White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Invertebrate > crustacean > Crustacean |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Austropotamobius pallipes |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Lereboullet, 1858) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Population in England declined by est. 70% (may be more), due to introduction of INNS crayfish, habitat loss and water pollution. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Listed in the British Odonata Red Data List (Daguet et al., 2008) as Near Threatened (qualified under B2 but could not meet the additional criterion). The majority of the British population is located in England. However, the State of Dragonflies in Britain and Ireland 2021 report found that the species significantly increased in occupancy in England from 1970-2019 (Taylor et al., 2021). |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Riparian tree structural diversity & general restoration of natural functionality of river systems will aid WCC. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Pathogen, hybridisation, INNS |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | The England & Wales Crayfish Steering Group have decided priority actions, which include co-ordination of local conservation effort by regional partnerships, targeted monitoring to obtain current distribution data, mapping to make data accessible, investigation & creation of Ark sites, promotion of bio-security, advise to landowners and developers, increased protection under Wildlife & Countryside Act, Scientific research of novel diseases, INNS crayfish control, reduction of water quality, water resource and habitat pressures. Current funding for delivery and coordination is ad hoc. The most comprehensive and up to date guidance for White-clawed crayfish conservation is the Crayfish Conservation Manual, 2021. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Expand the programmes of translocation of WCC to safe Ark sites to maintain the catchment genetic stocks with a future aim of re-establishing the GB population.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Ex situ conservation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 100 sites
High priority sites: FCS Aim is to have a functional ark site in each WFD operational catchment of historic range.
Comments: It is time consuming to investigate and implement Ark sites- staff resource rather than capital resource is required. Ark sites are needed ASAP as 1-2 populations of WCC are being lost every year.
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Monitoring is currently ad hoc and only covers small areas of WCC historic range. Improvement and expansion of monitoring can provide up to date distribution data of WCC & INNS crayfish to protect remaining populations and plan ark sites. This includes the need for a national online mapping portal to capture both the presence of ark sites, of native WCC watercourses, and of signal crayfish populations.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites: For all of historic range
Comments: See Habitats Directive report for historical range (JNCC, 2019) Whilst survey effort could be improved, there is an urgent need for a national online mapping programme to capture both the presence of ark sites, of native WCC watercourses, and of signal crayfish populations. Some community effort has been collating the ark sites from across all the county groups but the data has no clear and sharable home. It needs a mapping portal to track but progress and how close we are to the FCS target.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Research is urgently needed into novel diseases/symbiotic relationships and disease resistance in a changing climate, to determine cause of mass mortality of WCC in the North East, alongside genome sequencing to start the process of identifying a way to gene edit Signal crayfish as a control method, as there can’t be recovery of white-clawed crayfish unless INNS crayfish species are controlled.
Action targets: 2. Biological status assessment exists
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 20 sites
High priority sites: National
Comments:
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.