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: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Structure and functions are based on the information collected by the monitoring programme and programme of measures related to the implementation of WFD.

Rakenteen ja toiminnan arviointi perustuu vesipuitedirektiivin toimeenpanoon liittyvissä seurannoissa ja toimenpideohjelmissa kerättyyn tietoon. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Despite the below 75 % of habitat area in good condition, the status of structure and function should remain FV. The remaining habitat area is within the not known category because field inventories have not yet been conducted. However, because there are very few threats and pressures on this region, the procentage of overall area protected within the alpine region is very high and all habitat area which has been inventoried so far has been in good condition, it is reasonable to assume that vast majority of the "not known" area is in fact in good condition. Therefore U1 would not be justified. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Most of the alpine lakes are still in natural state. The airborn load may have slighty changed the state of lakes. Climate change has raised the water temperature. Climate change also increases the risk of nutrient leaching and may cause eutrofication. According to modellings the distribution of aquatic macrophyte and benthic macroinvertebrates may shift northwards. Arctic area is vulnerable to climate change and the changes may be faster than predicted due to recent unfavourable trend of emissions. However, these changes are still very poorly known.

Suurin osa alpiinisista järvistä on yhä luonnontilaisia. Ilmalaskeuman kuormitus on saattanut vähäisessä määrin muuttaa järvien tilaa. Ilmastonmuutos on nostanut veden lämpötilaa viimeisten vuosikymmenten aikana. Ilmastonmuutos lisää ravinteiden huuhtoutumisen riskiä ja voi aiheuttaa rehevöitymistä. Mallinnustutkimusten perusteella mm. vesikasvi- ja pohjaeläinlajien levinneisyysrajojen on arvioitu muuttuvan pohjoisemmiksi. Arktinen alue on herkkä ilmastomuutokselle, ja muutokset voivat olla ennakoitua selvästi nopeampia päästöjen viimeaikaisen epäsuotuisan kehityksen vuoksi. Nämä muutokset ovat kuitenkin vielä heikosti tunnettuja.

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: 3110 is a paucispecific habitat characterized by a moderate specific diversity at national and biogeographic scale.
The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status is not useful. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale or catchment area basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->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: Flanders has a good habitat mapping programme, but with some knowledge gaps (remaining old fieldwork, amount of the habitat in a polygon with several vegetation types not exactly known, …). Therefore, we use minimum (= minimum of certain habitat), maximum (maximum of certain habitat + mean of uncertain habitat) and a best single value (mean of certain habitat). ||
->HabCondition: In Flanders Atlantic, the habitat is very rare. Therefore all locations of the habitat are monitored with respect to their habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances. The areas given in field 6.1 are based on the data of this monitoring.
Information on typical species (Red List status) and spatial coherence of the habitat is determined directly on the regional level. As a consequence, this information cannot be integrated in the areas given in field 6.1, but it is used to assess the conclusions on specific structures and functions (field 10.3). ||
->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: 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: 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 calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 3110 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used. The resultant range contained 233 10 km cells.
There is no evidence of a decline in the range of habitat 3110. Lake habitats suffer damage as a result of hydrological and morphological change, decreased water clarity, eutrophication and other impacts, but are seldom destroyed. The result is that the Range of lake habitats remains stable.
As six 10 x 10 km squares were added to the distribution and two removed since the 2007-12 report, the range increased by 400 km2. The distribution changes resulted from improved knowledge that led to better habitat classification. Lakes were re-classified as habitat 3110, rather than 3130, following field survey for Najas flexilis and lake habitat 3130 (e.g. Lough Derg, Co. Donegal). Also, review of existing data for site-specific conservation objective mapping resulted in changes to lake classification, as well as classification of additional lake segments. Site-specific conservation objective data are at a different scale (1:5,000) (different method). ||
->Coverage: The distribution was used to estimate habitat area, following the approach employed for the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015). Estimates used the surface area of the lake polygons classified as containing the habitat. Lake surface area is likely to over-estimate the area of habitat 3110 as its vegetation seldom covers the substratum of the lake, and because more than one Annex I standing water habitat can occur in a lake (e.g. 3110 with 3160 or 3130).
The minimum estimate summed the surface areas of all 1,618 lake segments that were classified as containing the habitat.
The maximum estimate included a correction factor for unclassified lake segments. Following the 2007-2012 methods (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015), it was assumed that 33% (17 km2) of the area of the remaining 4,338 unclassified segments is habitat 3110. 399 km2 and 17 km2 were summed to give the maximum of 416 km2, which is likely to be a significant overestimate.
A single area value of 407.1 km2 was provided for the 2007-2012 reporting cycle, which is within the range reported here (399-416 km2,) The 9 km2 increase for the maximum estimate is the result of the use of 1:5,000 scale mapping data (different method) primarily, as well as the re-classification of lake segments following field survey (improved knowledge). ||
->HabCondition: Habitat 3110 is a naturally nutrient-poor habitat that is associated with peatland areas and base-poor water. By definition, the habitat requires oligotrophic conditions and, therefore, a target of High Status is considered appropriate for relevant WFD elements.
No dedicated monitoring programme exists for lake habitat 3110 in Ireland and a standard method for assessing its conservation condition at individual sites has not been developed. However, data on water quality are available from the EPA WFD monitoring programme for a sample of 3110 lakes, and these were used to assess Structure and functions. The assessment followed the approach used for the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015), using WFD data for 2013-2015 (Fanning et al., 2018). A target of oligotrophic (or WFD ‘high status’) or better was used. EPA data for Macrophyte, Phytobenthos, Phytoplankton, Nutrient Conditions and Acidification Status were used. WFD status is categorised as high, good, moderate, poor or bad. For Structure and functions to be considered to be in Favourable condition, all five elements had to reach high status. If one or more WFD elements were moderate, poor or bad status, conservation condition was assessed as Bad. If one or more elements were at good status, but none were moderate, poor or bad, Structure and functions were assessed as in Poor/Inadequate conservation condition.
A total of 64 WFD monitoring lakes, with a total area of 265.6 km2, are considered likely to contain habitat 3110.
The minimum areas in ‘good’, ‘not-good’ and ‘unknown’ condition used data for 56, with a total area of 157 km2, of the 64 WFD monitoring lakes likely to contain habitat 3110. Seven of the eight lakes were removed from this analysis because they may be dominated by habitat 3130 (e.g. Loughs Acoose, Caragh and Leane), and the eighth lake (Lough Mask) also has the hard water lake habitat, 3140. 26 of the 56 monitored lakes were assessed as in Good/Favourable condition, 21 as in Poor/Unfavourable-Inadequate condition and nine as in Bad/Unfavourable-Bad conservation condition. This equates to 46% of the sites monitored in Good condition, 38% Poor and 16% Bad. In terms of area, the surface area of the 26 lakes assessed as in Good condition sums to 37 km2, the surface area of the 21 lakes assessed as in Poor condition sums to 100 km2, and the surface area of the nine lakes assessed as in Bad condition sums to 22 km2. This gives a total surface area of 122 km2 in ‘not-good’ condition. These areas equate to 23% of the monitored area in ‘good’ condition and 77% of the monitored area in ‘not-good’ condition.
The maximum areas in ‘good’ and in ‘not-good’ condition used data for all 64 lakes. 29, 26 and nine lakes were assessed as Favourable, Poor and Bad conservation condition, respectively. This equates to 45% of the sites monitored in Good condition, 41% Poor and 14% Bad. In terms of area, this is 39 km2 Good, 204 km2 Poor and 22 km2 Bad condition; or 15% of the monitored area in ‘good’ and 85% in ‘not-good’ condition.
The ‘Area where condition is not known’ was estimated by subtracting the areas in ‘good’ and in ‘not-good’ condition from the minimum and maximum surface areas reported at 5.2. As a result, the minimum values sum to the value of 399 km2 reported at 5.2a and the maximum values sum to 416 km2 reported at 5.2b. Because the total area (265.6 km2) of the 64 lakes used to estimate the maximum areas in ‘good’ and in ‘not-good’ condition was so much larger (more than 100 km2) than the total area (157 km2) of the 56 lakes used, this leads to the unusual situation where the estimated minimum area where condition is not known is larger than the estimated maximum.
Of the 64 WFD monitored 3110 lakes, macrophytes were at High Status in 34 of 64 monitored, phytoplankton status was High at 52 of 64 monitored and nutrient condition status was High at 50 of 64 monitored. These data suggest that factors other than eutrophication are contributing to the loss of High macrophyte status at these lakes. All 64 lakes passed the Acidification Status target.
As the estimated area in ‘not-good’ condition was 77-85%, in line with the General evaluation matrix and the Explanatory Notes and Guidelines, Structure and functions was assessed as Bad overall. It should be cautioned, however, that only 8-14% of the monitored area was assessed as in Bad condition, and that the assessment was based on WFD rather than habitat-specific monitoring, so that confidence in the Structure and functions assessment is low.
To examine trends, changes in water quality and WFD status at individual lakes over time were considered. Data were available from the EPA 2009-2011 and 2013-2015 monitoring cycles for 62 of the 64 WFD monitoring lakes classified as 3110. The condition had improved at 17, was the same at 36 and worse at nine. This corresponded to the following by area: 26 km2 better (10%), 158 km2 the same (60%), 79 km2 worse (30%). As a result, the short-term trend was reported as stable.
Work is needed to develop specific conservation condition assessment methods for habitat 3110, and to test the applicability of the WFD elements/metrics used above. Further elucidation of the natural variation in habitat 3110 and its ecological requirements is also required, in particular in relation to altitude. The development of indicators and targets for supporting conditions such as water colour and organic matter, as well as the more standard suite of nutrients, is also a priority in order to inform conservation objectives and measures.
The list of typical species for habitat 3110 was based on the interpretation manual of EU habitats (CEC, 2013), available publications on lake macrophyte communities in Ireland and Great Britain, as well as publications on aquatic macrophyte species and macrophyte data from routine Water Framework Directive monitoring. The list of typical species is: Isoetes lacustris, Isoetes echinospora, Littorella uniflora, Lobelia dortmanna, Eriocaulon aquaticum, Juncus bulbosus, Potamogeton polygonifolius, Sparganium angustifolium, Deschampsia setacea (in Connemara), Subularia aquatica, Pilularia globulifera, Nitella translucens, Nitella opaca, Nitella confervacea, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Nymphaea alba, Nuphar lutea, Potamogeton natans, Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia minor, Eleogiton fluitans. See NPWS (2013) and O Connor (2015) for more information. ||
->Future: The Future prospects of the Range, Area and Structure and functions of habitat 3110 were assessed by reference to pressures and threats and conservation measures, as well as each parameter’s ‘future trends’ and current status:
Pressures and threats: Five pressures of high importance were recorded and one of medium importance and all were listed as threats, owing to their likely continuation. These pressures and threats result in changes in water quality and hydrological regime and, therefore, have negative influence on the status of the habitat’s Structure and functions.
Conservation measures: No habitat-specific, concrete conservation measures are currently being undertaken to maintain, restore or enhance areas of 3110 habitat, either within SACs or the wider countryside. It will take time to identify conservation measures based on the ecological requirements of the habitat, combined with the site-specific conservation objectives, conditions and significant pressures and threats; and there is likely to be a significant time-lag before conservation measures, once implemented, take effect (e.g. measures to reverse hydrological damage to peat and other organic soils). Therefore, conservation measures cannot halt or reverse the negative influence of the threats in the next 12 years.
Range: The short- and long-term trends of the Range were assessed as stable. The current range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range and considered to include ‘all significant Irish ecological variations of the habitat’ and be sufficiently large to allow the long-term viability of the habitat. Therefore, the Conservation Status of the Range is Favourable. While threats may lead to significant deterioration in Structure and functions of the habitat, they are unlikely to result in the loss of any 3110 lakes, hence the range is unlikely to change. The future trend of the Range is, therefore, likely to remain stable and the Future prospects of the Range have been assessed as Good.
Area: The short- and long-term trends of the Area were assessed as stable. The estimated minimum surface area of the habitat is equal to the Favourable Reference Area and is considered sufficient to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat type. Therefore, the Conservation Status of the Area is Favourable. While threats may lead to significant deterioration in Structure and functions of the habitat, they are unlikely to result in the loss of any 3110 lakes, hence the habitat area is unlikely to change. The future trend of the Area is, therefore, likely to remain stable and the Future prospects of the Area have been assessed as Good.
Structure and functions: The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as stable, based on WFD data for 62 lakes, which indicated that status was the same or better at 184 km2 or 70% of the monitored area. Despite this evidence of a stable trend, the predicted future trend has been assessed as negative owing to the negative influence of the identified pressures and threats on the status of the Structure and functions and the lack of conservation measures. 77-85% of the monitored area of the habitat was assessed as in ‘not-good’ condition (min 63% Poor, 14% Bad, max 77% Poor, 8% Bad). As this is more than 25%, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad. As a result, the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Bad.
As the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Bad, the Future prospects for habitat 3110 were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad overall. ||
->Conclusion: Range: As there is no evidence of a decline in Range since the Directive came into force (stable short- and long-term trends), the area of the Range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range and is large at approximately 27% of the terrestrial grid, and the current range is considered to include all significant Irish ‘ecological variations of the habitat’ and be sufficiently large to allow the long-term viability of the habitat, Range was assessed as Favourable. While there may be significant deterioration in Structure and functions of the habitat, it is unlikely that any 3110 lakes will be lost; hence, the range is unlikely to change.
Area: There is no evidence of a decline in Area since the Directive came into force (stable short- and long-term trends) and the Area is large at 399 km2-416 km2. The estimated minimum surface area of the habitat is equal to the Favourable Reference Area and is considered sufficient to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat type. As a result, Area was assessed as Favourable. While there may be significant deterioration in Structure and functions of the habitat, it is unlikely that any 3110 lakes will be lost; hence, the habitat area is unlikely to change.
Range and Area are insensitive measures of the conservation status of lake habitats, given that lakes are damaged rather than lost. Further research may demonstrate that deterioration of habitat quality can reach a point beyond which the habitat is no longer restorable and lakes where this occurs may be reported as site loss, and result in a reduction in habitat area, and possibly even range. Until such time, the conservation status of lake habitats will be determined by the Structure and functions assessment.
Structure and functions: Biological and physico-chemical data were available from the WFD for 64 lakes considered to possibly contain habitat 3110. 85% of the area of the 64 monitored lakes was assessed as in ‘not-good’ condition for Structure and functions. A minimum estimate of 77% of the area in ‘not-good’ condition was based on 57 of the 64 lakes. As these estimates are significantly more than 25%, Structures and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as stable because conservation condition based on WFD status was the same or better at 85% of the 64 x 3110 lakes monitored, or 70% of the monitored area.
Confidence is low, however, in both the condition and trend assessments as general water quality indicators have been used in the absence of habitat-specific indicators and data.
Future prospects: The conservation statuses of Range and Area were assessed as Favourable and their predicted future trend was overall stable. Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad. Although the short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as stable, owing to the significant and widespread pollution and hydrological pressures identified and the absence of conservation measures for the habitat, the predicted future trend in Structure and functions is negative. Therefore, Future prospects were assessed as Bad/ Unfavourable-Bad overall.
As Structure and functions and Future prospects were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, the Overall Conservation Status of 3110 was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
As trends for Range, Area and Structure and functions were assessed as stable, the overall trend was assessed as stable in accordance with the reporting guidelines. For the 2007-2012 cycle, the overall trend was reported as decreasing, based on the prediction that pressures are most likely to increase on the habitat in the future, i.e. its Future prospects. The change in reported trend does not represent a genuine change or an improvement in knowledge.
Dedicated survey during the reporting cycle of habitat 3130 (which occurs within the same catchments and some of the same lakes as habitat 3110), found evidence of deteriorating 3130 Structure and functions at nine of 32 lakes (Roden and Murphy, 2014; Roden et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, in prep). This could indicate that Structure and functions of habitat 3110 may also be deteriorating.
Work is needed to develop specific conservation condition assessment methods for habitat 3110, and to test the applicability of the WFD elements/metrics used above. Assessing Structure and functions and overall trends will continue to be a challenge. Even where dedicated and standardised monitoring and assessment methodologies are in use, data will be too temporally infrequent to estimate or quantify the trend magnitude or identify when changes in trend occur. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: There is a negative trend in the range of this rare and vulnerable habitattype; besides: the 2013-range should be corrected to 900, therefore the negative trend is more than 20%.
Distribution map is based on vegetation maps within Natura 2000-sites. Some vegetation maps still contain uncertainties and releve maps may have gaps, but we assume that total distribution is well covered for 90% or more. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. Favourable Reference Values are based on Bijlsma et al. (2014), WOt Report 125. Range data and trends are based upon maps in Dutch Rijksdroehoek co-ordinates, while distribution maps have been delivered in ETRS co-ordinates. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available ||
->HabCondition: Bergvennen, IJzeren man Vught, Winkelsven West and Old Karregat are in good condition due to restoration measures ||
->Future: Effects of climate change will negatively affect the habitat ||
->Conclusion: There are few typical species for analysis, but as they are all in poor condition, overal assessment S&F is U2. ||
->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 Gertie Arts (WEnR)

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Positive - slight/moderate improvement ||
->Conclusion: 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.
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.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that more than 25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are bad.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-bad because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-bad.
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.
Change in Overall assessment due to Structure and functions and Future prospects conclusions changing from Unfavourable-inadequate in 2013 to Unfavourable-bad in 2019.
Change in Overall trend due to Structure and functions trend changing from increasing in 2013 to stable in 2019.
The Overall assessment of Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the conclusions for Structure and functions and Future Prospects have changed from Unfavourable-inadequate to Unfavourable-bad.
The Overall trend in Conservation Status has changed between 2013 and 2019 because the Structure and functions trend has changed from increasing to stable. ||
->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: Structure and functions are based on the information collected by the monitoring programme and programme of measures related to the implementation of WFD.

Rakenteen ja toiminnan arviointi perustuu vesipuitedirektiivin toimeenpanoon
liittyvissä seurannoissa ja toimenpideohjelmissa kerättyyn tietoon. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Diffuse pollution to surface waters due to agricultural and forestry activities is by far causing the biggest threat for the habitat. It causes gradual eutrofication and weakens the state of typical species. The single most significant nutrient polluter is agriculture. Further dispersal habitation causes nutrient loading and weakens the natural state of shores. Climate change increases the risk of nutrient pollution and may cause eutrofication.

Selvästi suurin uhka luontotyypille on luontotyypille maa- ja metsätaloudesta johtuva kuormitus, joka aiheuttaa vähittäistä rehevöitymistä, ja heikentää tyyppilajien tilaa. Suurin yksittäinen ihmisen aiheuttama ravinnekuormittaja on maatalous.
Ilmastonmuutos lisää ravinteiden huuhtoutumisen riskiä ja voi aiheuttaa rehevöitymistä. Lisäksi rantarakentaminen aiheuttaa ravinnekuormitusta ja heikentää rantojen luonnontilaa.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRV is set as actual value based on distribution, as calculated with the range tool. ||
->Coverage: New information/data improved the estimation of the area of the habitat. Thus, FRV is updated. Information and material is continuously updated. During this period, quality assessment has been performed within Natura 2000 which, improve the estimate. ||
->HabCondition: Based on the assessments from quality parameters of ecological status for the assessment of the Waterframework Directive, monitoring inside Natura 2000 and other relevant environmental monitoring, the structures and functions for the actual habitat type is expected to be favourable in 50 % of the cases and rest not. For 50% the status of the total area, the situation is considered unknown. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: In general for all lake types in the region, the ecological status is considered to be good or high in about 50% of the lakes, in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and evaluation of S&F. The data was too scarce to evaluate on the specific habitat type in this region. Many factors affect water quality negatively e.g., acidification, pollutants, and, brownification. Management of water levels are of importance and many lakes have been lowered historically. Oligotrophic lakes have been adversely affected by acidification. Recovery are in some areas slow and some functions and typical species are still negatively affected. Acidification also induce higher level of complex-bound metals (e.g., Al, Hg) which affect biota negatively. Management of water levels have influence the littoral zone and dams act as faunal barriers. Brownification affect the lakes and clear-water lakes are more sensitive to increased water colour, which reduce light and negatively affect the macrophytes. Eutrophication from agriculture is not high, but for this type but oligotrophic lakes are sensitive to increased nutrient levels and a small input can have adverse effects. Forestry can lead to increased levels of nutrients. Pressures are moderate and will persists. The habitat is assessed as unfavorable with decreasing trend. There is no indication of change of the situation on biogegeographical level. Thus, the trend is assessed as deteriorating, as reported 2013. ||
->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: 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: toutes les associations incluses dans cet habitat sont très rares et fragiles, gravement menacées dans leur globalité ||
->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: 3110 is a paucispecific habitat characterized by a moderate specific diversity at national and biogeographic scale.
The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status is not useful. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale or catchment area basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->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: Siedlisko 3110 Jeziora lobeliowe obejmuje ekosystemy wodne, jeziorne. Generalnie rozmieszczenie i zasięg siedliska jest niezmienny lub bardzo mało zmienny (w okresie raportowym, obejmującym kilka-kilkanaście lat zanikanie jezior raczej nie następuje). Zamienny jest natomiast stan zachowania siedliska – jezioro nadal istnieje, ale jakość jego wód może ulec zmianie i spowodować wycofanie się roślinności typowej siedliska (zmiana parametrów i wskaźników siedliska), co zostało odzwierciedlone w ocenie stanu zachowania.
Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (4 800km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (5 695 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. Wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski.
Zasięg określono częściowo na podstawie znajomości rozmieszczenia siedliska, a częściowo na podstawie przeprowadzonego monitoringu. Monitoring wskazuje, że w przypadku braku istotnego zwiększenia presji w postaci zmian stosunków wodnych, degradacji pod wpływem działalności człowieka (np. eutrofizacja wód) oraz dystrofizacja to powierzchnia siedliska pozostaje w stanie stabilnym. ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnie siedliska oszacowano na potrzeby raportowania w 2013 roku na podstawie standardowych formularzy danych obszaru Natura 2000. Siedlisko 3110 Jeziora lobeliowe obejmuje ekosystemy wodne, jeziorne. Generalnie powierzchnia jezior w okresie raportowym, obejmującym kilka-kilkanaście lat nie zmienia się drastycznie, stąd stan powierzchni siedliska oceniono, jako stabilny. Zamienny jest natomiast stan zachowania siedliska – jezioro nadal istnieje, ale jakość jego wód może ulec zmianie i spowodować wycofanie się roślinności typowej siedliska (zmiana parametrów i wskaźników siedliska), co zostało odzwierciedlone w ocenie stanu zachowania siedliska. Należy tu podkreślić, że w przypadku stanowisk przekształconych nieznacznie lub umiarkowanie, na skutek poprawy jakości wód może nastąpić powrót roślinności charakterystycznej i przywrócenie siedliska, zatem pogorszenie stanu nie zawsze musi być równoznaczne z utratą siedliska i zmniejszeniem jego powierzchni. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono na 43 stanowiskach. Stan siedliska stabilny, oceniony jako U1. Decydowały o tym odczyn, barwa wody, odczyn wody, przewodnictwo (konduktywność), przejrzystość, melioracje oraz zaburzenia w składzie fitocenoz. W porównaniu z danymi raportowanymi w poprzednim cyklu raportowym, stan siedliska nie zmienił się (poprzednia ocena U1), a udział stanowisk w poszczególnych klasach na podstawie parametrów i wskaźników był zbliżony. Oceny parametrów „powierzchnia”. „specyficzna struktura i funkcje” oraz „perspektywy ochrony” są zgodne z wynikami monitoringu.
Do określenia powierzchni siedliska w dobrym, złym lub nieznanym stanie (pkt. 6.1) wykorzystano rozkład ocen parametru struktura i funkcje na stanowiskach monitoringowych oraz wartość powierzchni siedliska w regionie podaną w pkt. 5.2 c). Przyjęto następujące założenia:
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w dobrym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na FV i U1
- minimalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U2
- maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska w złym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na U1 i U2
- minimalna i maksymalna powierzchnia siedliska o nieznanym stanie to jest powierzchnia wskazana w pkt 5.2 c) x procent stanowisk monitoringowych, na których parametr struktura i funkcje został oceniony na XX. ||
->Future: Mimo stosunkowo dobrego stanu zachowanych zasobów siedliska 3110 w Polsce, perspektywy ochrony siedliska są umiarkowanie zadawalające. ||
->Conclusion: W porównaniu z poprzednimi wynikami raportu dla siedliska, proporcje stanowisk w poszczególnych klasach stanu były zbliżone, co wskazuje na stosunkowo stabilny stan ochrony siedliska 3110. Przy określaniu oceny parametru struktura i funkcje stosowano inne progi wartości niż podane w wytycznych. Przyjęto następującą waloryzację parametru:
- Jeśli na ponad 50% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako właściwy FV i jednocześnie na mniej niż 20% stanowisk został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena FV
- Inne kombinacje – ocena U1
- Jeśli na ponad 33% monitorowanych stanowisk stan struktury i funkcji siedliska został oceniony jako zły U2 – ocena U2 ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: FRV is set as actual value based on distribution, as calculated with the range tool. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Based on the assessments from quality parameters of ecological status for the assessment of the Waterframework Directive, monitoring inside Natura 2000 and other relevant environmental monitoring, the structures and functions for the actual habitat type is expected to be favourable in 50 % of the cases and rest not. For 50% the status of the total area, the situation is considered unknown. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: In general for all lake types in the region, the ecological status is considered to be good or high in about 50% of the lakes, in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and evaluation of S&F. The data was too scarce to evaluate on the specific habitat type in this region. Many factors affect water quality negatively e.g., acidification, pollutants, and, brownification. Management of water levels are of importance and many lakes have been lowered historically. Oligotrophic lakes have been adversely affected by acidification. Recovery are in some areas slow and some functions and typical species are still negatively affected. Acidification also induce higher level of complex-bound metals (e.g., Al, Hg) which affect biota negatively. Management of water levels have influence the littoral zone and dams act as faunal barriers. Brownification affect the lakes and clear-water lakes are more sensitive to increased water colour, which reduce light and negatively affect the macrophytes. Eutrophication from agriculture is not high, but for this type but oligotrophic lakes are sensitive to increased nutrient levels and a small input can have adverse effects. Forestry can lead to increased levels of nutrients. Pressures are moderate and will persists. The habitat is assessed as unfavorable with decreasing trend. There is no indication of change of the situation on biogegeographical level. Thus, the trend is assessed as deteriorating, as reported 2013. ||
->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: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report