alteration persists, it could lead to a density reduction and to regression of the meadow’s lower limit (Guidetti and Fabiano, 2000). Another effect is linked to oversedimentation, also due to the greater mobility of the sediment recently deposited. In particular, Manzanera et al. (1998) have discovered that the response of P. oceanica is strongly linked to the intensity and duration of oversedimentation. However, in the long-term, the restoration of a beach affected by erosion has a positive effect on the Posidonia ocenica beds, since it increases their stability (Ballesta et al., 2000). There is in fact a known relationship between a beach’s stability and the presence of meadows, and meadow loss, even by just one meter, can cause a severe erosion, of up to several meters (Della Croce et al., 1997). Concerning fish assemblages, the possible effects induced by beach nourishment can include a decrease in abundance during sand replenishment operations, damages to the fish’s gills (due to sediment increase in the water column), a reduced availability of food, and the burial of demersal species (Green, 2002). However, the nectonic organisms living in these areas are very mobile and can easily move away from the areas directly interested by beach nourishments (Green, 2002; Wilber et al.; 2003). The effects of nourishment on sea turtles are well documented, especially as far as egg deposition and survival, and hatchling success are concerned (Rumbold, 2001; Byrd, 2004; Nordstrom, 2005). Crain et al. (1995) for instance, have observed that beach nourishment operations can have relevant effects on the success of egg deposition: nourishment causes nest hiding, variations in the geometry of the nesting site, and an increase in the beach’s slope that can prevent turtles from reaching the deposition areas. Finally, beach nourishment can negatively affect the survival and development of the eggs during the hatching phase. Regarding the terrestrial fauna, Fenster et al. (2006) have studied the effects of beach nourishment on the coleopteran insect Cicin- dela dorsalis (tiger beetle), a species protected by US federal laws. In a study carried out along 2 beaches in Chesapeake Bay (Virgi- nia, USA), the Authors have demonstrated that beach nourishment does not have negative effects on the distribution and abundance of adults and larvae. This species is able to move quickly, and manages to find suitable habitats for adult foraging, ovipositing,

28 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

and larval survival. Finally, as for the avifauna, the main effects are linked to the beach filling that involve the removal and/or burial of wracks and available preys. Moreover, the compactness of the sediment can reduce the birds’ ability to capture preys, thus directly affecting the capacity of shorebird feeding (Peterson et al., 2006). Figure 3.2.1 Physical effects on the environment induced by the realisation of a beach nourishment with marine sands (picture by ISPRA).

3.3 Drainage systems

Little research has been done so far on this type of intervention, and the information on its effects on the environment is therefore limited. Some information can be found on website of the Danish Geo- technical Institute (http://www.shoregro.com/pdfs/HV-BD-environment.pdf), which patented the system in 1985. According to this study, sand is not deposited at once, but rather over a certain period of time. This allows the local flora and fauna to gradually adapt to the morphologic changes in the beach profile, and to the variations in the sand’s density, humidity and temperature. Concerning the lowering of the aquifer due to the drainage operations, so far no damages to the halophyte vegetation roots present on the beach and the coastal dunes have been reported, although the effects of this variation are not thoroughly known yet.

3.4 Coastal dunes management operations

This paragraph contains a brief bibliographic review of the effects induced by the different coastal dune management interventions listed in Chapter 2: windbreak fences (par. 2.9), dune-grass planting (par. 2.10), dune reprofiling (par. 2.11) and access management (par. 2.12). Coastal dunes are an extremely fragile environment as they result from a delicate balance between the physical and biologic compo-

29 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

nents of the coastal zone; they are therefore particularly sensitive to every human activity that directly concerns them. The manual published by the Scottish Na- tural Heritage (Wallingford et al., 2000) has proven to be the main source of information about the stresses caused by coastal defense works on dunes. While specific defense operations are associated with particular problems, some stresses, listed below, are common to all defense interventions on the dune.

• Use of heavy vehicles and trucks. Heavy vehicles and trucks are generally employed to transport the material required to the site of intervention. If there are no pre-existing routes to easily access the Figure 3.4.1 Effects of trampling on dune vegetation. area, these vehicles cause plant destruction, destabilization of sand, and soil compaction. These actions determine more se- (Picture by ISPRA). vere stresses that affect both the morphologic stability of the systems and the survival of the plant communities. • Trampling. Staff working on site can damage the vegetation and lead to the formation of blowouts by trampling on the same paths on the dune for a long period of time (figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). • Dispersion in the environment of the materials employed to build the structures once they are no longer used or if they have prematurely been destroyed (e.g. due to vandalism or heavy sea) has a strong impact on the dunes. This impact is inversely proportional to the materials’ biodegradability. Further negative effects induced by specific coastal dune management operations are listed below, as reported in the literature.

Windbreak fences The presence of windbreak fences can lead to an accumulation of stranded materials and debris in the areas delimited by these structures. If not biodegradable, these materials may cause pollution (figures 3.4.3a, b).

Dune grass planting The main disturbance caused by dune grass planting is linked to the species used. In order to avoid changes in the plant commu- Figure 3.4.2 nities present on site and the introduction of potentially dange- Example of a pathway used to reach the beach rous alien species (i.e. exotic or allochtonous species introduced across the dune. (Picture by ISPRA). outside their area of origin), it is important to use local species

30 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

(Wallingford et al., 2000). If plant cuttings are correctly collected, there is no evidence that this activity may significantly damage the environment and the local plant communities of the source area (AA.VV., 2007). If however, the collection is performed incorrectly, the cutting of too many plants could lead to sand destabilization, wind exposition and greater sensitiveness to heavy sea and overwash (Wallingford et al., 2000).

Dune reprofiling The morphologic reconstruction of a coastal dune uses sediments coming from an external source (e.g. terrestrial or marine bor- rowings). The disturbances caused by the use of materials that are different from the original ones are listed below: From a chemical point of view, sediments with a different pH can have negative effects on the local vegetation. Sand deposition along the backshore can increase the quantity of sand transported inland by the wind, thus burying the rearward vegetation and/or activating/reactivating blowouts. The deposition of sand for dune reprofiling can bury both the vegetation and the invertebrate communities, reducing the stability of the foredune and destroying habitats. The reconstruction of the whole dune (up to the crest) extensively destroys local habitats and alters the area’s morphology and landscape. If the sediments employed contain seeds of allochtonous plants, this can have a negative impact on the plant communities present on site (Wal- lingford et al., 2000). In general, small sand additions - though frequent – are less harmful than isolated interventions en- tailing the handling of large quantities of sediment.

Figure 3.4.3 Effects of windbreak fences (a); windbreak fence detail (b). (Picture by ISPRA).

31 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

4. International policies and legislation

This Chapter presents the results of a research carried out to identify all the protection measures (laws, conventions and treaties) currently applicable in Italy and specifically dedicated to the protection of coastal habitats and species. The laws establishing Parks and Natural Reserves are not taken into account in this study since they mainly concern the delimita- tion and geographical zonation of territories.

4.1 International policies and legislation

With reference to nature conservation and protection, Italy has so far ratified the following conventions, which are of particular interest for the present study: the Ramsar Convention, the Bern Convention, the Bonn Convention and the Barcelona Convention.

Ramsar convention The International Convention for Wetlands of International Im- portance (Ramsar Convention) is an International treaty signed in 1971 in Ramsar (Iran) by the parties that attended the Interna- tional Conference on Wetlands and Waterfowl (nations, scientific institutions and international organizations). The treaty came into force in 1975. In Italy, the Ramsar Convention was ratified with the DPR n. 448 of 13 May 1976. Conceived as a response to the progressive loss and degradation of wetlands –a strategic environment for the survival of migratory birds–the Ramsar Convention is the only treaty that protects a particular environment, and whose member countries cover all geographic regions of the planet. Its mission is the conservation of wetlands and the sustainable use of their resources through the creation and maintenance of a network of sites listed in the “Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance”. These sites include a great variety of natural (e.g. waterways, lakes, marshes, etc) human-made (e.g. ponds, salt-pans, drainage channels, etc.), and marine-coastal wetlands. In particular, they include marshes, swamps, turbaries (whether natural or artificial), and permanent or temporary wetlands (including sea water areas up to a depth of six metres) in conditions of low tide (http://www. minambiente.it).

32 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

The typologies of marine-coastal wetlands defined by the Conven- tions are contained in Table 2.1.1 (http://ramsar.wetlands.org):

Table 2.1.1 Marine/Coastal Wetlands Classification of the marine- Permanent shallow marine waters less than six meters deep at low tide; Zone A coastal wetlands according includes sea bays and straits to the Ramsar Convention. Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds, tropical Zone B marine meadows

Zone C Coral reefs*

Zone D Rocky marine shores; includes rocky offshore islands, sea cliffs

Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and sandy islets; Zone E includes dune systems Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of Zone F deltas

Zone G Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats

Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised Zone H salt marshes; includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes Intertidal forested wetlands; includes mangrove swamps, nipah swamps Zone I and tidal freshwater swamp forests Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one Zone J relatively narrow connection to the sea Zone K Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons * environment not present in Italy

Bern Convention The Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Bern Convention) was signed in Bern on 19 Septem- ber 1979 and is intended to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe through the cooperation among states. The Bern Convention was ratified in Italy by the adoption of Law 503 of 5 August 19816 and approved by the European Council with the Decision 82/72/EC of 3 December 1981. In particular, the Convention identifies the flora and fauna species that are strictly protected (i.e. species and habitats of vulnerable, endangered and/or endemic species), and specifies the related protection measures: • Appendix I (BERN 1): strictly protected flora species. The Con- vention prohibits the deliberate picking, collecting, cutting or uprooting of such plants. • Appendix II (BERN 2): Strictly protected fauna species. The following actions are prohibited: • all forms of deliberate capture and keeping, and deliberate killing; the deliberate damage to or destruction of breeding or resting sites; the deliberate disturbance of wild fauna, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hi- bernation; the deliberate disturbance of wild fauna, parti-

6 The amendments to annexes I and II have come into force on 7 July 1997

33 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

cularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hiberna- tion; the deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild or keeping these eggs; the possession of and internal trade in these animals, alive or dead, including stuffed animals and any part or derivative thereof; • The strict protection of habitats and in particular of wintering, staging, feeding, breeding or moulting areas; • Appendix III (BERN 3): List of protected species, establishing: • The regulated capture or killing without compromising the conservation status of the species; • Closed seasons and/or other procedures regulating local exploitation; • The protection of habitats and in particular of wintering, staging, feeding, breeding or moulting areas. For the purposes of this study, and with specific reference to the identification of protected flora and fauna species, Appendixes 1 and 2 were considered.

Bonn Convention The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, 23 June 1979) is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations, concerned with the conservation of migratory, terrestrial, aquatic and fowl species on a global scale, with special focus on the species having a bad conservation status. The Convention is composed of 2 appendixes: Appendix I lists migratory species threatened by extinction, and Appendix II lists migratory species that need or would significantly benefit from international co-operation. In order to protect species, the contracting parties undertake to: strive towards protecting the habitats of endangered species, eliminating obstacles that can prevent or interfere with the species’ migration. For the purposes of this study, only Appendix I was considered (migratory species threatened by extinction).

Barcelona Convention and SPA/BIO Protocol The Barcelona Convention (“Convention for the Protection Of The Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution”), is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of UNEP, the United Nations En- vironment Programme. It was signed in Barcelona on 16 Februa- ry 1976 by 16 governments and by the EEC. It came into force in 1978, and was ratified by Italy through Law n.30 of 25 Janua- ry 1979. Over the time, the Convention has undergone several amendments; the last one dates back to 1995, when it became the “Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean” and, as such, was ratified

34 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

by Italy through Law n. 175 of 27 May 1999. Today, the Barcelona Convention has 22 Contracting Parties, including the EC. The Barcelona Convention aims to prevent, reduce, fight and eli- minate pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and protect and improve the marine and marine-coastal environment in the area, there- by contributing to its sustainable development. To achieve these objectives, the Convention signed 7 protocols: for the purposes of this study, and with specific reference to the identification of endangered habitats and/or species to protect, the reference agre- ement was the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BIO Protocol). The SPA/BIO Protocol (http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/protocol_eng. pdf) addresses the need to fill the legislative gap on the conservation of the marine environment, since the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (see par. 2.2) (although being a fundamental instrument for the defence of biodiversity, mainly for the terrestrial environment) does not have the same efficacy for the defence of the marine environment. The Protocol foresees three main actions to protect biological diversity in the Mediterranean: 1. The creation, protection and management of Specially Pro- tected Areas (SPAs); 2. The creation of a list of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterra- nean Importance (SPAMI), i.e. within areas of national jurisdiction and partially/entirely on the high seas. 3. The protection and conservation of species. With Decision n. 1999/800/EC, the European Community has adhered to the protocol and signed its three annexes: • Annex I (http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/criteres_commun.pdf), indicating the common criteria for the choice of protected marine and coastal areas that could be included in the “List of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance”, called “SPAMI List”. These criteria include: • Relevance for the protection of the elements (animal and plants) constituting biological diversity in the Mediterra- nean; • The presence of ecosystems specific of the Mediterranean region or of habitats of an endangered species; • Specific scientific, aesthetic, cultural and educational interest; • Annex II (http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/espece_danger.pdf), li- sting endangered and threatened species; • Annex III (http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/especes_regl.pdf), li- sting species whose exploitation must be regulated. At the same time, in order to support the identification of the Specially Protected Areas, the Regional Activity Centre for Spe-

35 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

cially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) has prepared reference lists for the habitats and species to be protected in the Mediterranean, of which 61 habitats and 136 species (excluding birds, specifically protected by the Birds Directive) are present in Italy (Bellan-Santi- ni et al., 2002). Since these issues are strictly linked to the general contents and objectives of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, the habitats indicated in the reference list prepared by the RAC/SPA are valid for both regulations, though they maintain different reference codes. For the purposes of identifying the types of endangered and/or threatened habitats and species, this study takes into account the Habitats reference list prepared by the RAC/SPA (as of Annex I) and Annex II.

4.2 Natura 2000 network

The Natura 2000 network is an ecologic network covering the entire territory of the European Union, with the aim of “preserving and restoring natural habitats and wild flora and fauna species of Community interest.” It is composed of all the sites classified as SPAs, or Special Protection Areas (established by Directive 79/409/ EEC “Birds”), and SCIs, or Sites of Community Interest (established by Directive 43/92/EEC “Habitats”). The latter are currently under the examination of the European Commission, and at the end of the establishment phase, they will be called SACs (Special Areas of Conservation). The SACs will ensure the presence, maintenance and/or restoration of particular habitats and species threatened by fragmentation and extinction in the European continent. The Natura 2000 network is the main instrument of the EU biodiversity protection policy and is based on the “ecological network” concept, a biodiversity protection strategy connecting areas of relevant environmental interest, as opposed to the concept of single protected area, isolated in a single urbanized territory. In- deed, the ultimate goal of the Birds and Habitats Directives is not only to find the best way to manage each site, but also to create a “consistent network” of sites, which must be functional for the conservation of all the habitats and species characterizing them. The process leading to the identification of the Special Areas of Conservation consists of three phases: 1. Each Member State identifies the proposed “Sites of Commu- nity Interest” (pSCI); 2. On the basis of the national lists of pSCI, the Commission adopts the Lists of the Sites of Community Interest (SCIs), one for each biogeographic region; 3. Within no longer than six years the Member States classify all sites as “Special Areas of Conservation”, giving priority to the

36 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

most threatened and/or most relevant areas to be conserved. Italy has published the lists of the Sites of Community Interest (SCI) for the alpine (DM 25/03/04), continental (DM 25/03/05), and Mediterranean (DM 05/07/2007) biogeographic regions. The latest update of the SCI lists that also concerned the Mediterrane- an bio-geographic region (including marine-coastal environments) was made by the Commission in December 2008, and transposed in Italy with the Decree of 30 March 2009 (www.minambiente.it).

Habitats Directive The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC is a legislative EU instrument designed to protect natural and semi-natural habitats and wild flora and fauna species of Community interest through the designation of special protection areas. Italy implemented the Directive with the D.P.R. 8 September 1997, n. 357, modified by the D.P.R. n. 12 March 2003, n. 120. The list of the natural habitats of Community interest and whose conservation needs the designation of special protection areas is reported in Annex I to the Directive. Today, the Directive includes 231 European habitats typologies, of which 71 priority, i.e. habitat typologies threatened with extinction and whose distribution falls within the territory of the European Union - http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm The List of fauna and flora species of community interest and whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation can be found in Annex II: The other annexes to the Directive contain the criteria for selec- ting sites that are eligible to be identified as sites of community importance and to be designated as: Special Areas of Conserva- tion (annex III), animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection (annex IV), animal and plant species of Community interest for which capture in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures (Annex V), and prohibited capturing and killing methods and transporting techniques (annex VI). For the purposes of this study, for the identification of habitat categories and protected animal and plant species, a specific reference was made to annexes I and II.

Birds Directive The Directive 2009/147/EC (as amended and approved by Direc- tive 79/409/EEC), known as the “Birds” Directive, was issued to create a scheme of protection for all European wild birds. It was adopted unanimously by the Members States in 1979 in response to the increasing concern about the declines in Europe’s wild bird populations, resulting from pollution, unsustainable use, and loss

37 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

of habitats, the latter being identified as the main threat to their conservation. Therefore, the directive places great emphasis on the protection of natural habitats through the establishment of a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Since 1994, SPAs and SACs form an integral part of the NATURA 2000 ecological network. SPAs comprise all the most suitable territories for the survival of bird species to be protected and listed in Annex I to 79/409/EEC, which also include marine environment species. Annexes II, III and IV regulate activities that threaten birds –such as the hunting and trade of protected species– to ensure that these practices are sustainable for the species listed in the Directive. Finally, Annex V promotes research to underpin their protection and management. It must be mentioned that in 1995, the ORNIS Committee (Com- mittee for the adaptation of the Habitats Directive to technical and scientific progress) approved a list of 23 bird species to be considered –according to Directive 2009/147/EC–, as “Priority species included in the LIFE: funding list”, commonly considered as “priority species”, similarly to the priority habitats identified by the Habitats Directive. For the purposes of this study, for the identification of habitats categories and protected animal and plant species, a specific reference was made only to Annex I.

4.3 Red Lists

Although they are not specifically associated with international protection laws, treaties and/or conventions, for the purposes of this study it is advisable to also consider the categories of protected flora and fauna species included on the IUCN Red Lists (International Union for Conservation of Nature) The IUCN Rest Lists have been created 30 years ago to help the planning of conservation strategies for the species most threatened by extinction, and are considered to be “the most objective and authoritative system for classifying species in terms of risk of extinction” (http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/ global_species_programme/red_list.html). A world Red List corresponds to the List of priority protected species, which is a Red List at continental, national or regional level, prepared according to the IUCN indications (IUCN, 1994), and it is reasonably valid only if it is applied to the scale at which it was prepared (Calvario et al., 1999). The regionalization of the IUCN method for the classification of species does not take into account many other important parameters such as the trend of the species at a global or continental level, the importance of the regional

38 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

population compared to the global or continental population, the position of the area examined compared to the area of each species and the feasibility of the conservation interventions required (Calvario et al., 1999) Despite the limits linked to nationalizing the IUCN methods for the classifications of species, we suggest to refer to the specific national or regional red lists, if available: this is because a species could be classified as being at low extinction risk at global scale, while the risk could be higher at national or regional level. Italy, at a national level, has a number of Red Lists prepared for many groups of animal species (Calvario et al., 1999, Bulgarini et al., 1998; Cerfolli et al., 2002) and Red Lists for vascular flora species (Conti et al., 1992; 1997, Scoppola and Spampinato, 2005). For taxa that do not have specific national Red Lists (e.g. for marine flora), please refer to the IUCN Red Lists recently published for the Mediterranean (http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mediterranean). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, we suggest to also consider the species in the above-mentioned red lists, (see par. 4.1 and 4.2), given their importance and even if they are not included in the lists of protected species according to international directives or conventions, or national and regional regulations.

4.4 Synthesis of the policies and legislation taken into account Table 4.4.1 Italian reference laws for the protection of The following is a synthetic table showing the protection laws con- habitats and species sidered in this study, and which are applicable in Italy. On a case by case basis, the Legislation Habitats/ Flora species Fauna species tables indicates environments whether the laws Ramsar Convention X are referred to Bern Convention (annex 1) X the individuation Bern Convention (annex 2) X of habitats and/ or protected flora Bonn Convention (annex 1) X and fauna species Barcelona Convention, X (Table 4.4.1). SPA/BIO Protocol (annex 1) Barcelona Convention, X X SPA/BIO Protocol (annex 2) Habitats Directive (annex 1) X Habitats Directive (annex 2) X X Birds Directive (annex 1) X Red Lists X X

39 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

5. Protected habitat classification

5.1 Classification criteria

The protected habitats were classified mainly based on the types of protected marine-coastal wetlands identified by the Ramsar Convention (see par. 4.1, tab. 4.1.1), the habitat types of Commu- nity interest as of Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive (par. 4.2), and the habitat types protected by the SPA/BIO Protocol of the Barce- lona Convention. As already mentioned in par. 4.1, the habitats protected by Di- rective 92/43/EEC and SPA/BIO Protocol are described in Bellan- Santini et al. (2002) and identified with different codes according to the reference protection law. Since the typologies of protected wetlands listed in the Ramsar Convention describe environments only in very general terms, according to the needs of this phase’s objectives habitat categories are defined based on the types (of habitats) listed in the Habitats Directive (and the SPA/BIO Protocol). This allows to more accura- tely identify which environments are disturbed by different types of coastal works. Habitat categories were first identified according to the categories listed in Annex I of the Directive 92/43/EEC (and in Bellan-Santini et al., 2002, referred to in the SPA/BIO Protocol) and were then compared to the typologies of wetlands protected by the Ramsar Convention. In the section about the description of the physiographic categories identified, each category’s habitats are associated both with the identification code adopted by the Habitats Directive and with the code adopted by the SPA/BIO Protocol (e.g. Posidonia oceanica beds - Habitats Directive Code: 1120*; Barcelona Convention Code: V III. 5.1.). In terms of protected habitat distribution, the Italian territory hosts all categories of marine-coastal wetlands identified by the Ramsar Convention except one (C - Coral reefs). Italy features 132 of the habitat types (Biondi et al., 2009) listed in the Annex I of the Directive 92/43/EEC. For the purposes of this research, we identified all the typologies of priority and non-priority habitats present along the coast (according to the definition given in Chapter 1). In this selection we included submerged and

40 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

dry habitats, low sandy shores, and rocky shores, thus identifying 38 Italian coastal habitats of Community interest. Most of the 38 habitats identified are exclusive of coastal environments, i.e. they are only present in these contexts. Only a few are non-exclusive, being present both along the littoral zone and inland. Examples are the stagnant waters and the temporary tins habitats, or the annual herbal habitats of the Thero-Brachypodie- tea, which are common inland. Even some typologies of cliff habitats (especially the ones that are linked to the direct influence of salty marine winds) can be found both on top of coastal sea-cliffs and on more continental rocky crags. Whilst most of the habitats are present on most Italian coasts, 3 habitats represent endemic communities of specific territories (the coasts of the two main Italian islands, Sicily and Sardinia) and 3 others that can only be found in limited parts of the Italian littoral zones, along the northern coasts of the Adriatic Sea. In order to evaluate and interpret the effects caused by the different disturbance at the ecosystemic level, the coastal habitats protected by the Habitats Directive were subdivided into territorial-environmental units called “physiographic categories”. These units were identified based on morphogenetic, lythomorphologic and pedological homogeneity criteria. The categories can be easily identified on the basis of common vegetation, structure and ecological features, and based on the type of landscape they represent. These criteria allowed to identify 4 macro-categories, each of which is divided into a series of physiographic categories, for a total of 11 (Table 5.1.1). The physiographic categories correspond both to the Italian coastal habitats protected by the Directive 92/43/ EEC and the SPA/BIO Protocol (Table 5.1.1), and to the typologies of marine-coastal wetlands identified by the Ramsar Convention (Table 5.1.2). The habitat categories were identified by considering the types of habitats present on the Italian territory. Given the great geographic and environmental variety of landscapes in the Italian peninsula, we only considered the habitat categories that are potentially representative of most of the Mediterranean basin. Should there be any gaps and/or deficiencies, the model proposed can be extended, modified and/or adjusted following the publication of the report and after confrontation with the partners.

41 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Table 5.1.1 Directive 92/43/EEC. The Italian coastal habitats associated with the physiographic categories. When a habitat can be associated with more than one physiographic category, this is indicated with the symbol p.p.= pro parte.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC COASTAL HABITATS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST (DIR. 92/43/EEC) CATEGORIES Marine waters, soft 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

bottoms 1160: large shallow inlets and bays, on soft bottoms 1160: large shallow inlets and bays , on hard bottoms Marine waters, hard 1170: Reefs ARINE bottoms

M 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea caves HABITATS Posidonia Oceanica 1120*: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae) beds Estuarine and tidal 1130: Estuaries systems 1140: Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 3120: Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals generally on sandy soils of the West Mediterranean, with Isoëtes spp. TATS Standing waters,

BI 3130: Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the

temporary lakes and

S Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea ponds 3140: Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. 3170*: Mediterranean temporary ponds ETLAND PHYTIC HA 1150*: Coastal lagoons W LO 1310: Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (p.p.) Coastal 1320: Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) brackish/saline 1410: Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) (p.p.) AND HA lagoons 1420: Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornietea fruticosi) 6420: Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion (p.p.) 1210: Annual vegetation of drift lines Dry beach 1310: Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (p.p.) 2110: Embryonic shifting dunes Embryodune and 2120: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) avandune 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (p.p.)

2130*: Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) TS 2160: Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides 2210: Crucianellion maritimae fixed beach dunes Avandune continental 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands (p.p.) side, fixed dune and 2240: Brachypodietalia dune grasslands with annuals

UNE HABITA stabilised sands 2250*: Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. D 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs 2270*: Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster 6220*: Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea Interdune and 1410: Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) (p.p.) backdune humid 1510*: Mediterranean salt steppes (Limonietalia) depressions 6420: Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion (p.p.) 1240: Vegetated sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts with endemic Limonium

spp. 1430: Halo-nitrophilous scrubs (Pegano-Salsoletea) 5320: Low formations of Euphorbia close to cliffs Rocky shores and 5330: Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-desert scrub cliffs habitats 5410: West Mediterranean clifftop phryganas (Astragalo-Plantaginetum subulatae)

LIFFS HABITATS 5420: Sarcopoterium spinosum phryganas C 5430: Endemic phryganas of the Euphorbio-Verbascion 8210: Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation

42 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Table 5.1.2 Ramsar Convention. Association of marine-coastal zone physiographic categories.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC MARINO-COASTAL WETLANDS ACCORDING TO THE RAMSAR CONVENTION (DPR N. CATEGORIES 448 OF 13 MAY 1976) A - Permanent shallow marine waters less than six metres deep at Marine waters, soft low tide; includes sea bays and straits. bottoms B - Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds, TATS tropical marine meadows. BI A - Permanent shallow marine waters less than six metres deep at Marine waters, hard low tide; includes sea bays and straits. bottoms B - Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds,

ARINE HA tropical marine meadows. M B - Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds, Posidonia BEDS tropical marine meadows. F - Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine

systems of deltas. Estuarine and tidal

TATS G - Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats. systems BI H - Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings,

S raised salt marshes; includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes.

Standing waters, H - Intertidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, ETLAND

PHYTIC HA temporary lakes and raised salt marshes; includes tidal brackish and freshwater marshes. W

LO ponds

J - Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at Coastal brackish/saline

AND HA least one relatively narrow connection to the sea. lagoons K - Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons. E - Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and

Dry beach sandy islets; includes dune systems. TS Embryodune and E - Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and avandune sandy islets; includes dune systems. Avandune continental E - Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and side, fixed dune and sandy islets; includes dune systems. UNE HABITA stabilized sands D Interdune and backdune E - Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and humid depressions sandy islets; includes dune systems.

Rocky shore and cliff D - Rocky marine shores; includes rocky offshore islands, sea cliffs. LIFFS habitats C HABITATS

5.2 Physiographic macro-categories

The 11 physiographic categories identified according to the criteria explained in par. 3.1, are classified in 4 macro-categories and are subdivided as follows: 3 categories of marine habitats (M1, M2, M3) –permanently submerged by sea water–, 3 categories of wetlands and halophytic habitats, alternatively submerged and emerged (W1, W2, W3), 5 permanently dry habitat categories (D1, D2, D3, D4), and rocky shores and cliffs habitats (C1) (Figure 5.2.1).

43 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

The physiographic categories are briefly described below, refer- Figure 5.2.1 ring to both the habitats listed in Annex I of the Directive 92/43/ Macro- and Physiographic categories of EEC (Table 5.2.1) and the SPA/BIO Protocol (Bellan-Santini et al., protected habitat types. 2002) and to the typologies of marine-coastal wetlands identified by the Ramsar Convention (Table 5.2.2). Since the most exhaustive list of habitats is contained in Annex I to the Directive 92/43/EEC, the main bibliographic reference adopted to describe the habitats is the recent Italian manual for the interpretation of habitats of the Directive 92/43/EEC or “Manuale italiano di interpretazione degli habitat della Directive 92/43/EEC” (Biondi et al., 2009), that explains the contents of Annex I to the Directive, the Reference Lists and the European Manual EUR 27 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/2007_07_im.pdf). Each habitat described in the text is associated with a Natura 2000 code, and when there is a corre- spondence with the SPA/BIO Protocol, the habitat is also associated with an SPA/BIO code. The protected habitats of the SPA/BIO Protocol refer exclusively to the marine environment, and only some of the habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive correspond to those mentioned in the Protocol.

44 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

5.2.1 Marine habitats

Habitat types identified according to the Habitats Directive (and corresponding to the SPA/BIO Protocol codes) The category “Posidonia oceanic beds” (figure 5.2.1.1) includes the priority habitat ‘Posidonia beds’ (Natura 2000 code: 1120*; SPA/BIO Protocol code: III.5). The beds of Posidonia oceanica (Linneus) Delile, an endemic species of the Mediterranean, can be found on the infralittoral (from some centimeters to 30-40 m of depth) rocks, sand and matte7. They are one of the most important habitats of the Mediterranean, both for their role in the marine eco-system (high primary production and biodiversity, reproduction and nursery areas for many species of invertebrates and fish), and for their stabilization of the soft bottoms (trapping sediments and mitigating wave motion), which also means protection coasts against erosion. Figure 5.2.1.1 The category “Marine waters, soft bottoms” includes all types of A Posidonia oceanica meadow (Bellan-Santini submerged marine habitats on soft bottoms, ranging from gra- et al., 2002). vel to muddy bottoms. This category comprises: the Natura 2000 Habitat number 1110 “Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time” (SPA/BIO Protocol code: III. 2.1, III. 2.2, III 3.1, III 3.2, III 4.1), including infralittoral sand banks covered by sea water at all times –whose level is seldom over 20 m– and that are generally surrounded by deeper waters; Natura 2000 Habitat number 1160: “large shallow inlets and bays” (SPA/BIO Protocol: Assemblages as in habitats 1110-1120-1140-1170 along the zones from supralittoral (I.), mediolittoral (II.) until infralittoral (III.) on Mud, Sands, Stones and Pebbles, Hard Beds and Rocks). The category “Marine waters, hard bottoms” (figure 5.2.1.2) includes the submerged marine habitats on hard bottoms. This category comprises: sea caves (Natura 2000 code: 8330 “Submerged or partially submerged sea caves”); reefs (habitat 1170 “reefs”; SPA/BIO Protocol code: II 4.3, vII. 4.3.1, vIV.3.2, IV. 3.2.1, vIV. 3.2.2, IV. 3.2.3, vV. 3.2); and the Natura 2000 Habitat number 1160 “large shallow inlets and bays” (SPA/BIO Protocol: Assemblages as in habitats 1110-1120-1140-1170 along the zones from supralittoral (I.), mediolittoral (II.) until infralittoral (III.) on Figure 5.2.1.2 Mud, Sands, Stones and Pebbles, Hard Beds and Rocks), which vari- Hard bottoms in Stazzo, Sicily (Biondi et al., es greatly varies according to the geo-morphologic characteristics 2009; picture: Marcello Catra). and the type of substrate (rocky or sedimentary).

7 The matte (a typical “terrace” formation) is composed of a mixture of layers of old rhizomes and roots, and also includes the sediments trapped by the two and strongly compacted.

45 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Types of environments identified according to the Ramsar Conven- tion The category “marine waters, soft bottoms” includes the typologies of marine-coastal wetlands “A - Permanent shallow marine waters less than six meters deep at low tide; includes sea bays and straits” and “B - Marine subtidal aquatic beds; includes kelp beds, sea-grass beds, tropical marine meadows”, if referred to soft bottoms. The same typologies (A and B) belong to the category “Ma- rine waters, hard bottoms”, if referred to hard bottoms. Typologies A and B include environments submerged at all times with both soft and hard bottoms, less than 6 meters deep (Typology A), with or without vegetation (Typology B). Typology B, if specifically referred to the Posidonia Oce- anica beds (sea-grass beds), belongs to the Physiographic category “Posidonia beds”.

5.2.2 Wetlands and Halophytic habitats

Habitat types identified according to the Habitats Directive (and corresponding to the SPA/BIO Protocol codes) The category called “Estuarine and tidal systems” includes the complex environments of the final part of waterways Figure 5.2.2.1 flowing into the sea, influenced by sea currents and by the mixtu- Biocenosis of muddy sands and muds re of fresh and salty waters (Natura 2000 habitat number 1130: in lagoons and estuaries. (Bellan-Santini et al., Estuaries; SPA/BIO Protocol: Assemblages as in habitats 1110- 2002). 1140 along the zones from supralittoral (I.), mediolittoral (II.) until infralittoral (III.) on Mud and Sands) and mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (Natura 2000 habitat number 1140: Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; SPA/BIO Protocol code: II. 1, II. 1.1, II. 1.1.1, v II.1.1.2, II. 2, II. 2.1, II. 2.1.1). The estuarine habitats host marine communities or halophilous plants such as Salicornia or Spartina (figure 5.2.2.1). The category called “Standing waters, temporary lakes and ponds” includes all the habitats typical of shallow, temporary and non-temporary waterways on the coast, i.e. standing waters, small lagoons and ponds more or less isolated from the sea, brooks and channels temporarily flooded. Waters vary from ologotrophic to mesotrophic, and with poor, muddy or sandy substrates. The plant communities include sea communities (Natura 2000 habitat number 3140: Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.), and amphibian communities (Natura 2000 habitat number 3120: Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains with Isoëtes spp.; Natura 2000 habitat number 3130: Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Figure 5.2.2.2 with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Solenopsis laurentia. (Biondi et al., 2009; pictu- Nanojuncetea; Natura 2000 habitat number 3170*: Mediterranean re: D. Gigante).

46 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

temporary ponds; figure 5.2.2.2). The category “Coastal brackish/saline lagoons” (Figg. 5.2.2.3 e 5.2.2.4) include all shallow brackish and saline lagoons, characterized by great seasonal variations of salinity and depth, and which are in direct contact with the sea. The habitats are characterized by brackish halophilous or sub-halophilous vegetation growing on sandy, muddy or clave soils subject to variations of salinity (from hyper-saline to meso-saline) and humidity (from flooded soils to soils subject to long dry periods). It includes the coastal lagoon communities (Natu- ra 2000 habitat number 1150*; Coastal lagoons; SPA/ BIO Protocol code: III. 1, III. 1.1, vIII. 1.1.1, III. 1.1.2, vIII. Figure 5.2.2.3 1.1.3, vIII. 1.1.4, III. 1.1.5, III. 1.1.6, III. 1.1.7, vIII. 1.1.8, III. 1.1.9, Coastal lagoons in the protected area of “Laghetti di Marinello”, Sicily. (Biondi et al., III. 1.1.10, III. 1.1.11, III. 1.1.12), Salicornia (Natura 2000 habitat 2009; picture: G. Spampinato). number 1310: Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand), coastal zones with Juncetalia maritimi (Natura 2000 habitat number 1410: Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi)), Spartina swards endemic of the “velma” in North Adriatic Sea (Natura 2000 habitat number 1320: Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae)), zones with halophilous chamaephyte and nanophanerophyte (Natura 2000 habitat number 1420: Mediterranean and thermo- Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornietea fruticosi) and tall humid grasslands (Natura 2000 habitat number 6420: Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion). Habitat 6420 also belongs to the Physiographic category called “Interdune and backdune humid depressions”, since it can also be found in this environment. Figure 5.2.2.4 Spartina maritima in the protected area of Bellocchio (Emilia-Romagna region). (Biondi et Habitat types identified according to the Ramsar Convention al., 2009; picture: E. Biondi). The category “Estuarine and tidal systems” includes the following typologies of marine-coastal wetlands: Estuarine waters; permanent water of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas (Typology F), Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats (Typology G) and Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons (Typology H). The category “Coastal brackish/saline lagoons” includes the following typologies: Coastal brackish/saline lagoons; brackish to saline lagoons with at least one relatively narrow connection to the sea (Typology J) and Coastal freshwater lagoons; includes freshwater delta lagoons (Typology K). It is worth noting that the category “Standing waters, temporary lakes and ponds” is not represented in the typologies of marine- coastal wetlands identified by the Ramsar Convention.

47 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

5.2.3 Dune habitats

Habitat types identified according to the Habitats Directive Dune habitats have been subdivided into four physiographic categories with very distinctive morphological characteristics and are situated in strips parallel to the shoreline, i.e. perpendicular to the directrix going from the sea inland. Along this directrix, there is a progressive variation of the physical factors (marine spray influence, substrate granulometry and coherence, wind, and aquifer salinity) influencing the dune communities, also called psammophilous communities. The first Physiographic category that can be found going from the sea inland is the “Dry beach”, characterized by annual Figure 5.2.3.1 halo-nitrophilous vegetation of the nearshore and the deposit are- Beached seagrass in S. Agostino (Lazio region). (Picture: ISPRA). as along the beaches (figure 5.2.3.1; Natura 2000 habitat number 1210: Annual vegetation of drift lines; and Natura 2000 habitat number 1310: Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand). The category “Embryodune and avandune”, (figure 5.2.3.2) is linked to the previous one, and includes both the stretch characterized by highly incoherent sands where the embryodunes originate, with Agropyron junceum ssp. mediterraneum (= Elymus farctus ssp. farctus = Elytri- gia juncea) (Natura 2000 habitat number 2110: Embryonic shifting dunes), and the first dune cordon, i.e. the coastal dunes defined as ‘shifting’ or ‘white’ dunes. These dunes are characterized by the Ammophila arenaria community (Natura 2000 habitat number 2120: Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)) and, in the Figure 5.2.3.2 Foredune. (Picture: S. Ercole, ISPRA). glades, by the annual vegetation with the Natura 2000 habitat number 2230: Malcolmietalia dune grasslands. Moving further away from the sea, we enter the category called “Avandune continental side, fixed dune and stabilized sands” (figure 5.2.3.3), which includes a wide stretch going from the continental side of the shifting dune (partly protected by salty winds and not reached by sea water) to the sector between the shifting and the fixed dunes (an area where sands are more coherent and where the influence of the wind and marine spray is lower), thus including the entire fixed dune, or ‘grey’ dune, where the sand substrate is compact and completely stabilized. This category includes many habitats. The chamaephyte and suffruticose vegetation, predominantly composed of Cru- Figure 5.2.3.3 cianella maritima, grow on the inner side of the shifting dunes Avandune’s continental side, fixed dune and with more stable and compact sands (Natura 2000 habitat num- stabilized sands category. (Picture: A. Acosta).

48 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

ber 2210: Crucianellion maritimae fixed beach dunes), and thero- phytes communities (Natura 2000 habitat number 2230: Malcol- mietalia dune grasslands). On the inner dune cordon, where we witness a high stabilization of the substrate, there are wood communities made of juniper thickets and other Mediterranean sclerophyllous plants (Natura 2000 habitat number 2250*: Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp.), Pistacio-Rhamnetalia sclerophyllous plants, garigues replacing the scrubs because of fires or other forms of degradation (Natu- ra 2000 habitat number 2260: Cisto-Lavanduletalia dune sclerophyllous scrubs) and, in the glades, the herbaceous communities with the Natura 2000 habitat number 2240: Brachypodietalia dune grasslands with annuals. In the inner and more stable part of the dune system, we can find littoral pinewoods (Natura 2000 habitat number 2270*: Wooded dunes with Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster). These are human- made reforestations created in different periods (in Italy, natural coastal pinewoods can be found in Sardinia, in the Gulf of Porto Pino, Port of Pineddu in Portixeddu-Buggerru). In the glades of these pinewoods there are herbaceous communities (Natura 2000 habitat number 6220*: Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea) and parts of the wood communities mentioned above, which naturally tend to colonize these environments. The category “Avandune continental side, fixed dune and stabilized sands” also includes particular psammophilous communities, typical of the temperate macro-bioclimate, which can be found in Italy only along the northern Adriatic littoral (Natura 2000 habitat number 2130*: Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) and Natura 2000 habitat number 2160: Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides). The physionomic category “Interdune and backdune humid depressions” can be found in the backdune wetlands occasionally flooded by brackish waters, and is characterized by halophylous and sub-halophilous vegetation growing on the substrates with medium-high percentages of sand. This category also includes habitats that can be found also in brackish areas (indicated with p.p. in Table 5.2.1), belonging to another category. Typical of this environment are the communities with salt meadows (Natura 2000 habitat number 1410: Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi), and Mediterranean beds of rushes and hygrophilous scrubs (Natura 2000 habitat number 6420: Mediter- ranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion). It is noteworthy that according to the Italian manual of interpretation mentioned above, the Natura 2000 habitat number 2190: Hu- mid dune slacks is not present in Italy since it can only be found

49 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

in the Atlantic dune systems. Therefore, the habitats 2190 reported in Italy are wrong and are partly refer to habitat number 6420. In these contexts, at the edge of the backdune brackish depres- sion, on temporary wet clayey salty soils, there can also be halophilous beds belonging to the Natura 2000 habitat number 1510*: Mediterranean salt steppes (Limonietalia). The latter are greatly affected by the salty water aquifer and, during the summer, they dry out forming saline efflorences.

Habitat types identified according to the Ramsar Convention All the physiographic categories identified in this study and belonging to the macro-category dune habitats (category: “dry beach”, “embryodune and avandune”, “Avandune continental side, fixed dune and stabilized sands” and “Interdune and backdune humid depressions”), belong to the typology of marine-coastal wetlands called Sand, shingle or pebble shores; includes sand bars, spits and sandy islets; includes dune systems (Typology E). Therefore, their association with a specific Physiographic category (see Table 5.2.2) of the Ramsar site considered is determined according to the environment (e.g. dry beach, shifting dune etc.).

5.2.4 Cliff habitats

Habitat types identified according to the Habitats Directive The category “Rocky shores and cliffs habitats” (figure 5.2.4.1) includes all the rocky shores and cliff habitats. The habitats are characterized by chasmophytic, rupicolous and halo- rupicolous vegetation, mainly chamaephyte and nanophanerophyte, and edaphic-xerophitic frutescent vegetation on lithosols and poor soils. Among the frutescent communities, there are halophilous chasmophytic species, highly specialized and adapted to the sea aerosol, such as the endemic and micro-endemic communities of Limonium sp.pl. (Natura 2000 habitat number 1240: Vegetated sea cliffs of the Mediterranean coasts with endemic Limonium spp.) and the frutescent communities of the eastern coasts of the northern Adriatic (Gulf of Trieste) (Natura 2000 habitat number 8210: Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation). The category “Rocky shores and cliffs habitats” also includes frutescent communities such as nitrophilous or sub-nitrophilous scrubs of the clifftops before the sea (Natura 2000 habitat number 1430: Halo-nitrophilous scrubs (Pegano-Salsoletea), shrubs of the thermo-Mediterranean zones dominated by Euphorbia dendroi- des, Ampelodesmos mauritanicus garigues, Chamaerops humilis communities, Periploca angustifolia communities and thermo- Mediterranean Genista spp. communities (belonging to the Na- tura 2000 habitat number 5330: Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-

50 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

desert scrub). There are also sub-halophilous littoral garigues, formed mainly by chamaephyte, such as Euphorbia spp. and Helichrysum spp., growing on lithosols, in a strech among the cliffs and the frutescent communities of the Mediterranean scrub (Natura 2000 habitat number 5320: Low formations of Euphorbia close to cliffs). Finally, it also includes the phryganas scrubs endemic of Sardinia (Natura 2000 habitat number 5410: West Mediterranean clifftop phryganas Figure 5.2.4.1 (Astragalo-Plantaginetum subulatae)) and of Sicily and Rocky shores and cliffs habitats in Vendicari Sardinia (Natura 2000 habitat number 5420: Sarcopoterium spi- (Sicily). (http://www.saccollino.it/territorio. nosum phryganas, Natura 2000 habitat number 5430: Endemic htm) phryganas of the Euphorbio-Verbascion).

Habitat types identified according to the Ramsar Convention In the Physiographic category “Rocky shore and cliff habitats”, the typology of coastal wetlands called Rocky marine shores; includes rocky offshore islands, sea cliffs (Typology D) includes all types of (offshore) rocky habitats.

51 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

6. Protected, sensitive and/or endangered species classification

6.1 Protected, sensitive and/or endangered flora species

In order to assess the risks and impacts linked to coastal defense works, the first species that need to be considered among those living on the Italian coasts are those protected by international conventions, laws and treaties. It is also necessary to consider the species protected by regional legislations for the conservation of wild flora (Alonzi et al., 2006) and all the Italian endangered species included in the Regional Red Lists (Conti et al., 1992; 1997; Scoppola and Spampinato, 2005). All the plant species of the Italian littoral environments belonging to the following four categories must be therefore be taken into account: 1. species protected by the Bern Convention (annex I); 2. species protected by Directive 92/43/EC (annex II) and SPA/ BIO Protocol (Barcelona Convention); 3. species protected by Italian regional laws; 4. Italian endangered species, included those included in the Na- tional Red List and in the Regional Red Lists. In order to produce a generally applicable instrument that is valid for different geographical contexts, it is extremely important to associate the single protected and endangered species (included in the four categories mentioned above) with the physiographic habitat categories described above (Chapter 5). This is because the plant species belonging to each habitat category are characterized by similar eco-physiological adaptations and tend to react in the same way to the disturbances induced by the the coastal defense works examined. For each of the four species categories, some details and examples of important species are reported below, together with the habitat’s physiographic category.

1 e 2 – Species protected by the Bern Convention, the Habitats Directive and the SPA/BIO Protocol These categories of species are of priority importance and can be treated together because many of the species included in the Ha- bitats Directive (with specific reference to the marine environment examined by the Barcelona Convention - SPA/BIO Protocol) are

52 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

also included in the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Bern Convention), in particular in Annex I (Strictly protected flora species). Unfortunately, the number of species listed is limited, and they represent only a small portion of the coastal flora that would require protection. Most of the marine flora species are protected by the Barcelona Convention (annex 1 to the SPA/BIO Protocol), which lists 16 species. All the (terrestrial flora) species mentioned in the Habitats Directi- ve are included in the Atlas of Italian threatened species (Scoppola and Spampinato, 2005), which provides information on the different species’ status in Italy (IUCN category), on their endemicity, and on the particular environment they live in (thus associating them with their physiographic category with greater certainty). The Atlas also indicates each species’ regional presence and de- tailed position through a kilometric grid (squared grid with side 10 km). As an example, we associated some species protected by the above mentioned regulations with their habitat physiographic category (see below). In most cases, these are endemic species living in very limited areas. Endemicity and threat category are indicated according to the National Red List.

Physiographic category: Posidonia Oceanica beds (Marine habitats)

Bern Habitat SPA/BIO IUCN Species Endemicity Conv. Dir. Protocol Cat. Delile Posidonia oceanica (Linnaeus) X - X endemic of the Mediterranean sea

Physiographic category: Coastal brackish/saline lagoons (Wetlands and halophytic habitats)

Bern Habitat IUCN Species Endemicity Conv. Dir. Cat. Limonium insulare (Bég. et Landi) - X priority VU Endemic of S-W Sardinia Arrigoni et Diana Limonium pseudolaetum Arrigoni et - X priority VU Endemic of Sardinia, Sinis Diana peninsula Salicornia veneta Pignatti et Lausi X X priority EN Endemic of northern Adriatic Kosteletzkya pentacarpos (L.) Ledeb X X CR -

53 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Physiographic category: Avandune continental side, fixed dune and stabilized sands (Dune habitats)

Bern Habitat IUCN Species Endemicity Conv. Dir. Cat. Anchusa crispa Viv. subsp. crispa X X priority EN Endemic of Sardinia and Corsica Galium litorale Guss. X X priority EN Endemic of S/W Sicily

Linaria flava (Poir.) Desf. subsp. sardoa X X priority LR Endemic of Sardinia and (Sommier) A. Terracc. Corsica Muscari gussonei (Parl.) Tod. [syn. X X priority EN Endemic of Sicily Leopoldia gussonei Parl.] Rouya polygama (Desf.) Coincy X X VU - Stipa veneta Moraldo - X priority EN Endemic of Veneto (from the dunes of Venice to the delta of the Tagliamento river)

Category Rocky shore and cliff habitats (Cliff habitats):

Bern Habitat IUCN Species Endemicity Conv. Dir. Cat. Astragalus maritimus Moris X X priority CR Endemic of S/W Sardinia Bassia saxicola (Guss.) A.J. Schott X X priority CR Endemic of southern Italy Brassica macrocarpa Guss X X priority CR Endemic of the Egadi islands (Sicily) Brassica insularis Moris X X priority EN - Campanula sabatia De Not. X X VU Endemic of Liguria Centaurea horrida Badarò X X priority VU Endemic of Sardinia Centaurea kartschiana Scop. X X VU Endemic of Trieste's Carso Dianthus rupicola Biv. subsp. rupicola X X VU Sub-endemic Limonium strictissimum (Salzm.) - X priority CR Endemic of Sardinia and Arrigoni Corsica Primula palinuri Petagna X X VU Endemic of the southern Tyrrhenian Italy Silene velutina Loisel X X priority VU Endemic of Sardinia and Corsica

3- Species protected by Regional Laws A separate consideration must be made for the plant species protected by the regional laws for the protection of the flora. Most Italian regions have devised specific laws to safeguard their spontaneous flora; these laws list the species needing protection, which represent a certain portion of the regional flora (Alonzi et al., 2006). Considering these groups of species (whose quantity, selection criteria and protection levels vary from region to region) is cer- tainly important to assess the effects of coastal defense works in the different geographical areas, also because the Italian species protected at international or European level only constitute a small part of the Italian coastal flora that is actually endangered.

54 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Thus, the species protected by single regional laws will also be considered in the study As an example, here are some species protected by the regional law of Lazio Region n. 61 of 19-09-1974 (law for the protection of spontaneous flora), associated with the physiographic categories mentioned above: • category Coastal brackish/saline lagoons (Wetlands and halophytic habitats): Schoenus nigricans L. • category Embryodune and avandune (Dune habitats): Ammo- phila arenaria (L.) Link subsp. australis (Mabille) Laínz, Otan- thus maritimus (L.) Hoffmanns. & Link subsp. maritimus, Pan- cratium maritimum L. (figure 6.1.1a), Daphne sericea Vahl • category Rocky shores and cliff habitats (Cliff habitats): Cha- maerops humilis L. (figure 6.1.1b).

4 – Red List species When analyzing risk and impact, it is important to also consider the Italian littoral species of the National Red List (Conti et al., 1992; Scoppola and Spampinato, 2005) and of the Regional Red Lists (Conti et al., 1997). The importance of these plant species Figure 6.1.1 is evident, both because of their quantity and because they live (a) Pancratium maritimum (http://www. sciclinews.com/articolo/5973/Sul-pantano-di- in small areas and usually in highly endangered habitats. Many Arizza-Una-lettera-di-Luigi-Cicero); (b) Cha- species live in a limited number of small areas, many others live maerops humilis (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/ in certain spots of the area, and others live in detached areas. File:Chamaerops_humilis_%28Zingaro%29015. Also, many species are endemic of limited and restricted territori- jpg) es, such as the two big Italian islands (Sardinia and Corsica), while others are endemic of the smaller islands (Tremiti, Egadi, Lampe- dusa, Linosa, Eolie, etc.), or paleo-endemic. The degree of threat is indicated in the red lists according to the IUCN (1994) risk categories. For the purposes of this study, the following categories were taken into account: CR (Critically endangered), EN (Endangered), VU (Vulnerable), LR (Lower risk), Excluding the species gone extinct (E and EW) and the species with limited knowledge (DD). The National Red List includes many coastal species (e.g. in alpha- betical order for the dune habitats: Allium subvillosum Salzm., Anchusa crispa Viv. subsp. maritima (Vals.) Selvi et Bigazzi, An- chusa littorea Moris, Anthemis chia L., Cressa cretica L., Aristida adscensionis L. subsp., oerulescens (Desf.) Auquier et J. Duvign., Armeria pungens (Link) Hoffmanns. et Link, Asparagus pastoria- nus Webb et Berthel., Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav., etc.), which must be carefully identified according to the geographic area where the

55 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

defense operations are carried out. Concerning the specificity of territories, it is also useful to consider the IUCN regional assessments of the Regional Red Lists (Conti et al., 1997). The following are examples of coastal species included by the Lazio Region in the Regional Red List (sometimes also included in the National Red List): - category Dry beach (Dune habitats): Matthiola tricuspidata (L.) R.Br. (figure 6.1.2a) species of the Regional Red List (CR), Cressa cretica L. species of the Regional Red List (CR) and the National Red List (EN). - category Avandune continental side, fixed dune and stabilized sands (Dune habitats): Malcolmia littorea (L.) R. Br. (figure 6.1.2b) Figure 6.1.2 species of the Regional Red List (VU) and the National Red List (a) Matthiola tricuspidata (L.) R. Br. (picture:

(EN) (exclusive of Lazio region); Ambrosia maritima L. species of Giuliano Campus; Fonte: http://luirig.altervi- the Regional Red List (LR) (and Regional law n. 61 of 19-09-1974). sta.org/naturaitaliana/viewpics.php?title=Mat thiola+tricuspidata); - category Coastal brackish/saline lagoons (Wetlands and halo- (b) Malcomia littorea (L.) R. Br. (http://www. phytic habitats): Alopecurus bulbosus Gouan species of the Regio- first-nature.com/flowers/malcolmia_littorea. nal Red List (LR); Plantago maritima L., species of the Regional php); Red List (LR); Kosteletzkya pentacarpos (L.) Ledeb. (figure 6.1.2c) (c) Kosteletzkya pentacarpos (L.) Ledeb. species of the Regional Red List (CR) and of the National Red List (http://www.lifecomebis.eu/privato/archivio_ (CR) (annex II to the Habitats Directive). documenti/28.pdf).

6.2 Protected, sensitive and/or endangered fauna species

Given the high number of protected, sensitive and/or endangered fauna species mentioned in the different international conventions, laws and treaties examined (see Chapter 5), and in order to create a universally applicable instrument that is valid for different geographic contexts, we tried to identify a set of “objective” modalities to associate the single protected species with the physiographic habitat categories mentioned in Chapter 5. The criterion used to associate the species with the different habitats was the ‘habitat use’ criterion, which will later allow to associate the single species with the physiographic categories previously identified. Habitat use represents and describes how an individual uses the physical and biological resources of a given environment. A species can use a habitat to satisfy different needs, which may be biological, ecological and ethological (e.g. the different phases of the vital cycle, reproduction, feeding, mating, etc.). The same species can therefore belong to more habitat categories, and the habitats can vary in terms of space and time.

56 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

For certain avifauna species, for instance, the life cycle (and thus the habitats concerned) can involve different environments and different periods of the year: the reproduction and migrations take place in a certain time of the year and in different geographic areas. Also, some species’ feeding needs can vary according to the season, forcing the species to use different habitats. For example, Phalacrocorax aristotelis (European or common shag, figure 6.2.1), protected by Birds Directi- ve and Bern Convention, is a marine bird which nests from November to March on rocky cliffs and feeds mainly on coastal waters. Therefore, the common shag is a stable species that uses two different habitat categories for nesting (rocky cliffs) and feeding activities (coastal waters). In the definition of the reference categories, it is also important to assess the scale of habitat use – i.e. the part of the habitat Figure 6.2.1 actually used by the singles species – for each habitat. (a) P. aristotelis (Picture: J.Rückert; http:// The habitat use categories proposed in this study (through which de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:JuliusR) (b) it will be possible to associate protected species with physio- Example of nest on a cliff (http://www.mlaha- graphic categories) were defined only in general terms in order to nas.de/Greece/Fauna/PhalacrocoraxAristote- provide a single classification for all the taxa concerned. The 10 lis.html). habitat use categories identified can be described as follows: • Resident and sessile (RS) This category refers to organisms using the same habitat for all their needs (feeding, mating, reproduction, etc.) and during all phases of their life cycle. • Larval recruitment and settlement (LRS) This category refers to the larval recruitment and settlement phase and is specific to invertebrates, especially sea invertebrates. • Juvenile feeding (JF) This category identifies habitats used by young only for feeding. • Adult feeding (AF) This category identifies habitats used by adult only for feeding. • Reproduction and mating (RM) This category refers to habitats used by species only during the reproduction and/or mating phases. • Nesting and eggs deposition (ND) This category refers to habitats used by species during the nesting and egg deposition phases only. • Shelter and temporary stationing (STS) This category refers to habitats used by some species as shelter and/or for temporary stationing for relatively short periods of time, ranging from some days to 1 month, as it is the case for migration stopovers. • Shelter and prolonged stationing (SPS) This category refers to habitats used by some species as shelter and/or for temporary

57 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

stationing for longer periods of time, as it is the case for win- ter migratory species. As habitat use frequency can vary greatly depending on the habitat use category, the latter must always indicate the frequency: • perennial (p), • seasonal (s). In particular, if the habitat use frequency is seasonal, the reference season must also be indicated. Since the effects of some interventions (e.g. handling of sediments in the sea) can be reduced and/or avoided by stopping activities during the phases in which animals are more sensitive (e.g. egg deposition periods for fish resources) (ICES, 2000), all environmental studies should apply the concept of environmental windows (Dickerson et al., 1998), i.e. of the optimal periods when handling sediments in the sea environment has an acceptable impact on the biological resources. Another aspect to be considered for the “classification” of protected fauna species is the ‘scale factor’, i.e. the scale at which a species uses the habitat: local scale (l) or wide scale (w). For example, the habitat use scale –which must be taken into account to define the environmental characterization and/or monitoring plans– will vary if the species uses the habitat for nesting (cliff habitats macrocategory, habitat use category ND) or for feeding in the sea (marine habitats macrocategory, habitat use category (JF or AF).

58 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

7. Bibliography

ALONZI A., ERCOLE S., PICCINI C. (2006) - La protezione delle specie della flora e della fauna selvatica: quadro di riferimento legi- slativo regionale. Rapporto APAT n. 75/2006. APAT (2007) - Atlante delle Opere di sistemazione costiera: 169 pp. AA.VV. (2007) – POSIDUNE - Interactions de Posidonia Oceanica et Sable avec l’Environnement des Dunes Naturelles - Cahier Tech- nique étendu de Phase B, INTERREG IIIC Beachmed-e : 127 pp. http://www.beachmed.it/Beachmede/SousProjets/POSIDUNE/ tabid/99/Default.aspx (ultimo accesso: maggio 2010). BALLESTA L., PERGENT G., PASQUALINI V., PERGENT-MARTINI C. (2000) - Distribution and dynamics of Posidonia oceanica beds along the Albères coastline. Life Sciences, 323: 407-414. BELLAN-SANTINI D., BELLAN G., BITAR G., HARMELIN J.G., PER- GENT G. (2002) - Handbook for interpreting types of marine habitat for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest: 217 pp., http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/MSDF.pdf (ultimo accesso: giugno 2010). BYRD J.I. (2004) - The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in South Carolina. A thesis of the degree requirements for the Master of Science in Envi- ronmental Studies at the Graduate School – College of Charle- ston: 154pp. BIONDI E., BLASI C., BURRASCANO S., CASAVECCHIA S., COPIZ R.., DEL VICO E., GALDENZI D., GIGANTE D., LASEN C., SPAMPI- NATO G., VENANZONI R., ZIVKOVIC L., 2009. Manuale italiano di interpretazione degli habitat della Directive 92/43/EEC. Mi- nistero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare (www.minambiente.it/; http://vnr.unipg.it/habitat/index.jsp). B.N.P. (1995) - Beach Nourishment and Protection http://www. nap.edu/books/0309052904/html/index.html BOVINA G., CALLORI DI VIGNALE C., AMODIO M. (2003) - L’ap- proccio dell’ingegneria naturalistica nella conservazione degli ambienti dunali. In: Regione Lazio (Ed.) “Manuale di ingegneria naturalistica”, 2: 367-381. BULGARINI F., CALVARIO E., FRATICELLI F., PETRETTI F., SARROC- CO S. (Eds). (1998). Libro Rosso degli Animali D’Italia - Vertebra-

59 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

ti. WWF Italia, Roma. BULLERI F. MENCONI M. CINELLI F. BENEDETTI-CECCHI L. (2000) – Grazing by tow species of limpets on artificial reefs in the northwest Mediterranean. Journal of Experimental Marine Bio- logy and Ecology, 255: 1-19. BULLERI F., AIROLDI L. (2005) - Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a nonindigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, in the North Adriatic Sea. Journal of Ap- plied Ecology, 42: 1063-1072. BUSH D.M., PILKEY O.H., NEAL W.J. (2001) - Human impact on coastal topography. In: Steele, J.H., Thorpe, S.A., Turekian, K.K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences. Academic Press, San Diego: 480-489. CALVARIO L. GUSTIN M. SARROCCO S. GALLO-ORSI U. BULGARINI F. FRATICELLI F. (1999) - Nuova lista rossa degli uccelli nidifi- canti in Italia, Riv. Ital. Orn., 69 (1): 3-43. CERFOLLI F., PETRASSI F., PETRETTI F.(2002) - Il Libro Rosso degli Invertebrati - WWF e Ministero Università e Ricerca Scientifica CHAPMAN M.G., BULLERI F. (2003) – Intertidal seawalls – new features oflandscape in intertidfal environments. Landscape and Urban planning, 62: 159-172. CHARLIER R.H., CHAINEUX M.C.P., MORCOS S. (2005) – Panorama of history of coastal protection. Journal Coastal Reserch, 21: 79-111. CONNELL S. D., GLASBY T. M. (1999) - Do urban structures influence the local abundance and diversity of subtidal epibiota? A case study from Sydney harbour, Australia. Marine Environmental Research, 47: 373-387. CONTI F., MANZI A., PEDROTTI F. (1992) - Libro Rosso delle Piante d’Italia. Ministero dell’Ambiente, WWF Italia. CONTI F., MANZI A., PEDROTTI F. (1997) - Liste Rosse Regionali delle Piante d’Italia. WWF Italia, Società Botanica Italiana, Uni- versità di Camerino. CRAIN A.D., BOLTEN A.B., BJORNDAL K.A. (1995) – Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology, 3(2): 95-104. DEFEO O., MCLACHLAN A., SCHOEMAN D.S., SCHLACHER T.A., DUGAN J., JONES A., LASTRA M., SCAPINI F. (2009) - Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 81: 11-12. DELLA CROCE N., CATTANEO VIETTI R., DANOVARO R. (1997) - Ecologia e protezione dell’ambiente marino costiero. Utet, To- rino: 420 pp. DICKERSON D.D., REINE J.J., CLARKE D.G. (1998) - Economic impacts of environmental windows associated with dredging operations, DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN DOERE3), US

60 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS: 18 pp. DUGAN J.E., HUBBARD D.M. (2006) - Ecological responses to coastal armouring on exposed sandy beaches. Shore & beaches, 74: 10-16. DUFFY-ANDERSON, J.T., MANDERSON, J.P., ABLE, K.W., 2003. A characterization of juvenile fish assemblages around man-made structures in the New York New Jersey Harbor Estuary, USA. Bull. Mar. Sci. 72, 877– 889. EUROSION (2004) - Living with coastal erosion in Europe: Sedi- ment and Space for Sustainability - PART I - Major findings and Policy Recommendations of the EUROSION project, 54 pp. http://www.eurosion.org/reports-online/part1.pdf (last access: may 2010) FANINI L., MARCHETTI G.M., SCAPINI F., DEFEO O. (2009) - Effects of beach nourishment and groynes building on population and community descriptors of mobile arthropodofauna. Ecological Indicators, 9: 167-178. FENSTER M.S., KNISLEY C.B., REED C.T. (2006) - Habitat preference and the effects of beach nourishment on the federally threatened northeastern beach tiger beetle, Cincidela dorsalis dorsalis: Western Shore, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Journal of Coastal Re- search, 22(5): 1133-1144. FLETCHER C.H., MULLANE R.A., RICHMOND B.M. (1997) – Beach loss along armoured shorelines on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Coastal Research, 13: 209-215. GACIA E. SATTA M.P., MARTIN D. (2007) – Low crested coastal defence structures on the Catalan of the Mediterranean Sea: how they compare with natural rocky shores. Scientia Marina, 71(2): 259-267. GLASBY T. M. (2000) - Surface composition and orientation inte- ract to affect subtidal epibiota. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 248: 177-190. GONZALEZ A., LAMBERT A., RICCIARDI A. (2008) - When does ecosystem engineering facilitate invasion? Oikos, 117: 1247- 1257. GREEN K. (2002) - Beach nourishment: a review of the biological and physical impacts. ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). Habitat Management Series, 7: 174 pp. GUIDETTI P., FABIANO M. (2000) - The use of lepidochronology to assess the impact of terrigenous discharge on the primary leaf production of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(5): 449-453. ICES (2000) - Report of the working group on the effects of extrac- tion of marine sediments on the marine ecosystems, Gdansk, Poland: 172 pp.

61 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

ISPRA (2009) - Predisposizione di uno studio preliminare ambien- tale relativo agli interventi di difesa della costa in aree protette, per la ricostruzione e la difesa del litorale costiero tra Capo Portiere e Torre Paola nella provincia di Latina. Attività C3: Pre- disposizione di documentazione per lo Studio Preliminare Am- bientale: 67 pp. IUCN (1994) – IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, U. K.: 21 pp. JACKSON N. L., SMITH D.R., TIYARATTANACHAI R., NORDSTROM K.F. (2007) - Evaluation of a small beach nourishment project to enhance habitat suitability for horseshoe crabs. Geomorpho- logy and Ecosystems, 89(1-2): 172-185. JARAMILLO E., CONTRRAS H., BOLLINGER A. (2002) – Beach and faunal response to the construction of a seawall in a sandy beach of south central Chile. Journal of Coastal Research, 18: 523-529. LA VALLE P., NICOLETTI L. (2008) - Beach nourishment and Donax trunculus (Linnaeus, 1758) populations in the Central Tyrrhe- nian Sea: negative or positive impact? In: Campostrini P. (ed.) A changing coast: challenge for the environmental policies. Pro- EECdings of the IX International Conference LITTORAL 2008, Venice, Italy, 25-28 November 2008. Arzanà, Venice. (electronic publication). LA VALLE P., BELLUSCIO A., NICOLETTI L., PAGANELLI D., AR- DIZZONE G.D. (2007) - Effects of beach nourishment on Donax trunculus in the Latium coasts (Central Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). ProEECndings of the Eighth International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment, MEDCOAST’07. E. Özhan (Editor), 13-17 November 2007, Alexandria, Egypt. MANZANERA M., PÉREZ M., ROMERO J. (1998) - Seagrass mortality due to oversedimentation: an experimental approach. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 4: 67-70 MARTIN D., BERTASI F., COL ANGELO M.A., DE VRIES M., FROST MATTHEW, HAWKINS S.J., MACPHERSON E., MORCHELLA P.S., SATTA M.P., THOMPOSON R.C., SECCHERELLI V.U. (2005) – Eco- logical Impact of coastal defence structures on sediment and mobile fauna: evaluating and forecasting consequences of una- voidable modifications of native habitats. Coastal engineering, 52: 1027-1051. MAURER D., KECK R.T., TINSMAN J.C., LEATHEM W.A., WETHE C.A., LORD C., CHURH T.M. (1986) - Vertical migration and mortality of benthos in dredged material: a synthesis. International Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 71(1): 49-63. MEYER-ARENDT K.J., DORVLO A. (2001) – Recreational development and shoreline modification along the north coast of

62 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

Yucatan, mexico. Tourism Geographies, 3: 87-104. MOISER A.E., WITHERINGTON B.E. (2002) – Documented effects of coastal armouring structures on sea turtle nesting behaviour. ProEECdings of the 20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Bio- logy and Conservation: 304-306. MOREIRA J., CHAPMAN M.G., UNDERWOOD A.J. (2006) – Seawalls do not sustain viable populations of limpets. Marine Ecology- Progress Series, 322: 179-188. MOSCHELLA P.S., ABBIATI M., ÅBERG P., AIROLDI L., ANDERSON J.M., BACCHIOCCHI F., BULLERI F., DINESEN G.E., FROST M., GA- CIA E., GRANHAG L., JONSSON P.R., SATTA M.P., SUNDELÖF A., THOMPSON R.C., HAWKINS S.J. (2005) - Low-crested coastal defence structures as artificial habitats for marine life: Using ecological criteria in design. Coastal Engineering, 52: 1053-1071. NICOLETTI L., PAGANELLI D., GABELLINI M. (2006) – Environmen- tal aspects of relict sand dredging for beach nourishment: pro- posal of monitoring protocol. Quaderno ICRAM n.5: 155pp. NICOLETTI L., BELLUSCIO A., LA VALLE P., ARDIZZONE G.D. (2005) – Monitoring of Posidonia Oceanica Meadow after Beach Nou- rishment. In: “MEDCOAST ‘05 - ProEECdings of the Seventh International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Envi- ronment”, Özhan E. (ed.), 25-29 October 2005, Kusadasi, Tur- key: 451-460. NORDSTROM K.F. (2005) - Beach nourishment and coastal habitats: research needs to improve compatibility. Restoration Eco- logy, 13(1): 215-222. OSPAR (2009) - Assessment of the impact of coastal defence structures. 27pp. PETERSON C.H., BISHOP M.J., JOHNSON G.A., D’ANNA L.M., MAN- NING L.M. (2006) - Exploiting beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: benthic intertidal impacts propagating upwards to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Eco- logy, 338: 205-221. PINN E.H., MITCHELL K., CORKILL J. (2005) - The assemblages of groynes in relation to substratum age, aspect and microhabitat. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 62: 271-282. PIOTTO B., GIACANELLI V., ERCOLE S. (a cura di) (2010) – La conservazione ex situ della biodiversità delle specie vegetali spon- tanee e coltivate in Italia: stato dell’arte, criticità e azioni da compiere. Manuali e linee guida ISPRA, 54/2010. 205 pp. PRANZINI E. (2004) – La forma delel coste. Geomorfologia costiera impatto antropico e difesa dei litorali. Zanichelli Ed.: 245 pp. RAKOCINSKI C.F., HEARD R.W., LECROY S.E., MCLELLAND J.A., SIMONS T. (1996) - Responses by macrobenthic assemblages to extensive beach restoration at Perdido Key, Florida, USA. Journal of Coastal Research, 12 (1): 326- 353.

63 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

RICE C.A. (2006) – Effects of shoreline modification on a northern Puget Sound beach: microclimate and embyo mortality in surf smelt (Hypomesus pretoiosus). Estuaries and Coasts, 29: 63-71. RUIZ J.M., ROMERO J. (2003) - Effects of disturbances caused by coastal constructions on spatial structure, growth dynamics and photosynthesis of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Mar. Pollut. Bull., 46: 1523-1533. RUIZ J.M., MARIN A., CALVO J.F., RAMIREZ-DIAZ L. (1993) - Inte- ractions between floodway and coastal constructions in Aguilas Bay (southeastern Spain). Ocean and Coastal Management, 19: 241-262. RUMBOLD D.G., DAVIS P.W., PERRETTA C. (2001) - Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. Restoration Ecology, 9: 304-310. SANCHEZ-JEREZ P., GILLANDERS B.M., RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ S., RA- MOS-ESPLA´ A. (2002) - Effect of an artificial reef in Posidonia meadows on fish assemblage and diet of Diplodus annularis. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 59: 59–68 Suppl. SCOPPOLA A., SPAMPINATO G. (2005) - Atlante delle specie a ri- schio di estinzione (CD-ROM). Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio, Direzione per la Protezione della Natura, Società Botanica Italiana, Univ. della Tuscia, Univ. di Roma la Sapienza. SPEYBROECK J., BONTE D., COURTENS W., GHESKIERE T., GRO- OTAERT P., MAELFAIT J.P., MATHYS M., PROVOOST S., SABBE K., STIENEN E.W.M., VAN LANCKER V., VINCX M., DEGRAER S. (2006) - Beach nourishment: an ecologically sound coastal defence alternative? A review. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 16: 419-435. VAN DOLAH R.F., CALDER D.R., KNOTT D.M. (1984) - Effects of dredging and open-water disposal on benthic macroinvertebra- tes in a South Carolina Estuary. Estuaries, 7(1): 28-37. VICINANZA D., GUIDA A., DI NATALE M. (2006) – Stabilizzazio- ne delle spiagge mediante drenaggio: il caso Ciraccio-Ciracciel- lo (isola di Procida, Napoli), XXX° Convegno di Irdaulica e Co- struzioni Idrauliche – IDRA 2006: 14 pp. http://files.meetup. com/216196/L329.pdf (last access: May 2010). WALLINGFORD H.R., BRAMPTON A., MOTYKA G., COATES T (2000) - A guide to managing coastal erosion in beach/dune systems. Scottish Natural Heritage. http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/ on-line/heritagemanagement/erosion/sitemap.shtml (ultimo accesso: maggio 2010). WALKER S.J., SCHLACHER T.A., THOMPSON L.M.C. (2008) - Habi- tat modification in a dynamic environment: The influence of a small artificial groyne on macrofaunal assemblages of a sandy beach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 79: 24-34.

64 COASTANCE Component 5 - Phase B1 report

WILBER D.H., CLARKE D.G., RAY G.L., BURLAS M. (2003) - Respon- se of surf zone fish to beach nourishment operations on the northern coast of New Jersey, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Se- ries, 250: 231-246.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/2007_07_im.pdf http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG :1992L0043:20070101:IT:PDF http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/global_species_ programme/red_list.htmlhttp://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mediterranean http://www.minambiente.it http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/criteres_commun.pdf http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/espece_danger.pdf http://www.rac-spa.org/dl/especes_regl.pdf http://ramsar.wetlands.org http://www.shoregro.com http://www.shoregro.com/pdfs/HV-BD-environment.pdf http://www.shoregro.com/P01_Home.html (last access: May 2010).