Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Based on
Degraer, S., U. Braeckman, J. Haelters, K. Hostens, T. Jacques, F. Kerckhof, B. Merckx, M. Rabaut, E. Stienen, G. Van Hoey, V. Van Lancker & M. Vincx (2009). Studie betreffende het opstellen van een lijst met potentiële Habitatrichtlijn gebieden in het Belgische deel van de Noordzee. Eindrapport in opdracht van de Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu, Directoraat-generaal Leefmilieu. Brussel, België. 93 pp. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: New areas has continously been mapped during the assessment period giving knowledge of more sandbanks. For the Marine Ranges, we used the Danish cost line to exclude that part of the area that was placed on land in order to only get the marine part of the range. Part of the difference in range from last periode is due to a new coastline maps used. Most of the change is due to mapping of new areas not previous mapped. The ongoing sand and gravel extraction is not expected to have an impact on range, only area. ||
->Coverage: Sand and gravel extraction do take place on sandbanks outside N-2000 sites reducing areas with sandbanks. It is however not known to what extend sand and gravel extraction reduce the overall area of banks. In the future the area reflect this habitat types real distribution is likely to increase. ||
->HabCondition: There is a general lack of biological data from many sites. When possible the same indicators have been used as in WFD in coastal waters. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The updating expected for 2021 of the "Atlas de praderas marinas de España", developed by "Instituto Español de Oceanografía" (IEO) for the Spanish Marine Strategy, will determine a significant contribution of relevant information for characterization of the importance of pressures and threats, condition of the habitat area, effectiveness of conservation measures, directions of trends, etc.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was estimated based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling.
The current range is considered to be the baseline value. The FRR is equal to the current range as there is no evidence of a decline since the Directive came into force and it is likely to encompass all geographical and ecological variation.
There is no evidence of any change to the range of this habitat feature in Ireland since the last reporting period. ||
->Coverage: Mapping of Sandbank habitat was completed primarily using GIS methods. The main source of information on the bathymetry was the UK Home Office Admiralty Charts. These were used because they provide a consistent 20m contour on which to estimate the margins of the Sandbank feature. A significant problem in calculating the national resource of Sandbanks in Ireland is applying a consistent rule to include or exclude the habitat feature. In the western and northern coasts the Sandbanks are apparently clearly defined and distinct in accordance with the Commission definition. The Irish Sea, which also holds the greatest resource of this feature, poses geographical difficulties. The shallower waters in the coastal zone of the southern Irish Sea show areas of Sandbank and in the northern part the features are noted to be in deeper waters. Because of this natural variability the best available approach is to look to the prominence or elevation of the habitat relative to its actual location and that of the surrounding waters and use expert judgement to define the lower limit. In deriving this estimate no areas below the 20m contour are identified because resolved contours generated by sea bed mapping data are incomplete across the range of the feature. There has been an extensive programme of sea bed mapping in Ireland over the last 15 years. Some areas fringing Sandbank habitat have been mapped and it is possible with more complete coverage in the future that a more complete map of Sandbank features may be possible. However, in mobile sediments with a high degree of turbidity it is likely that the most biologically important area would be already mapped using the current approach.
No impacts with the potential to lead to a change in the area of Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all of the time have been identified since the last reporting period. ||
->HabCondition: 69km2 of the total resource of 247km2 of the Sandbanks habitat within four Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) around the coast of Ireland were surveyed to assess the Structure and functions of this habitat during the current reporting period. This represents 28% of the total national resource for this habitat. The overall assessment of Structure and functions was Favourable.
A single Marine Community Type (MCT) is recorded for each of the sandbanks surveyed (Scally et al., in prep.). At the Blackwater Bank SAC and Long Bank SAC, off the east coast of Ireland, this consists of a fine sand community while at the Lower River Shannon SAC, a similar MCT but one comprised of slightly coarser sediments occurs. At Hempton’s Turbot Bank SAC, an MCT characteristic of much coarser sediment occurs. In all cases no changes to the MCTs, i.e. sediment structure or typical species, were recorded from the previous reporting period. These typical species included in the 2016-2017 survey are listed in field 6.7 above.
Sampling of the Hempton’s Turbot Bank SAC during the current reporting period, and in the past, has demonstrated that this sandbank feature is comprised of a considerable amount of very coarse sediment, typically cobble and broken shell. Therefore sampling with the use of a Day grab is not possible throughout the full extent of this habitat within this SAC. Samples can only be successfully retrieved from a limited amount of stations where pockets of sandy sediment occur. It is considered that the habitat within this SAC is not fully characteristic of the Sandbanks which are slightly submerged by sea water all the time habitat as described in the EU Interpretation manual. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is equal to Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in range is expected as the physical and geological nature of the habitat makes a change in range unrealistic.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable.
The potential for a significant change (increase or decrease) in the area is considered highly unlikely in the medium term.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable, as no change in area is expected based on the current threats, conservation measures and the physical structure of the habitat.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Good.

Current Structure and functions are assessed as Good.
An assessment of Good was recorded at all four sites assessed.
Short-term trend direction of Structure and functions is Stable.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Good.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Good. ||
->Conclusion: There have been no changes in Range or Area since the Directive came into force.
69km2 of the total resource of 247km2 of the Sandbanks habitat within four Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) around the coast of Ireland were surveyed to assess the Structure and functions of this habitat during the current reporting period. This represents 28% of the total national resource for this habitat.
This habitat is comprised of a low number of sublittoral soft sediment communities with a limited range of species and sediment types. No changes in any of the indicators used (change to typical species, change to sediment composition, and presence of negative indicator species) were identified at any of the stations sampled.
No visible pressures have been identified that are currently acting on the site. Potential threats to the habitat have been identified. However it is considered that the current process of appropriate assessment will prevent the identified threats leading to an impact.
Therefore all attributes were assessed as Favourable. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Distribution map is based on Bos et al. (2018), where 5 grid cells in the Eems-Dollard have been excluded (= 1130). Also the Range area and FRRange is corrected accordingly. For marine habitats 1110 to 1170 both the delivered maps and reported range are based upon data in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: The reported area has changed, but there is no good estimate available yet and no genuine trend in area. ||
->HabCondition: S&F analysis for subtypes B (5900 km2) and C (4700 km2) are based on the indicator BISI (Wijnhoven & Bos 2017), see Wijnhoven in Janssen et al. (2019) for the results of the analysis. S&F of subtype A (1300 km2) is unknown. The quality of H1110C was decreasing for years, but that decline has stopped recently. For H1110B, the quality status has been poor for years, but a first sign of improvement (based on dredge data only) has been observed recently. Based on this a positive trend is reported. ||
->Future: Current measures to reduce impacts of sea floor disturbing fisheries might be not sufficient for significant improvement of structure and function of H1110 at national level: the restricted areas are relatively small (10%) compared to the total surface area, and other fisheries have still significant impact. Although the water quality gradually improves, pollution will still have a negative impact on structure and function the coming (twelve) years. New threats are seafloor subsidence, possible arrival of invasive alien species and temperature changes, which are not completely encountered with the current measures taken. ||
->Conclusion: A large part (much more than 25%) of the area is unfavourable as regards its specific structures and functioning (including typical species), which means qualification of U2. Also in the previous reports (2007, 2013) the S&F should have been assessed as being U2. Considering this, the genuine change is a slightly positive trend. ||
->JustificationThreshold: 10% decrease/increase is used as threshold for all trends, due to uncertainty in data; a formula with 75%/25%-thresholds is used for conservation status of Structure & Function and Typical species. ||
->Other: Report by Sander Wijnhoven (Ecoauthor)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The favourable reference range is expected to be the same as the current value and is not expected to be changed since last reporting. The same data on national occurence are used as in the last reporting period, updated with the new data from Nature 2000 areas (NNK). The changes in NNK data are very small and therefore no changes are expected on biogeographical level. However, the new range tool calculate the range differently and the national boarders used in the tool are slightly different from last reporting resulting in new numbers of range. ||
->Coverage: There is no change in area covered by habitat from last reporting due to lack of new data. There are ongoing work on new models for improved interpretation and maps of the habitat area, however the results are not finalized in time for the reporting.
The current value of area is < ->HabCondition: During the reporting period measures have been taken limiting the fishing pressure, however, the results from this differs geographically (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018). In southern Kattegat there are increase in populations but this is not the case further north. The fishing pressures outside the restricted areas are still unsustainable for some species (e.g. cod).
The national monitoring on commercial fish stocks (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018) indicate that the populations of Platichthys flesus, Pleuronectes plates are stable and the later are considered well managed; Scophthalmus maximus are low but stable and Scophthalmus rombus are hard to evaluate due to small data but seems stable. The population of A. anguilla is not sustainable managed which is complicated by reduced recruiting capacity. The Cyclopterus lumpus shows signs of decreased population, and a lack of large individuals indicate high fishing pressure. The spring spawning Clupea harengus shows high mortality and low spawning biomass resulting in low recruitment for a long time, however, the autumn spawning population is in good condition. The situation differs between the Gadus morhua populations where the offshore populations seems to slowly recover, but the recovery of the genetically distinct inshore spawning populations are even slower and their future is in some cases still uncertain.
The national monitoring of fish health status (Mustamääki et al, 2018) with long time series (1992-2017) on Zoarces viviparous health indicators from the Fjällbacka area, considered as a low impacted reference area, reveals significant increase in EROD and GR activity this together with affected metabolism, lower fat content in muscle (lower bodyweight and condition) and an elevated rate of dead juveniles in females do clearly indicate an overall negative trend in health status. The cause of this deteriorating status is still unclear but the unknown contaminants has been suggested.
New studies shows that there is ongoing (2004-2015) loss of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) in certain areas (municipalities of Kungälv and Stenungsund; some parts of Tjörn and Orust). In these areas only small remains (2-23%) of the beds found in the 1980 (by then among the largest ones in the region) are still existing (Erinander et al. 2017; Moksnes et al. 2018). In these areas the situation is very bad. However, in Gullmarsfjorden, Halland and Skåne no ongoing decline is observed (but historical data is missing).

4 of the typical species are red listed in 2015 national red list; Zostera noltii (VU), Somateria mollissima (VU), Anguilla (CR) and Gadus morhua (VU). The former red listed Zoarces viviparus is now longer threatened (LC) (ArtDatabanken 2015). The S mollisima is decreasing 3% yearly during the reporting period. Also the Clangula hyemalis (LC) is decreasing during winter in the southern part of Sweden (Gren et al. 2017). However, the population of Gavia stellata (NT) is small but increasing.

The analysis of the physical disturbances during the reporting period (Törnqvist et al. In prep; Törnqvist personal com.), shows that about 21 % of the area of sandbanks in Marine Atlantic region is significantly or highly effected by bottom trawling (sum of the two highest classes of disturbance within the analysis class 3 (significant) and class 4 (high)). The choice of using only the highest classes of disturbance is due to the need for further analysis on the actual impact on habitat biota (Näslund and Sandman. 2019) if all three classes indicating some or higher disturbances, over 50% of the habitat area is effected from trawling. This despite that bottom trawling is not allowed in shallow (< 25 m) and large coastal areas are protected from bottom trawling (Sköld et al. 2018; Wikström et al 2018). However, other kind of physical disturbances (e.g. exploitation, dredging, swelling etc.) is low.

Due to implemented measures for limiting the anthropogenic load of nutrient to the coastal waters of the Swedish West Coast (Skagerrak and Kattegat), some water chemistry parameters (DIN, tot-N, chlorophyll, water transparency ) has been indicating improving trends while others has not (DIP, tot-P) (WISS, 2018; Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2016, Ejhed et al, 2016) and the trends for temperature and salinity is increasing. The overall trend for water quality for the offshore and coastal Skagerrak and Kattegat is a slight improvement. The overall assessment for the water status in offshore Kattegat is good and high for the offshore waters of Skagerrak. ||
->Future: - The future prospects of structure and functions of the habitat is set to Poor, and the assessment is due to the continuous medium pressures from agricultural, residential and recreational activities (e.g nutrient load); shipping lanes, coastline modification, commercial and recreational fishing and physical disturbances bottom trawling ||
->Conclusion: Despite initiative taken for the development of monitoring methods (e.g. visual monitoring with underwater video: fish recruitment; physical disturbance) and a program for biogeographical data collection it has, except for the physical disturbance, so far not been implemented. No monitoring data except for the analysis of physical disturbances has therefore been biogeographically generated within the Sandbanks 1110 in MATL. Therefore the conservation status of the structures and functions has been set mainly by expert assessment based on a limited amount of data.

Overall assessment:
-The condition of habitat is assessed mainly on extrapolation from a limited amount of data.
-The condition of habitat has not been classified by the county boards.
- The short-term trend of habitat condition is set as stable
-The conservation status of habitat structure, functions and typical species is set as: inadequate U1.
-The assessment is set due to the condition of the typical species, their population status and health condition, as indicators on the ecological function of the habitat. The assessment is also set in line with habitat quality conditions as well as the impact of physical disturbances. The assessment of structure and functions and typical species Sandbanks 1110 MATL are set considering the area being impacted by bottom trawling and the conditions of the typical species, the assessment is also considering the improvement indicated by measures taken for restricting fishing pressures and nutrient load. The situation for the Zostera beds is disparate with continuous loss in some areas.
- The future prospects of structure and functions of the habitat is set to Poor, and the assessment is due to the continuous medium pressures from agricultural, residential and recreational activities (e.g nutrient load); shipping lanes, coastline modification, commercial and recreational fishing and physical disturbances bottom trawling.
-In comparison with last reporting there is a change in the guidelines for the Conservation Status assessment according the definition and assessment of pressures and threats, which have had significant impact on the assessment. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 4.1-Range was calculated by JNCC using mapped data of the habitat in addition to the area of sloping sandy sediment habitat down to 60 m and connected to a sandbank in less than 20 m of water. The 60 m limit is equivalent to the deepest known sandbank contour (found at Dogger Bank SAC). Mapped data of the habitat has been created by combining existing data (i.e. sandbanks already mapped within SACs) with an analysis of bathymetric depth, slope and aspect and sediment data across UK waters' and is based on current best available evidence (JNCC, 2018a).
4.3-As this feature is defined by topography and substrate type, its range is determined by geological and/or hydrodynamic processes depending on the type of sandbank (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1452). The nature of these processes means that the geographic range of this feature is likely to have remained the same in recent geological times. Although the surface area of this feature may have declined due to the presence of infrastructure and abrasion, there is no evidence that has significantly affected the geographic spread of this feature. Therefore, the short-term trend is thought to be stable.
4.11-The mapping of this feature has been improved and updated since the last reporting round. There is also a new definition of sandbanks for some offshore marine protected areas where troughs of the banks included in addition to the actual elevated sandbanks. As a result of improved mapping and a definition change, the surface area of range for sandbanks is larger than the figure reported in 2019.
For further details see the 2019 UK Approach Document on the JNCC website.
The mapping of this feature has been improved and updated since the last reporting round. There is also a new definition of sandbanks for some offshore marine protected areas where troughs of the banks included in addition to the actual elevated sandbanks. As a result of improved mapping and a definition change, the surface area of range for sandbanks has changed from 103943 km2 to 105785 km2; an increase of 1841 km2. ||
->Coverage: 5.1-The data sources used to produce this map ranged from 1995 to 2016.
5.4-Area calculated by JNCC using mapped data of the habitat. This map has been created by combining existing data (i.e. sandbanks already mapped within SACs) with an analysis of bathymetric depth, slope and aspect and sediment data across UK waters and is based on current best available evidence. The 2013 UK Article 17 area data for Annex I sandbanks was revised at a UK level by the JNCC following updates submitted by the UK Country Agencies. For further details see JNCC website (JNCC 2018a).
5.6-Expert judgement was used to determine the overall short-term trend at the UK-level. Area is a more specific parameter than range and we don't generally have good enough data to establish a trend. Area of sandbanks are determined by the presence of suitable substrate and the hydrological regime maintaining the sandbank and is, therefore, unlikely to change significantly overtime. However, anthropogenic activities may have caused localised losses of area.
5.14-The mapping of this feature has been improved and updated since the last reporting round. There is also a new definition of sandbanks for some offshore marine protected areas where troughs of the banks included in addition to the actual elevated sandbanks. As a result of improved mapping and a definition change, the surface area is larger than the figure reported in 2019.
For further details see JNCC website for the 2019 UK Approach Document.
||
->HabCondition: 6.1-The area of habitat in 'good' (favourable), 'not good' (unfavourable) and unknown condition was assessed in each of the four inshore areas and also in the offshore area and the results were summed. 47% of the habitat is thought to be in unfavourable (not good) condition, 46% of the habitat is thought to be in favourable (good condition) and 7% of the habitat is in unknown condition. The structure and functions conservation status is, therefore, unfavourable-bad. In 2013, it was unfavourable-inadequate. The result is driven by the offshore sandbank assessment because the majority of sandbanks are located in the offshore area. The change in status of this parameter, is due to a change in method with the indicator 'Extent of Physical Damage to Predominant and Special Habitats (BH3)' (OSPAR Commission, 2017) being used to assess the condition of offshore sandbanks. This indicator is adapted from the vulnerability assessment method that was used to assess offshore sandbanks in 2013. It is a more refined method and allows for updated datasets to be incorporated. It is, therefore, a more accurate assessment of condition. However, there is low confidence in the assessment. See the offshore-level reporting information for detailed methods (JNCC website).
6.4- The short-term trend of habitat in good condition was assessed in each of the four inshore areas and in the offshore area and the results were aggregated (see 2019 UK Approach Document). The short -term trend is decreasing. The trend was also decreasing in 2013.
For details on the approaches taken in this section see the JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and relevant country- and offshore-level reporting information. ||
->Future: Future trends for each parameter were selected for the four countries' inshore areas and for the offshore area. Results were then aggregated to give a future trend for the UK (see 2019 UK Approach Document). Table 32 in the EU Guidelines was used to bring the future trend and conservation status of each parameter together to conclude on future prospects.
9.1a) The Future prospects are good because the future trend for range is thought to be stable and the range conclusion is favourable. The future prospects were also good in 2013.
9.1b) The future prospects are poor because the future trend for area is thought to be negative and the area conclusion is unknown. The future prospects were unknown in 2013. The future trend has been identified as negative as a result of windfarm developments that are predicted to impact large areas of offshore sandbanks and because fisheries management measures are not currently in place. The trend could potentially be very negative, however, negative has been selected as a result of low confidence in the data.
9.1c) The future prospects are bad because the trend for structure and functions is thought to be negative and the structure and functions conclusion is unfavourable-bad. The future prospects were poor in 2013. This change was the result of improved knowledge on trends and a change in the structure and functions conclusion. The future trend has been identified as negative as a result of windfarm developments that are predicted to impact large areas of offshore sandbanks and because fisheries management measures are not currently in place. The trend could potentially be very negative, however, negative has been selected as a result of low confidence in the data.
For further details on approaches taken in this section see JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and relevant country/offshore-level reporting information. ||
->Conclusion: 10.1-Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
10.2-Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is uncertain; (ii) the current Area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
10.3-Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition. 47% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition, 46% of the habitat is in favourable (good) condition and 7% of the habitat is in unknown condition.
The conclusion for the parameter has changed from unfavourable-inadequate to unfavourable-bad due to a change in methods. An improved method was used which incorporated the most recent datasets. There is low confidence in the assessment.
10.4-Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are poor; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
The conclusion for this parameter has changed from unfavourable-inadequate (2013) to unfavourable-bad as a result of improved knowledge on trends and a change to the structure and functions conclusion.
10.5-Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
10.6-Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - uncertain, and Structure and functions - decreasing.
10.7a-The Overall Assessment of Conservation Status has changed because the conclusion for Structure and functions has changed from Unfavourable-inadequate to Unfavourable- bad, as a result of an improved method. The Future prospects has changed from Unfavourable-inadequate to Unfavourable-bad as a result of improved knowledge and as result of the change to the structure and functions conclusion, which influences future prospects.
10.7b-The Overall Trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 (stable) and 2019 (unknown). This is a methodological change because of the removal of the Future Prospects trend from the 2019 method used to assess Overall Trend. 2013: Range = stable, Area = unknown, S&F= declining, FP = unknown. 2019: Range=stable, Area = uncertain, S&F = decreasing, [FP not included].
||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report