Powan (Coregonus lavaretus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bony fish (Actinopterygii) > Fish |
| Red List Status: | Endangered (Not Relevant) [EN(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | Schelly, Whitefish |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Coregonus lavaretus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Nunn et al., 2023 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Continuing decline and restricted geographic range mean there is no possibility of a rescue effect in the event of a population extinction. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Monitoring required of index sites and water quality and hydrology needs to be managed at these specific sites. |
| 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: | Would benefit from wider habitat management that will positively impact the Lakes (i.e. sediment management) |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Climate change |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Monitoring of this species on a lake by lake basis relies heavily on hydroacoustic monitoring by boat, and this is no longer routinely undertaken. Monitoring constraints currently exist due to training requirements needed to meet Coastguard regulations. Monitoring is entirely insufficient at present. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Agree with stakeholders suitable drawdown regime to remove hydrological impacts associated with drawdown in Haweswater Reservoir and consider action to address hydrological modification at other sites.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Habitat management
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: 1 site
High priority sites: Ullswater
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Implement regular monitoring within schelly sites to record population trends and efficacy of catchment restoration actions related to water quality and naturalised hydrology. Population statistics will be used to inform decision making regarding future conservation actions.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Ullswater, Haweswater, Brotherswater and Red Tarn
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Review biosecurity threats and minimise associated risk to existing populations such as live baiting or the introduction of invasive non-native fish and macrophyte species. Determine risk pathways and adopt robust biosecurity measures.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: ≤ 5 sites
High priority sites: Ullswater, Haweswater, Brotherswater and Red Tarn
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.