Article 17 web tool

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: 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. The difference in range from last periode is due to a new coastline maps used.
The national mapping of habitattype 1150 is not complete.
The favorable reference area is judged to be equal to the real distribution of the habitat today, although the figure is still not correctly reflected in this area analysis. ||
->Coverage: The national mapping of habitattype 1150 is not complete, but more areas are added compared to last reporting period.
The favorable reference area is judged to be equal to the real distribution of the habitat today, although the figure is still not correctly reflected in this area analysis. ||
->HabCondition: Evaluation done based on chlorophyll in those beach lakes were data exists. Two sets of targets sepereating good and bad status have been used.
Lakes with middel depth ≤ 3m mean summer chlorophyl: 25 µg/l
Lakes with mean depth > 3m mean summer chlorophyl: 12 µg/l ||
->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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Beaucoup de pressions agissent sur les lagunes mais elles sont mieux en mieux prises en compte dans les documents de gestion. ||
->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 calculation of range was refined for the 2007-2012 assessment using more accurate mapping and this value was also used for the current assessment. As there is no evidence of a true change since the Directive came into force and there is no reason to assume that the range is not large enough to allow for the long-term survival of the habitat, the current range is set as the Favourable Reference Range. Range is stable and not smaller than the Favourable Reference Range and is therefore assessed as Favourable.
The short-term trend was assessed as stable over the period 2005-2018; this is assumed to hold also over the default trend period of 2007-2018. Similarly, the long-term range was assessed as stable over the period 1996-2018, and this is assumed to hold over the default trend period of 1994-2018. ||
->Coverage: The habitat was first surveyed between 1996 and 2006 and some sites were revisited in 2016-2017 for NPWS and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Surveys on behalf of the EPA were carried out between 2009 and 2012. These are described in more detail below.
The reporting period for the short-term trend is 2007-2018, but as a survey event was carried out over the 2005/2006 period, the period over which the trend was assessed was extended back to 2005. However, it is assumed that the trend assessment also applies across the default trend period.
The short-term trend was assessed as stable. 27 lagoons were surveyed between 2005 and 2006 in order to complete the surveys of all known lagoons in the Republic of Ireland (Oliver 2005, 2007; Roden, 2004). Between 2009 and 2012 the EPA commissioned surveys of 25 lagoons as part of Ireland’s obligations under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Roden & Oliver, 2012); over this period 18 lagoons were sampled on 12 occasions between September 2009 and August 2012. The remaining lagoons were sampled between three and eight times during this period. Between 2016 and 2017 the EPA in conjunction with the NPWS commissioned surveys of 39 lagoons as part of Ireland’s obligations under the WFD and Habitats Directive. 58 of the 89 lagoon sites have been surveyed during the reporting period (AQUAFACT & Roden Oliver Associates, 2017; Roche et al. in prep.), which represents 70.6% of the lagoon habitat area in the country. Aerial photographs of the remaining 31 sites were examined using Bing maps (bing.com). There is no evidence to suggest a true change in area.
Surveys of Irish lagoons did not commence until 1996 and as a result the period over which the long-term trend was assessed (1996-2018) was shorter than the default reporting period (1994-2018), but the trend is assumed to be the same over the default period. The long-term trend is stable. 88 of the 89 lagoon sites have been surveyed during the reporting period which represents 99.98% of the lagoon habitat in the country (AQUAFACT & Roden Oliver Associates, 2017; Roche et al. in prep.). Coornagillah has not been surveyed (0.5ha; 0.02% of total habitat area).
As there is no evidence of a true change since the Directive came into force and there is no reason to assume that the area is not large enough to allow for the long-term survival of the habitat, the current area (24.2km2) is set as the Favourable Reference Area. The true area of habitat is stable and is not smaller than the Favourable Reference Area and is without significant changes in distribution pattern within the range. Therefore Area is assessed as Favourable. ||
->HabCondition: A lagoon in a Favourable condition, as determined by the site-specific conservation objectives (https://www.npws.ie/protected-sites), is said to have a median annual salinity and temporal variation within natural range; annual water level fluctuations and minima within natural range; appropriate hydrological connections between lagoons and sea including, where necessary, appropriate management; annual median chlorophyll a within natural ranges and <5µg/l (or <2.5 µg/l in one case); annual median MRP within natural ranges and <0.1mg/l (or <0.01mg/l in one case); annual median DIN within natural ranges and less than 0.15mg/l, macrophyte colonisation to maximum depth for shallow (<2m) lagoons or to >2m (or >4m) for all other lagoons; maintain number and extent of listed plant lagoonal specialists, subject to natural variation, maintain listed animal lagoonal specialists, subject to natural variation, and negative indicator species absent or under control.
The main reason that sites failed the Structure and functions assessment was predominantly water quality followed by barrier condition. Using this assessment method, 366.01 ha (15.1% of the total habitat area) was rated as Favourable, 924.24 ha (38.13% of the total habitat area) was rated as Unfavourable-Inadequate and 1,133.67 ha (46.77% of the total habitat area) was rated as Unfavourable-Bad.
It has been observed during the current reporting period that increases in BOD and in peaty sedimentation from catchments in formerly good-quality lagoons, presumably resulting from activities relating to peat extraction and forestry, have reduced the quality of a number of lagoons.
There are two changes to the typical species list. The amphipod Allomelita pellucida was on earlier lists but is now regarded as a “rare species” but not as a lagoonal specialist. The “Baltic prawn” Palaemon adspersus has now been added to the list following records of its occurrence for the first time in four lagoons in Ireland in 2017. ||
->Future: In relation to hydrographic functioning, there is potential to control anthropogenic impacts. For some sites (Tacumshin, Shannon, L. Donnell, Maghery and Lady's Island Lake) issues of drainage and hydrology have arisen but progress to resolve them is slow.
The most widespread issue concerning lagoons is water quality. In the current survey all lagoons on the south and east coasts showed evidence of eutrophication ranging from moderate to very severe (AQUAFACT & Roden Oliver Associates, 2017). There has been no improvement in this situation since 2007. Occasional algal blooms in lagoons are typically a natural process especially in response to a change in salinity and the addition of a limiting nutrient, such as phosphate in seawater; this may trigger a bloom when mixed with nitrate-rich river water. However man-made blooms can be almost permanent and can result in obvious fish-kills. These appear to be a much more recent phenomenon, probably associated with intensification of agricultural practices within the catchment of watercourses entering lagoons. As a consequence, Future prospects must be considered Unfavourable-Bad. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range and Area are Favourable in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Bad in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status for the current reporting period is Unfavourable-Bad, as it was the last reporting period.
The overall trend in Conservation Status is assessed as deteriorating in the current reporting period. This is a genuine decline since the previous reporting period, when the trend was assessed as stable.
An example of recent decline is the siltation of lagoons with peaty silt in parts of the west, especially Connemara, in previously High/Good-quality oligotrophic lagoons. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 4.1-The range was considered equivalent to the surface area. Coastal lagoons are physiographic features and so their range is determined primarily by geomorphological and hydrographic processes occurring over long time-scales and is not related to biological communities or processes supported by communities.
4.3-The occurrence of this habitat is defined by physiographic processes over long time-scales. While the surface area of some of these individual habitats may have declined due to localised pressures, the geographic spread and distribution of features is not thought to have been reduced.
4.11-As a result of improved mapping of the habitat, the surface area of range in UK Coastal Lagoons is larger than the figure reported in 2013.
For further details on the approach taken in this section please refer to the JNCC website for the 2019 UK Approach Document. ||
->Coverage: 5.1-The data sources used to produce this map ranged from 1994 to 2018.
5.4-The 2013 UK Article 17 area data for Annex I Coastal Lagoons 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 short-term trend direction at the UK-level. The short-term trend is stable. The largest proportion of this feature is in Scotland, where the trend is thought to be stable; Loch a Bhruga was lost via a coast protection scheme, although it is a small loss. There are reported losses in Wales, which are very small relative to the entire lagoon resource. The short-term trend is uncertain in England and stable in Northern Ireland.
5.14-As a result of improved mapping of the habitat, the surface area UK Coastal Lagoons is larger than the figure reported in 2013.
For further details of methods see JNCC website for 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 countries and the results were summed. 9% of the habitat is thought to be in unfavourable (not good) condition, 75% of the habitat is thought to be in favourable (good condition) and 15% of the habitat is in unknown condition. The structure and functions conservation status is, therefore, unfavourable-inadequate, it was also unfavourable-inadequate in 2013.
6.4-The short-term trend of habitat in good condition was assessed by the four countries and the results were aggregated (see 2019 UK Approach Document). Scotland has the largest proportion of UK Coastal Lagoons and reported a stable short-term trend along with Northern Ireland. The short-term trend was also stable in 2013.
For details on the approaches taken in this section see JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and country-level reporting information. ||
->Future: Future trends for each parameter were selected by the four countries and 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 trend of range is stable because the range of this habitat is not expected to change in the next 12 years. Future prospects are good because the future trend of range is stable and the conservation status of range is Favourable. Future prospects were also good in 2013.
9.1b) The future trend of area is unknown because lagoons are likely to be susceptible to climate change, but it is unclear what will happen as a consequence of this. This explains why Future prospects for this parameter have changed from good (2013) to unknown.
9.1c) The future trend of structure and functions is unknown, because lagoons are likely to be susceptible to climate change, but it is unclear what will happen as a consequence of this. Future prospects are, therefore, unknown and were also unknown in 2013.
For further details on the approaches used in this section please refer to the JNCC website for 2019 UK Approach Document and country-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 stable; and (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 between c.5-25% of the habitat is in unfavourable condition. 9% of the habitat is thought to be in unfavourable (not good) condition, 75% of the habitat is thought to be in good condition and 15% of the habitat is in unknown condition.
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 unknown; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are unknown.
The conclusion for Future Prospects was Favourable in 2013, however, this has changed to Unknown because lagoons are likely to be susceptible to climate change, but it is unclear what will happen as a consequence of this. See Scotland's country-level reporting information for more details.
10.5-Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because two or more of the conclusions are Unfavourable-inadequate.
10.6-Overall trend in Conservation Status is based on the combination of the short-term trends for Range - stable, Area covered by habitat - stable, and Structure and functions - stable.
For methods see JNCC website for the 2019 UK Approach Document and country-level reporting information. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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: 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: Removal of some habitat features from the habitat distribution dataset may have resulted in minor changes in the range. Other changes in the range are due to range tool characteristics. ||
->Coverage: Some glo lakes that had very high elevation and no marine connection were removed from the reported dataset. ||
->HabCondition: The minimum area in not-good condition was estimated based on spatial data on known human activities within the habitat. If either the human activities or the use of coastline or a combination of these exceeded 20 % of the habitat coverage, the whole habitat feature was assessed to be in bad condition. Also an index on macrophyte community structure, based on VELMU inventory data, was used to assess the state of the lagoons. The maximum area in not-good condition was assessed based on the areal coverage of the habitat having other than good ecological status as reported under the EU Water Framework Directive.

Macrophyte community structure index modified from:
Hansen J. 2012. Benthic vegetation in shallow inlets of the Baltic Sea. Analysis of human influences and proposal of a method for assessment of ecological status. Plants & Ecology. Stockholm University. ||
->Future: There might be small-scale spatial shifts in the locations and coverages of the coastal lagoons due to coastal land uplift. This does not probably effect the overall area of the habitat because even though some lagoons are slowly reduced in size and finally lost, new lagoons are also formed at the same time. ||
->Conclusion: As explained in the reporting guidelines (p. 85) trend magnitudes should be considered. In this case the decreasing trend of structure and functions is so minor that it does not justify the overall trend to be D. ||
->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: Range based on current range and coastal processes. ||
->Coverage: The information sources indicated before - monitoring data on coastal processes, specific research on Randu meadows, master theses, etc. ||
->HabCondition: During reporting period there has been research of lagoon species and quality. Accordingly to it 20% of all lagoons are on good condition, but in bad ~ 40-50% (Ločmele L. 2015. Indikatori piekrastes lagūnu biotopu struktūras un funkciju novērtēšanai. Maģistra darbs. Latvijas Universitāte, Rīga.) ||
->Future: Management needed for old lagoons ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: In prevous report the habitat surface area was 0.22 km2, now the area is evaluated as 0,19 km2. It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based mainly on N2000 sites assesment, but now assessment inludes all sites. ||
->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 the trend stable. The small change in area of the habitat does not affect the distribution since the last reporting period. The changes in the counties and in NNK data are very small and therefore no changes are expected on biogeographical level of range. 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: Favourable reference area is set to be less than current value due to a decrease since 1995, mainly due to high exploitation and dredging along the Swedish coast. The change in current value is a technical change due to better knowledge and improved mapping of the habitat at the counties. Analysis of physical pressures from SGU (Törnqvist, pers com.) show low pressure during the reporting period indicating no further loss why the trend is set as stable. ||
->HabCondition: Typical Species

According to the national monitoring on commercial fishstocks (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2018; Olsson 2019) there is indications that the populations of some of the typical species fish for the habitat in BOR such as pike, Esox lucius, is suffering from high fishing pressure by especially recreational fishing and predation from sticklebacks (Olsson, 2019). However, the populations of perch, Perca fluviatilis, which is also benefitting from increased temperatures and decreased salinity, are considered as sufficient. The populations of Pleuronectes platessa and Platichthys flesus, are stable and the later are indicated to increasing in inshore areas.

There are several studies that indicate that the loss in large carnivorous fish populations (e.g. cod, but also pike and perch and pikeperch) within Swedish marine waters have significant impact on the ecological status of coastal ecosystems. The cause of the loss has primarily been the fishing pressure. In the Baltic there is a further need for decreased fishing pressure and an increase in restricted/protected areas (Bergström et al, 2016; Helcom 2018, Olsson et al, 2019). For the offshore cod population the commercial fisheries causes a significant pressure, but for the inshore coastal populations it is the recreational fishing that have the largest impact, but also local predation from seals and cormorants (more knowledge needed) and other fish (e.g. Sticklebacks on pike and perch), and loss of recruiting habitat (Hansen et al, 2018; Sundblad & Bergström 2014) may impact on population development (Hansson et al, 2017; Bergström et al 2016). Lagoons in the Baltic are considered as an important vegetated fish habitat (e.g. nursery) and as especially sensitive to possible trophic cascade initiated by the lack of the carnivorous fish (for more information see below).

The national monitoring of fish health status with long time series (1992-2017) on Zoarces viviparous and Perca fluviatilis health indicators from the three different areas in along the Swedish Baltic coast (Holmöarna, Torhamn, Kvädö), 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 (Mustamääki et al, 2018a-c). The cause of this deteriorating status is still unclear but the unknown contaminants has been suggested, despite decreased concentrations of monitored contaminants. The status of the health of Z. viviparous and P fluviatilis can probably be considered as an indication on current fish health along the Baltic, but more knowledge is preferable for strengthening the effects on the specific habitat.
No one of the habitats typical species is red listed (ArtDatabanken, 2015).

Habitat quality

The analysis of the physical disturbances during the reporting period (Törnqvist et al. In prep; Törnqvist personal com/PM.), show that 7 % of the area of the coastal lagoons in the Swedish boreal region is significantly or highly (sum of the two highest classes of disturbance within the analysis class 3 (significant) and class 4 (high)) effected by physical disturbances (e.g. exploitation, dredging, swelling etc.). 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 Nyström Sandman. Pers. com (PM)). If all three classes indicating some or higher disturbances, 13 % of the habitat area are affected. This implies that only a moderate area of the habitat have been modified within the reporting period and that the impact on ecosystem functions are moderate or low. However, considering the specific conditions of the habitat suggested to, since long time, being highly targeted for physical disturbances by dredging and/or removal of thresholds, it is likely that such impact, if the specific structure is not restored, will act continuously on habitat structure and functions for an extensive time even after the event. Therefore the assessment of the condition of habitat structures and functions reflects such insistent and negative influence in accordance to absent or limited measures taken.
As only less than 3 % of the habitat area is situated along the coast of Skagerrak and the rest is more or less equally distributed along the Boreal Baltic Sea and Bothnian coast the water quality of the habitat have been assessed considering this geographical distribution. Due to the classification within WISS the quality status for the inshore coastal waters are varying from high to bad considering DIN, tot-N, DIP and tot-P and transparency where the best quality being seen in Bothnian Sea. The trend is stable except for phosphorus that is somewhat increasing especially in the Bothnian Sea probably due to the internal load within the offshore Baltic. The impact from local residential load and disturbances can be considerable in shallow semi-enclosed lagoons (Ejhed et al 2017).

The shortage of carnivorous fish are considered in the Baltic to lead to deteriorating habitat quality especially due to an increase in filamentous algae competing with important macrophytes, caused by a trophic cascade (Östeman, et al, 2016 Eriksson et al, 2011; Donadi et al. 2017). This is especially the case on shallow and vegetated soft bottoms such as the coastal lagoons. ||
->Future: -The future prospects of structure and functions for 1150 BOR is set as: Poor
The assessment is set due to continuous high pressure from the shortage of carnivorous fish (e.g. recreational fishing) and the medium pressure from physical disturbances (modification of coastline e.g. dredging, exploitation), agricultural and residential or recreational activities generating indirect or direct nutrient load or pollution and as well the continuous deterioration of fish health. ||
->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 Coastal Lagoons 1150 in BOR. Therefore the conservation status of the structures and functions has been set mainly by expert assessment and extrapolation 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 condition of habitat structure and functions is set as: Bad U2.
- The assessment is set due to the condition of the typical species, their population status and development and their health conditions, as indicators on the ecological function of the habitat. The assessment is also set in line with habitat quality conditions. The assessment for Coastal lagoons 1150 BOR is set in line with habitat quality conditions also when considering measures taken and the indicated decrease in anthropogenic load. That the habitat area being significantly or highly physical disturbed during the reporting period are low/moderate has also been considered especially regarding the short-term trend. However, for the assessment of the overall condition also physical disturbances/bottom modification (e g dreading and removal of thresholds) made before the current reporting period are considered. In the absence of specific measures these are estimated to have continuous long-term negative impact on habitat structures and functions. Therefore the assessment is set as bad U2.
-The future prospects of structure and functions for 1150 BOR is set as: Poor
The assessment is set due to continuous high pressure from the shortage of carnivorous fish (e.g. recreational fishing) and the medium pressure from physical disturbances (modification of coastline e.g. dredging, exploitation), agricultural and residential or recreational activities generating indirect or direct nutrient load or pollution and as well the continuous deterioration of fish health.
-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: 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: 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. Some of the difference in range from last periode is due to a new coastline maps used.
The national mapping of habitattype 1150 is not complete, but more areas are added compared to last reporting period.
The favorable reference range is judged to be equal to the real distribution of the habitat today, although the figure is still not correctly reflected in this range analysis. ||
->Coverage: The national mapping of habitattype 1150 is not complete, but more areas are added compared to last reporting period.
The favorable reference area is judged to be equal to the real distribution of the habitat today, although the figure is still not correctly reflected in this area analysis. ||
->HabCondition: Evaluation done based on chlorophyll in those beash lakes were data exists. Two sets of targets sepereating good and bad status have been used.
Lakes with middel depth ≤ 3m mean summer chlorophyl: 25 µg/l
Lakes with mean depth > 3m mean summer chlorophyl: 12 µg/l ||
->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: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->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: Różnica w powierzchni siedliska wynika z odmiennej niż w poprzednim okresie monitoringu interpretacji definicji siedliska i lepszego rozpoznania specyfiki zbiorników strefy przymorskiej. Po analizie definicji siedliska oraz specyfiki hydrologicznej i hydrochemicznej oraz biocenotycznej zbiorników wodnych do niego zaliczanych dotychczas oraz innych zbiorników mogących spełniać jego kryteria, proponuje się ostatecznie zaliczyć do siedliska jeziora: Bukowo, Gardno, Jamno, Kopań, Koprowo, Liwia Łuża, Łebsko, Resko Przymorskie, Sarbsko, Wicko oraz Zalew Kamieński, Zalew Szczeciński i Zalew Wiślany (Michałek i in. 2015). ||
->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 the trend stable. The same data on national occurrence is 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: Favourable reference area is set to be less than current value due to a decrease since 1995, mainly due to high exploitation and dredging in coastal lagoons along the Swedish coast. There is no change of current value since last reporting. Analysis of physical pressures from SGU (Törnqvist, pers com.) show low pressure during the reporting period indicating no further loss why the trend is set as stable. ||
->HabCondition: Typical Species

According to the national Swedish monitoring of some commercial fish species (Havs och pical species fish being commercial have been monitored (Havs och vattenmyndigheten, 2018) for Esox lucius and Perca fluviatilis the figures are limited to the Baltic part of the continental region. The information on E lucius indicates a high fishing pressure, small populations and weak recruitment due to exploitation of nursery habitat and predation. For P fluviatilis the populations are considered as sufficient and benefitting from higher temperatures and decreased salinity. Pleuronectes platessa Scophthalmus maximus are reported to be stable and the same for Platichthys flesus which is also slightly increasing (coastal breeding).

There are several studies that indicate that the loss in large carnivorous fish populations (e.g.. cod, pike, perch and pikeperch) within Swedish marine waters have significant impact on the ecological status of especially coastal shallow soft bottom ecosystems. The cause of the loss has primarily been the fishing pressure. For cod along the Swedish West Coast has the commercial fishing being contributed with the largest pressure both offshore and in inshore areas. Regulations for restricting the fishing pressure has been implemented, but the populations have still not recovered for uncertain reasons, why ecological regime shifts and/or high predation pressure has been suggested but more knowledge are needed (Aarts et al). In the Baltic there is a further need for decreased fishing pressure and increase in restricted/protected areas (Bergström et al, 2016; Helcom 2018, Olsson et al, 2019). For the inshore coastal populations it is the recreational fishing that have the largest impact, but also local predation from seals and cormorants (more knowledge needed) and other fish (e.g. Sticklebacks on pike and perch), and loss of recruiting habitat (Hansen et al, 2018; Sundblad & Bergström 2014) may impact on population development (Hansson et al, 2017; Bergström et al 2016). The loss of carnivorous fish has impact on the ecological functions and overall condition on lagoons due to the risk of trophic cascades.

The national monitoring of fish health status with long time series (1992-2017) on Zoarces viviparous and Perca fluviatilis health indicators from the three different areas in along the Swedish Baltic coast (Holmöarna, Torhamn, Kvädö), 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 (Mustamääki et al, 2018a-c). The cause of this deteriorating status is still unclear but unknown contaminants have been suggested, despite decreased concentrations of monitored contaminants. The status of the health of Z. viviparous and P fluviatilis can probably be considered as an indication on current fish health along the Baltic, but more knowledge is preferable for strengthening the effects on the specific habitat.

One of the habitats typical species (TA) is red listed Lamprothamnium papulosum (EN decreasing habitat area and quality) (ArtDatabanken 2015).

Habitat quality

The analysis of the physical disturbances during the reporting period (Törnquist et al. In prep; Törnqvist personal com/PM.), show that 7% of the area of the coastal lagoons within the Continental region is significantly or highly (sum of the two highest classes of disturbance within the analysis class 3 (significant) and class 4 (high)) effected by physical disturbances (e.g. exploitation, dredging, swelling etc.). 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 Nyström Sandman. Pers. com (PM)). If all three classes indicating some or higher disturbances are considered, 11 % of the habitat area are affected. All in all, this indicate that moderate areas of the habitat are modified and the impact on ecosystem functions are low or moderate. However, considering the specific conditions of the habitat suggested to, since long time, being highly targeted for physical disturbances by dredging and/or removal of thresholds, it is likely that such impact, if the specific structure is not restored, will act continuously on habitat structure and functions for an extensive time even after the event. Therefore the assessment of the condition of habitat structures and functions reflects such insistent and negative influence in accordance to absent or limited measures taken. In addition, there is a considerable historical loss of the habitat (before 1980) within the region (e.g. Blekinge) due to damming for agricultural land (Lindahl et al. 2014).

As the major part (74%) of the habitat area within the region is situated within the inshore Southern Baltic Sea the water quality of the habitat have been assessed regarding its geographical distribution. Due to the classification within WISS the water quality status in inshore coastal waters in the southern Baltic Sea is moderate or unsatisfactory considering DIN, tot-N, DIP, tot-P and transparency. The trend is decreasing for nitrogen but increasing for phosphorus (internal load). The lagoons situated along the coast of Kattegat and Skagerrak the conditions are stable and increasing (Havsmiljöinstitutet, 2018: WISS, 2018). The specific and local impact on water quality within lagoons can be considerable being sensitive, quite small with a long turnover rate.

The shortage of carnivorous fish are considered in the Baltic to lead to deteriorating habitat quality especially due to an increase in filamentous algae competing with important macrophytes, such as Zostera, caused by a trophic cascade (Östeman, et al, 2016 Eriksson et al, 2011; Donadi et al. 2017). This is especially the case on shallow and vegetated soft bottoms such as the coastal lagoons. ||
->Future: -The future prospects of structure and functions for 1150 CON is set as: Poor
The assessment is set due to the continuous high pressure from the shortage in big carnivorous fish and the medium pressure from physical disturbances (coastal modification) and agricultural, residential or recreational activities generating nutrient load and pollution. ||
->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 Coastal Lagoons 1150 in CON. Therefore the conservation status of the structures and functions has been set mainly by expert assessment and extrapolation 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 condition of habitat structure and functions is set as: Bad U2.
- The assessment is set due to the condition of the typical species, their population status and development and their health conditions, as indicators on the ecological function of the habitat. The assessment is also set in line with habitat quality conditions. The assessment for Coastal lagoons 1150 CON is set in line with habitat quality conditions also after considering measures taken and the decrease in anthropogenic load. The area being significantly or highly physical disturbed has showed to be low or moderate which has been considered within the assessment of the short time trend. However, for the assessment of the overall condition also physical disturbances/bottom modification (e g dreading and removal of thresholds) made before the current reporting period are considered. In the absence of specific measures these are estimated to have continuous long-term negative impact on habitat structures and functions. Therefore the assessment is set as bad U2. ||
->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: N/A ||
->Coverage: On the whole distribution, a reduction in surface was only observed in one locality from Gran Canaria (mouth of the Tijarana creek) ||
->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: Two of the coastal lagoons received conservation action by a LIFE projects. Others two will received conservation actions in a near future within a LIFE IP project already approved. Considering the these conservation action an improvement of the structure and functions is expect. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: In last year’s one of the areas had dry out cause by human activities and coast line change. The increase in area of other was not follow by the improment of biotic structure and biodiversity, and had reduce in fact. It is expected positive results from conservation action in 4 of the lagoons in the near future. ||
->Other: The coastal lagoons are small areas at Azores and work together in a net, with connection between them and others coastal habitats (supported by waterbirds), for the preservation of the all biodiversity associated to this habitat. It is important that the conservation strategies take this net structure in consideration involving all the areas and all the associated habitats that contribute to support the biodiversity and functional structure, like the coastal marine areas and the inland waters. Most of this habitat areas have also associated the habitats 1410, 1210, 1220,1320, 2130 and 1250.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Murcia reported: Attending to the “Plan de Gestión de Espacios Protegidos del Mar Menor y la franja litoral mediterránea de la región de Murcia” is it needed to mention that the Mar Menor pool (138km2, where it is located the whole 1150 habitat of Murcia Region) has been considered as relatively good conservation status until some years ago. Nevertheless, since 2015 the ZEC Mar Menor ES62000030 has suffered a drastic quality change, and in 2016 the pool reached a serious eutrophication problem and an environmental collapse. In September and October 2016, a new update distribution map was done. As a result, it has been checked that Mar Menor lost a 85% of the primarily marine meadows and the 15% it is found in more than 2-3 metres deep, in shallow and iluminated regions. ||
->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: Espèces présentes (mais pas "espèces de référence") : Potamogeton pectinatus, Gracilaria, Chaetomorpha aera, Cladophores, Ulves, Codium fragile, Alsidium corallinum, Chondria capillaris, Halopitys incurva, Grateloupia filicina, Griffithsia corallinoides, Soliera chordalis, Polysiphonia, Rytiphloea tinctoria, Colpomenia, Cutleria, Ectocarpaceae ||
->Future: Les tendances futures 2018-2030 ne concernent que le fonctionnement écologique des milieux lagunaires vis-à-vis de la problématique de l’eutrophisation. Les tendances seront et resteront positives si les efforts visant à réduire les apports eutrophisants se poursuivent ou sont entrepris. Cette tendance est globale sur l'ensemble des lagunes ; pour autant certaines lagunes resteront très certainement dans un état dégradé médiocre ou mauvais. ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation Défavorable-inadéquat U1 pour les Perspectives futures - Les tendances futures 2018-2030 ne concernent que le fonctionnement écologique des milieux lagunaires vis-à-vis de la problématique de l’eutrophisation. Les tendances seront et resteront positives si les efforts visant à réduire les apports eutrophisants se poursuivent ou sont entrepris. Cette tendance est globale sur l'ensemble des lagunes ; pour autant certaines lagunes resteront très certainement dans un état dégradé médiocre ou mauvais. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Élargir les connaissances au fonctionnement écologique dans son ensemble et non seulement aux compartiments colonne d'eau / macrophyte / sédiment. Prendre en compte la dimension de l'habitat lagunaire. Mettre en place des travaux sur l'impact des changements climatiques sur les milieux lagunaires (scenarii climatiques régionaux)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The surface area of the habitat (5.2) is reported as equal to the area of the habitat within the Natura 2000 network (pSCIs, SCIs and SACs) (11.1), because no recent data are available regarding its distribution outside the network. ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 20% of habitat area is estimated to be in not-good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Most of the collected data regarding habitat type 1150 status across Greece result from the HCMR Monitoring activities under the article 8 of the Water Framework Directive.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The surface area is determined based on expert opinion, using available maps and very limited data. Year or period when the distribution and surface area was last determined is 2012 (compilation date of Natura 2000 SDFs is 12/1/2012). ||
->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: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->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: According to the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats, habitat 1150 – Coastal Lagoons, may be with or without vegetation from Ruppietea maritimae, Potametea, Zosteretea or Charetea. In the Maltese Islands, Zostera noltii and Zostera marina were last recorded in the late 19th century and are considered as possibly extinct. Potamogeton species are very rare, and mostly confined to selected wet areas, not along the coast. On the other hand, Ruppia spp. is mostly confined to marshes (as are Is-Salini, Is-Simar, L-Għadira and Il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala). As indicated in the last reporting cycle, specimens of Ruppia drepanensis are also recorded within very small salt pans at Taħt ix-Xifer, north Gozo and Il-Ballut ta’ Marsaxlokk, southeast Malta (a Natura 2000 marshland). However, these locations are highly restricted in area cover and do not represent the habitat type. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Most of the marsh areas are normally separated from the sea due to access roads (such as at L-Għadira, Is-Simar and Il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala) and often end up as small pools of shallow coastal brackish water, with varying salinity dependant on rainfall, storms (and the related water flow), evaporation and sea-spray. In view of this, the Maltese habitat types with Ruppietea vegetation do not readily fit any of the three related habitat types, namely 1130 (Estuaries), 1150 (Coastal lagoons) and 1160 (Large shallow inlets and bays). However, noting the descriptions for the mentioned habitats in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats, the habitat type 1150 – Coastal Lagoons best fits the habitat found in the Maltese Islands.

Further to the above and referring to Section 4.12, the structure and functions of habitat 1150 in the Maltese Islands is mainly based on Ruppia spp. together with Aphanius fasciatus.

The habitat at L-Għadira and Is-Simar (which sites contain the majority of the habitat nationally) is in a good condition. This was confirmed for the period under review by the respective site managers. On the other hand, the habitat at Is-Salini and Il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala, was assessed as not in good condition. At Is-Salini, it has been noted that following works along the Is-Sukkursu Canal in 2011-2012, the habitat showed improvement. The same was noted at Il-Magħluq ta’ Marsaskala through the implementation of various measures (refer to Section 9 ‘Conservation Measures’) aimed to reduce some of the anthropogenic pressures and restore the habitat structure and function. ||
->Future: At present all parameters of habitat 1150 are assessed as having an ‘Unfavourable – Inadequate’ or ‘Unfavourable – Bad’ status. Hence according to the guidelines, these should have their future prospects asessed as 'Poor'/'Bad'. However the measures which are planned for the habitat in the coming years, are expected not just to maintain the status of the parameters, but actually improve them. These measures include the increase in the range of the habitat through its restoration in a particular location and also through the improvement of the habitat at is-Salini. This is why the future prospects of all the parameters are being assessed as 'Good'. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The data in this report has been mostly updated through habitat surveys carried out by the Environment and Resources Authority in 2017 and 2018. This exercise has enabled the assessment of the distribution and habitat condition with considerable accuracy. Field surveys were also complemented with desk studies, focussing on orthophoto analysis, and additional ground truthing, where possible. In this regard, the Authority has acquired drones with the aim to facilitate and assist future monitoring and surveying of all Annex I habitats.

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