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  

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: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation U1 des Structures et fonctions - valeurs de surface en bon, mauvais, état inconnu renseignées à dire d'expert sans élément permettant de revenir sur l'évaluation du paramètre en 2007-2012. ||
->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: 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: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. 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 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: 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.
For about half of the areal extent of habitat types, the assessment of status in good respective in not good status is quite uncertain (due to the large number and extent of the habitat in question). The status is assumed to be in a good situation until other is confirmed. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: In general for all lake types in the region, the ecological status is considered to be good or high of the investigated waters in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and S&F. The data was too scarce to evaluate on the specific habitat type in this region. Pressures that affect light climate and the macrophytes are especially important e.g., eutrophication or brownification which are considererd to be low in this region. Management of water levels deteriorate (hydropower) the littoral zones and decrease the sediment surface suitable for the typical annual species. Pressure from forestry increases in the low altitude region. Pressures and threats are low in the region. Structures and functions are assumed to be relatively unaffected in this region. The habitat is considered to be in a favourable condition. There is no indication of change of the situation on a biogeographical level. Thus, the trend is assessed as 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: SAINTENOY-SIMON J., avec la collaboration de Y. Barbier, L.-M. Delescaille, M. Dufrêne, J.-L. Gathoye et P. Verté remière liste des espèces rares, menacées et protégées de la Région Wallonne (Ptéridophytes et Spermatophytes). Version 1 (7/3/2006).
VAN ROMPAEY E. et DELVOSALLE L. (et coll.) 1979. Atlas de la flore belge et luxembourgeoise (Ptéridophytes et Spermatophytes). 2e édition, revue par L. DELVOSALLE. Meise, Jardin Botanique nationale de Belgique, 1542 cartes. ||
->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: For the Flanders part of ATL the areas given in field 6.1. are based on a representative monitoring network. Indicators for habitat structure, vegetation development and environmental disturbances are taken into account. The ‘Best single value’ of the area (field 5.2) is multiplied with the % amount of the sample plots in good and not-good condition.
Information on typical species (Red List status) 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: Habitat type new for the region ||
->Coverage: Habitat type new for the region ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Habitat type new for the region ||
->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: Les tendances restent difficiles à évaluer par manque de données en 2012. ||
->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 3130 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used. The resultant range contained 256 x 10 km cells.
There is no evidence of a decline in the range of habitat 3130. 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.
The range has reduced by 500 km2 since the last reporting cycle, owing to improved knowledge from dedicated field survey which led to the identification of previously unknown 3130 lakes (e.g. Knocka Lough, Co. Clare) and the re-classification of lakes as habitat 3110, rather than 3130 (e.g. Lough Derg, Co. Donegal). Three 10 km squares were added to the range and nine were removed from the 2013 range as a result of more accurate data. ||
->Coverage: The distribution was used to estimate habitat area, following the approach used for the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013a; O Connor, 2015). Estimates used the surface area of the lake polygons classified as containing the habitat. The minimum estimate summed the areas of the following lake segments:
1. 52 lakes that have populations of Najas flexilis. For Lough Corrib, only the north-western basin was included (4.96 km2);
2. Six lakes where Najas flexilis has gone extinct; and
3. Six lakes identified as having habitat 3130 by Roden et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, in prep.).
The habitat area may be less than the surface area of the lake, particularly where more than one Annex I standing water habitat occurs (3130 with 3110, 3140 or 3150). Alternatively, where the habitat occupies the entire available lake substratum (e.g. Lough Ballynakill), its area may be greater than the surface area of the lake.
The maximum estimate summed the surface area of all 446 lake segments identified in the distribution as containing habitat 3130 (354 km2) and, following the 2007-2012 methods (NPWS, 2013a; O Connor, 2015), assumed that 46% (18 km2) of the area of the remaining 180 unclassified segments of greater than 1 ha in area is habitat 3130. 354 km2 and 18 km2 were summed to give the maximum of 372 km2, which is likely to be a significant overestimate.
A single area value of 558.4 km2 was provided for the 2007-2012 reporting cycle. The 186 km2 reduction to 372 km2 for the maximum estimate is the result of the re-classification of lake segments following field survey (improved knowledge) and use of 1:5,000 scale mapping data (different method). ||
->HabCondition: Habitat 3130 is associated with high water quality, i.e. the absence of eutrophication impacts: naturally low dissolved nutrients, clear water (large euphotic depth) and low algal growth.
Dedicated survey during the reporting cycle yielded information on the condition of the habitat for 42 lakes (Roden and Murphy, 2014; Roden et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, in prep.). 24 lakes were assessed as in Good/Favourable condition, 14 as Poor/Unfavourable-Inadequate and four as Bad/Unfavourable-Bad. This equates to 57% of the sites monitored in Good condition, 33% Poor and 10% Bad.
In terms of area:
The surface area of the 24 lakes assessed as in Good condition sums to 12 km2
The surface area of the 14 lakes assessed as in Poor condition sums to 57 km2
The surface area of the four lakes assessed as in Bad condition sums to 6 km2.
This gives a total surface area of 63 km2 in ‘not-good’ condition.
These areas equate to:
16% of the monitored area in ‘good’ condition,
84% of the monitored area in ‘not-good’ condition
The Annex II species Najas flexilis (1833) characterises habitat 3130 and is a highly sensitive species of the lower euphotic depths. The conservation status of Najas flexilis was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate for the reporting cycle (2013-2018).
While the combined area (Poor and Bad) in ‘not-good’ condition is more than 25%, the habitat’s Structure and functions were assessed as Inadequate overall, as the majority of sites monitored were in Good condition, the majority of the area monitored was in Poor condition and the characteristic Annex II species Najas flexilis (1833) had overall Unfavourable-Inadequate status for the reporting cycle.
The use of area to measure the Structure and functions of habitats is particularly problematic for aquatic habitats, where survey and assessment methods are specifically designed to characterise the overall condition of the water body, and mapping the area of the habitat, or its constituent species, zones and assemblages, is often impractical and inaccurate.
The minimum areas in ‘good’ (12 km2), ‘not-good’ (63 km2) and ‘unknown’ (3 km2) condition sum to the reported Minimum surface area of the habitat (78 km2). The ‘area where condition is not known’ was, therefore, 4.5% of the reported Minimum surface area.
The maximum areas were calculated by applying the minimum percentage areas to the reported maximum surface area of the habitat:
4.5% of the estimated minimum area had unknown condition. Applying this to the estimated maximum area of 372 km2 gave 16.7 km2 unknown and 355.3 km2 known.
16% of the monitored minimum area was in ‘good’ condition. Applying this to the estimated maximum known area of 355.3 km2 gave 56.8 km2 in ‘good’ condition.
84% the monitored minimum area was in ‘not-good’ condition, giving 298.5 km2 of the estimated maximum area in ‘not-good’ condition.
The short-term trend in the habitat’s Structure and functions was assessed by comparing habitat condition during the reporting cycle to data from earlier surveys. Data were available for 32 x 3130 lakes in two time periods – typically 2000-2005 (Roden, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007) and 2013-2018 (Roden and Murphy, 2014; Roden et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, in prep.). 23 of the 32 sites were considered likely to have ‘stable’ habitat condition between the periods and nine (28%) were considered to be ‘decreasing’.
Where uncertainty was high, the default trend in Structure and functions was assessed as ‘stable’. Therefore a ‘decreasing’ assessment required strong evidence of decline in habitat quality.
Impacts observed on the habitat included eutrophication (epiphytic algae, phytoplankton blooms and increased perennial biomass), deposited, decomposing organic matter, reduced and fluctuating transparency/euphotic-depth (peat-staining and turbidity), and competition from Elodea canadensis (Roden and Murphy, 2014; Roden et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, in prep.).
For the 2007-2012 cycle, the assessment of habitat quality and trends was largely based on Irish EPA WFD lake status data. The use of dedicated Mixed Najas flexilis lake habitat condition assessments for the 2013-2018 cycle represents an improvement in knowledge.
Habitat 3130 is notable for the frequent co-occurrence of Potamogeton perfoliatus and Isoetes lacustris. As well as Najas flexilis, Nitella confervacea is a characteristic species. Other typical species are Apium inundatum, Callitriche hermaphroditica, Chara aspera, Chara virgata, Elatine hexandra, Eriocaulon aquaticum, Fontinalis antipyretica, Hydrilla verticillata, Isoetes echinospora, Juncus bulbosus, Littorella uniflora, Lobelia dortmanna, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Nitella flexilis, Nitella translucens, Pilularia globulifera, Potamogeton berchtoldii, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton natans, Potamogeton obtusifolius, Sparganium angustifolium, and Utricularia sp. See NPWS (2013a) and O Connor (2015) for more information. ||
->Future: The Future prospects of the Range, Area and Structure and functions of habitat 3130 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 three of medium importance and all were listed as threats, owing to their likely continuation. These pressures and threats result in changes in hydrological regime and water quality 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 3130 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 time-lag before conservation measures, once implemented, take effect. 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 3130 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 3130 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 decreasing owing to evidence of habitat deterioration at nine of 32 lakes with data from two points in time. 75.5% of the monitored area of the habitat was assessed as in Poor condition and 8.5% as in Bad condition. While the combined value exceeds 25% in ‘not-good’ condition, as the majority of the habitat was in Poor/Inadequate condition, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate. Given the negative influence of the identified pressures and threats on the status of the Structure and functions and the lack of conservation measures, the predicted future trend is negative. As a result, the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Poor.
As Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Poor, the Future prospects for habitat 3130 were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate. ||
->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 29% 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 3130 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 78-372 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 3130 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 then, the conservation status of lake habitats will be determined by the Structure and functions assessment.
Structure and functions: Dedicated monitoring of habitat 3130 and its associated species produced habitat condition/Structure and functions assessments for 42 lakes. 16% of the monitored area was assessed as in Good condition. 75.5% of the monitored area of the habitat was assessed as in Poor condition and 8.5% as in Bad condition. While the combined value of 84% in ‘not-good’ condition is more than 25%, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate as the majority of the habitat by area was in Poor/Inadequate condition. This assessment is further supported by consideration of site numbers. 24 lakes (57% of those monitored) were in Good condition and 14 lakes (33%) in Poor condition. Only four (10%) of the monitored lakes, covering an area of 6 km2 (8.5% of the monitored area), were assessed as in Bad condition. In addition, the Annex II species Najas flexilis, which is characteristic of habitat 3130 and one if its most sensitive indicators, was assessed as in Unfavourable-Inadequate) status for the reporting cycle.
The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as decreasing owing to evidence of habitat deterioration at nine of 32 lakes having data from two points in time.
Future prospects: Given the Favourable and stable status of Range and Area, and the predicted negative ‘future trend’ and Unfavourable-Inadequate status of the habitat’s Structure and functions, the pressures and threats identified, and the lack of habitat-specific conservation measures, the Future prospects were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.
As Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, the Overall Conservation Status of 3130 was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.
The trend in Structure and functions and overall trend were reported as ‘stable’ for the 2007-2012 cycle, based on examination of the long-term trend in trophic status in Irish lakes illustrated in Tierney et al. (2010). Based on improved knowledge through dedicated survey during the reporting cycle (Roden and Murphy, 2014; Roden et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, in prep), including evidence of deteriorating Structure and functions at nine of 32 lakes having data from two points in time, the trend for this cycle was reported as ‘deteriorating’. As data were available for only two points in time, it was not possible to identify when deterioration began, to determine whether it was on-going throughout the reporting cycle, or to otherwise estimate or quantify the trend magnitude. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 6 years ago reported range is incorrect and should be 10500; therefore the range is stable.
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: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS. In Noord-Brabant a positive trend in the habitat type conditions was shown (Van Dam et al. 2017). ||
->Future: Effects of climate change will affect the habitat ||
->Conclusion: S&F score based on NDFF analysis of % in good condition; TS is relatively better. The overall trend is positive. ||
->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: 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: There is insufficient information to report on the maximum area of habitat in unfavourable (not good) condition. Nevertheless, the information available indicates at least 40% of the total habitat area is in unfavourable condition. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Overall stable ||
->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 - decreasing.
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 uncertain [note that the reason for change is due to less information/accuracy or certainty in the information available]. ||
->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: Removal of reed in some shore stretches of the large lakes of Peipsi and Võrtsjärv may increase the area. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The definition of oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters (3130) is unclear in relation to oligotrophic waters (3110), which is why only occurences existing in the Natura 2000 database are presented in the map. The level of knowledge of the habitat is bad. The assessing of oligotrophic waters is tapped in the reporting of the structure and functions.

Niukka-keskiravinteisten järvien (3130) määritelmä on epäselvä suhteessa karuihin kirkasvetisiin järviin (3110), minkä vuoksi kartalla esitetään vain Natura 2000 -tietokannassa olevat esiintymät. Tiedon taso luontotyypistä on huono. Rakenteen ja toiminnan arvioinnissa on hyödynnetty karujen kirkasvetisten järvien arviointia.

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: Conclusion based on data of the EU habitat mapping (results from season 2017-2018) and nature conservation plans.
Habitat 3130 is very sensitive for treats, especially eutrophication. Many lakes have lowered habitat quality, like Dienvidu Garezers Lake.
Many lakes are treated from intensive recreation, like Mazuikas Lake, Ummis Lake.
Some of lakes are approached eutrophic lake status, like Lieluikas Lake. Driškins Lake is distrophicating.
Altough Ninieris Lake is recovered from hypereutrophic status and characteristic species of 3130 is afresh found in lake. ||
->Coverage: Conclusion based on data of the EU habitat mapping (results from season 2017-2018) and nature conservation plans.
In many cases typical species in lakes 3130 is decreasing, some of lakes are approachig eutrophic lake status.
Altough Ninieris Lake is recovered from hypereutrophic status and characteristic species of 3130 is afresh found in lake.
Since 2013 improved freshwater habitat methodology is used and wider data set is available. ||
->HabCondition: In assessment data of EU habitat mapping (results from season 2017-2018) and nature conservation plans were used.
According to EU habitat mapping data (results from season 2017-2018) insufficient quality have 39 % of lakes belonging to this habitat. Parameter has different evalutation from previous report, because of use a wider data set in this report.

Number of typical (characteristic) species and area of the littoral zone covered by these species are inculded into overall assessment of the lake habitat quality. Also suitable area of littoral zone, substrate, area covered by extensive species and water transparency are taken in to account as factors that affects abundance of characeterstic vegetation of habitat 3130. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Decision is made according to EU habitat mapping data (results from season 2017-2018). As habitat 3130 is not one of the prior importance it is hard to establish any habitat restoration projects. At the same time being the cleanest ones these lakes are very attractive for recreational activities. Considering habitat quality, pressures and treats, predictions of habitat conservation and quality is not favourable.
According to EU habitat mapping data (results from season 2017-2018) insufficient quality have 39 % of lakes belonging to this habitat. The area of habitat is decreasing without possibilities of recovery in lakes were it is extinct. This parameter is based on the EU habitat mapping (results from season 2017-2018) and nature conservation plans.
Parameter has different evalutation from previous report, because of use a wider data set in this report. ||
->JustificationThreshold: It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based only on 15 investigated lakes during period 2008-2012, but now assessment inludes 29 lakes. ||
->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 80 % of the cases and 20 % is not (where Lake Vättern is in FCS and contribute with appprox 1700km2). 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 investigated waters in the work according the framework directive (VISS). Many factors affect water quality negatively e.g., acidification, pollutants, and, brownification. Lake Vättern has about 1710 km2 of the habitat type (inside Natura 2000) which is considered to be in FCS with stable trend. Thus, the overall trend for this habitat is considered as stable in the region. Management of water levels are of importance and many lakes have been lowered historically. It is more uncertain for all other lakes of the habitat and due to pressures and threats from the future prospects are considered inadequate. Water regulation and management of water levels deteriorate (hydropower) the litoral zones and decrease the sediment surface suitable for the typical annual species. 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 litoral zone and dams act as faunal barriers. Brownification affect the lakes and clear-water lakes are more sensitive to increased water colour which negatively affect the macrophytes on the bottom substrate. Eutrophication from agriculture is not high for this habitat 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 overall stable trend. ||
->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  

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: výskyt některých biotopů je přechodný, ne trvalý, a aktualizace není schopna postihnout rychlé změny

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Lücken in weiten Teilen des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->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: Les communautés typiques les plus oligotrophiles, constituées de cortèges floristiques très originaux, sont jugées en mauvais état et ont tendance à être remplacées progressivement par des communautés plus eutrophiles relevant du même habitat, voire à être substituées par un autre type d'habitat (Bidention notamment) ||
->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: 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: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. 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 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: Since habitats of this type were neither monitored nor found during the survey within wooded areas, the indicated area is the one determined during the initial survey from 2007 to 2012. ||
->HabCondition: Since habitats of this type were neither monitored nor found during the survey within wooded areas, the indicated area in good resp. in no good condition is the one determined during the initial survey from 2007 to 2012 (100% in good condition). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Since habitats of this type were neither monitored nor found during the survey within wooded areas, the indicated area is the one determined during the initial survey from 2007 to 2012. While range and area are far below their favourable reference, structure and functions have been evaluated as favourable for 100% of the surveyd habitats of this type. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zasięg występowania siedliska w Polsce ogranicza się do trenów położonych w zasadzie wzdłuż zachodniej granicy kraju (zbiorowiska występujące na siedlisku budowane są przez gatunki atlantyckie, osiągające w Polsce wschodnią granicę zasięgu występowania). Dynamika zasięgu siedliska jest bardzo trudna do badania. Zbiorowiska namuliskowe są zbiorowiskami efemerycznymi, których pojaw, zwykle raz na kilka lat, uzależniony jest od warunków pogodowych. Roślinności namuliskowej sprzyjają lata suche i ciepłe. Brak roślinności namuliskowej może wynikać z przyczyn naturalnych (brak dostępnego substratu ze względu na wysoki stan wód), dlatego też przy braku wykształconej roślinności namuliskowej stan zazwyczaj jest określany, jako nieznany (brak wykształcenia nie świadczy o złym stanie siedliska, a jedynie o uwarunkowaniach hydrologicznych na stanowisku, które uniemożliwiły wykształcenie się roślinności charakterystycznej dla siedliska 3130). Wnioskowanie na temat zmian zasięgu siedliska niepewne, w zasadzie niemożliwe do przeprowadzenia.
Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (18 300km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (10 216 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. W aktualnym okresie raportowym 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 obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Przybliżoną powierzchnie siedliska oszacowano na podstawie standardowych formularzy danych obszaru Natura 2000.
Zajmowana powierzchnia trudna do oszacowania gdyż są to zbiorowiska pionierskie, mogące każdego roku występować w innym miejscu. Dane o rozmieszczeniu zbiorowiska są niepełne i niewystarczające do oszacowania powierzchni całkowitej. Nie określono trendu zmian powierzchni, ponieważ brak jest danych porównawczych. Powierzchnia siedliska naturalnie ulega znacznym fluktuacjom. Zaleca się monitoring populacji rzadkich gatunków występujących w omawianym siedlisku, zwłaszcza, że stanowiska większości z tych gatunków leżą na wschodniej granicy zasięgu. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono na 77 stanowiskach w bioregionie. Stan siedliska pozornie zły (na wielu stanowiskach siedlisko niewykształcone), jednak brak wykształcenia wynikał w przeważającej liczbie analizowanych stanowisk z naturalnych uwarunkowań hydrologicznych (brak warunków do wykształcenia się siedliska), stąd ocena ogólna stanu siedliska nieznana. Generalnie, ze względu na pionierskość i efemeryczność siedliska oraz znaczne uzależnienie jego wykształcenia się od uwarunkowań hydrologicznych, stan trudny do ocenienia.
Ocena parametru „specyficzna struktura i funkcje” zgodna 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: Generalnie pod kątem perspektyw ochrony siedlisko 3130 można określić jako trudne to ustalenia ze względu na efemeryczny charakter siedliska i jego uzależnienie od warunków meteorologicznych. ||
->Conclusion: Racjonalna i trafna ocena stanu zachowania w przypadku siedliska 3130 jest niezwykle trudna. Siedlisko to ma z natury charakter efemeryczny i jest uzależnione od dostępności światła, właściwego podłoża i temperatury, czyli parametrów środowiska, na który wpływ mają zarówno uwarunkowania naturalne, jak i działalność antropogeniczna. Nawet przy braku presji człowieka, warunki meteorologiczne mogą uniemożliwić wykształcenie się siedliska, przy czym stan ten nie jest zazwyczaj trwały (siedlisko może wykształcić się w przyszłym roku, jeżeli warunki pogodowe będą temu sprzyjały). Z drugiej strony działalność człowieka nie musi oddziaływać na siedlisko negatywnie, gdyż pewne racjonalne działania, jak utrzymywanie odpowiedniego reżimu hydrologicznego w stawach (właściwa instrukcja sterowania wodą, wprowadzenie odpowiednich terminów spuszczania wody) czy usuwanie roślinności ekspansywnej, oddziałują stymulująco na rozwój siedliska. Stąd też ocena stanu siedliska jest wypadkową wielu czynników i należy podchodzić do niej bardzo ostrożnie. Fakt, że w ostatnich badaniach monitoringowych (2017 r.), większość stanowisk wskazuje na zły stan siedliska, nie musi świadczyć o rzeczywiście stanie złym i trudno przewidzieć czy ocena ta utrzyma się w następnym cyklu badań, gdyż stan siedliska jest bardzo niestabilny i trudny do przewidzenia. Z tych względów podjęto decyzję o wskazaniu stanu ogólnego siedliska, jako nieznanego (niemożliwego do wiarygodnego ocenienia). ||
->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: 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 at most 50% of the investigated, similar to the situation in the boreal region. The data was too scarce to evaluate on the specific habitat type in this region. However, in a majority of the lakes, many parameters show less than good status, e.g. (water quality, light, phytoplankton). Fungal disease threatens the typical species Noble Crayfish. Water regulation and management of water levels deteriorate (hydropower) the litoral zones and decrease the sediment surface suitable for the typical annual species. 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 hav influence the litoral zone and dams act as faunal barriers. Brownification affect the lakes and clear-water lakes are more sensitive to increased water colour which negatively affect the macrophytes on the bottom substrate. Eutrophication from agriculture is not high 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 persist. The habitat is assessed as unfavorablewith decreasing trend. There is no indication of improvement of the situation on a biogeographical level. TThus, 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: Critères pour évaluer le paramètre : qualité physicochimique de l'eau ; fonctionnement hydrologique et géomorphologique ; fragmentation, connectivité ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des structures et fonctions U1. Qualité physicochimique de l'eau plutôt mauvaise (au moins en Corse). Le fonctionnement hydrologique dans l'ensemble reste encore bon. Cet habitat est naturellement fragmenté. ||
->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: Assumption: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in good condition. ||
->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: 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: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. 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 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: 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: výskyt některých biotopů je přechodný, ne trvalý, a aktualizace není schopna postihnout rychlé změny

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