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: 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: Les écosystèmes lacustres de montagne paraissent potentiellement en mutation (l'introduction potentiellement récente de populations maintenant massives de vairons, le réchauffement climatique donc de l'eau et baisse des périodes de gel, gestion pastorale de montagne) et il n'est pas possible aujourd'hui d'établir précisément des perspectives futures à l'échéance 2030. ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation que les Perspectives futures sont évaluées en Défavorable inadéquat (U1) - Si les perspectives sont plutôt inconnues, les menaces et pressions sont trop importantes pour les ignorer dans l'évaluation. En outre, rien ne justifierait de passer de défavorable inadéquat en 2012 à inconnu en 2018. ||
->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: 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.
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 in a majority 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. No pressure or threats are assumed to affect the habitat type in the region. The habitat type is considered as undisturbed. The habitat is in favorable conservation status. 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: 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: 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: 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: Ce seuil doit être largement inférieur à 1 % : 0,1 % de déclin par an serait déjà très important pour la surface occupée par l'habitat. ||
->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 3140 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used. The resultant range contained 280 10 km cells.
There is no evidence of a decline in the range of habitat 3140. 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 increased by 2,800 km2 since the last reporting cycle (reported range was 25,200 km2), owing to more accurate data. The Grand Canal, Royal Canal, Barrow Navigation and the significant canal feeders (Naas Branch, Milltown Feeder and Lough Owel Feeder) have been included in the 2013-2018 distribution. These canals are known strongholds for habitat 3140 and charophyte species, and should have been included in previous 3140 reports. Changes also resulted from incorporation of site-specific conservation objective data for lakes at 1:5,000 scale (more accurate data and use of a different method). ||
->Coverage: The distribution was used to estimate habitat area, following the approach used for the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015). Estimates used the surface area of the lake polygons classified as containing the habitat. The total area of the Waterways Ireland canal polygons used was 4.6 km2.
The minimum estimate summed the areas of the lake segments with ecological data and/or classified as 3140 by experts (including Cilian Roden, Nick F. Stewart and James B. Ryan). A total of 75 lakes with a summed surface area of 278 km2 was used. The area of the habitat in the canals (4.7 km2) was then added, giving an estimate minimum surface area of approximately 283 km2.
The habitat area may be less than the surface area of a lake, particularly where more than one Annex I standing water habitat occurs (3140 with 3130, 3150 or 3180). Alternatively, where the habitat occupies the entire available lake substratum, its area may be greater than the surface area of the lake.
The maximum estimate summed the surface area of all 557 lake segments identified in the distribution as containing habitat 3140 (436 km2), plus the area of the canal segments (4.6 km2), and, following the 2007-2012 methods (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015), assumed that 45% (23 km2) of the area of the 4,338 unclassified segments is habitat 3140. 436 km2, 4.7 km2 and 23 km2 were summed to give the maximum of approximately 464 km2, which is likely to be a significant overestimate.
A single area value of 556 km2 was provided for the 2007-2012 reporting cycle. The 92 km2 decrease to 464 km2 for the maximum estimate is the result of the inclusion of the canals and the re-classification of lake segments (improved knowledge), as well as the use of 1:5,000 scale mapping data (different method). ||
->HabCondition: The marl lake or hard-water habitat has an unusual flora, vegetation and fauna, which is very restricted in Europe as a whole, and Ireland contains a large proportion of the total European habitat. The habitat is associated with high water quality, i.e. the absence of eutrophication impacts: naturally low dissolved nutrients, very clear water (large euphotic depth) and low phytoplankton growth (see Roden and Murphy, 2013 and O Connor, 2015 for further information).
Dedicated survey during the reporting cycle yielded information on the condition of the habitat for lakes and the canals:
Doddy (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Doddy et al., submitted paper) surveyed the krustenstein communities of 16 x 3140 lakes as part of his PhD research on the use of this cyanophyte community as an indicator of the status of marl lakes;
Roden and Murphy (2018) surveyed ten of the highest conservation value and most important 3140 lakes. All are in SACs designated to protect the habitat and nine of the ten are considered to be ‘classic marl lakes’ rather than coastal or peaty variants. Five of the ten overlapped with Philip Doddy’s study sites;
Stewart (2018, in prep.) surveyed the Grand and Royal canals, as well as five 3140 lakes.
The data from these sources were collated, providing information on a total of 25 x 3140 lakes. Where there was a discrepancy between the assessments based on krustenstein (Doddy 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018) and those using the established 3140 methods (Roden and Murphy, 2011; NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015; Roden and Murphy, 2018), the latter condition assessments were used. Nine lakes were assessed as in Good/Favourable condition, three as Poor/Unfavourable-Inadequate and 13 as Bad/Unfavourable-Bad. This equates to 36% of the lakes monitored in Good condition, 12% Poor and 52% Bad. Of the ten SAC lakes surveyed by Roden and Murphy (2018), eight were in Good condition, one Poor (Lough Carrra) and one Bad (Melmore Lough). These data were used to assess the minimum areas in ‘good’ and in ‘not-good’ condition, as follows:
Lakes – The surface areas of the lake segments were summed:
The surface area of the nine lakes assessed as in Good condition sums to 17 km2;
The surface area of the three lakes assessed as in Poor condition sums to 107 km2;
The surface area of the 13 lakes assessed as in Bad condition sums to 115 km2.
This gives a total surface area of 222 km2 in ‘not-good’ condition.
These areas equate to:
7% of the monitored lake area in ‘good’ condition,
93% of the monitored lake area in ‘not-good’ condition.
As 93% of the monitored lake area was in ‘not-good’ condition, and in line with the General evaluation matrix and the Explanatory Notes and Guidelines, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad overall.
Canals – Based on the 2018 charophyte survey work of N.F. Stewart in the Grand and Royal Canals and the Barrow Navigation:
the Grand Canal and Barrow Navigation were assessed as in Good condition, having a combined surface area of 2.8 km2;
the Royal Canal, with surface area of 1.9 km2, was assessed as in Poor condition owing to the failure to re-find Tolypella intricata, the widespread and abundant filamentous algae in the stretches in and near Dublin and the widespread occurrence of the alien invasive Elodea nuttallii.
The lake and canal areas were summed to give the final minimum areas:
Area in ‘good’ condition 17 km2 of lake plus 2.8 km2 of canal = approximately 20 km2, or 8% of the total monitored area;
Area in ‘not-good’ condition 222 km2 of lake plus 1.9 km2 of canal = approximately 224 km2, or 92% of the total monitored area.
The minimum area where condition is not known was calculated by deleting 244 km2 from estimated minimum surface area of 283 km2 = 39 km2.
The maximum areas were estimated by applying the percentage areas for the sampled lakes to the maximum surface area of the habitat in lakes.
14% of the estimated minimum lake area had ‘unknown’ condition. Applying this to the estimated maximum lake area of 464 km2 gave 65 km2 ‘unknown’ and 399 km2 known.
7% of the monitored lake area was in ‘good’ condition. Applying this to the estimated maximum known of 399 km2 gives 28 km2.
93% the monitored lake area was in ‘not-good’ condition, giving 371 km2.
The short-term trend in the habitat’s Structure and functions was assessed by comparing lake habitat condition to data for the reporting cycle (Doddy, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Doddy et al., submitted paper; Roden and Murphy, 2018) to 2011 and 2012 surveys (NPWS, 2013; Roden and Murphy, 2013; and unpublished data). Data were available for 16 x 3140 lakes in the two cycles. 12 of the 16 lakes had the same conservation condition assessments and were considered likely to have ‘stable’ habitat condition between the cycles, condition had improved at one lake and was worse at three.
In terms of area, 133 km2 (56%) had the same condition assessment, 87 km2 (37%) had improved condition and 17 km2 (7%) had worse condition. Considering only the habitat in Good condition, however, seven lakes summing to 20 km2 were in Good condition for the 2007-2012, while nine lakes summing to 17 km2 were Good for the 2013-2018 cycle. Six lakes were assessed as Good in both cycles and one had declined from Good to Poor. While condition was assessed as Good at Lough Owel in both periods, there were some indications of episodes of poor condition that need to be monitored to determine if they are indicative of an overall, gradual decline. The samples were also biased towards the highest quality and SAC lakes and the trends are unlikely to be indicative of the overall national trend. On balance, therefore, the short-term trend within the network was assessed as decreasing.
Impacts observed on the habitat included increased biomass of vascular plants (native (Myriophyllum verticillatum at Lough Carra) and alien (Elodea canadensis at Melmore Lough)), a cyanobacterial bloom, zebra mussels and a fish kill (at Lough Owel), as well as other indications of eutrophication (epiphytic algae, and phytoplankton blooms, reduced and fluctuating transparency/euphotic-depth and increased turbidity) (Roden and Murphy, 2018). Impacts on the krustenstein community include absence or degradation of the crust, over-growth with green algae, changes in microbial community and increased chlorophyll content (Doddy, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Doddy et al., submitted paper).
The typical species list of the hard-water lake habitat in Ireland is dominated by algae (Roden and Murphy, 2013, in prep). The core species of the characteristic zones are Krustenstein, Ophrydium versatile, Oscillatoria, Chara aculeolata, Chara aspera, Chara contraria, Chara curta, Chara denudata, Chara globularis, Chara rudis, Chara virgata var. annulata, Chara virgata, Nitella flexilis, Littorella uniflora, Phragmites australis, Potamogeton gramineus, Potamogeton x nitens, Potamogeton perfoliatus, Schoenoplectus lacustris, Utricularia vulgaris. The vulnerable water beetle, Ochthebius nilssoni is also characteristic (Foster et al., 2009; O’Callaghan et al., 2009). In addition, a characteristic water beetle fauna of vegetation rafts in hard-water lakes includes Agabus unguicularis, Hydroporus angustatus, Hydroporus memnonius, Hydroporus planus, Hydroporus striola, Hydroporus tessellatus, Hydroporus umbrosus, Ilybius ater, Ilybius guttiger, Ilybius quadriguttatus, Cercyon convexiusculus, Coelostoma orbiculare, Anacaena limbata, Anacaena lutescens, Hydrobius fuscipes agg., Enochrus coarctatus, and Enochrus testaceus. ||
->Future: The Future prospects of the Range, Area and Structure and functions of habitat 3140 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 five of medium importance and all were listed as threats, owing to their likely continuation. These pressures and threats primarily result in changes in water quality, but also in impacts to 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 3140 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, particularly owing to interactions with ground water. 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 3140 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 3140 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: Based on dedicated monitoring data for 25 lakes, 93% of the monitored lake area of 3140 was assessed as in ‘not-good’ condition (48% of the area was assessed as in Bad condition). As this is significantly more than 25%, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad. The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as decreasing, based on dedicated monitoring data. As a result and owing to the Bad condition of Structure and functions, the negative influence of the identified pressures and threats and the lack of conservation measures, the predicted future trend has been assessed as negative. The Future prospects of the Structure and functions were, therefore, assessed as Bad.
As the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Bad, the Future prospects for habitat 3140 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 32% 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 3140 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 283 km2-464 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 3140 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: Dedicated 3140 monitoring data were available for 25 lakes and three canals during the reporting cycle. 222 km2 or 93% of the area of the 25 monitored lakes was assessed as in ‘not-good’ condition for Structure and functions. A minimum area of 1.9 km2 or 40% was assessed as in ‘not-good’ condition in the canals. As these estimates are significantly more than 25%, Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as decreasing because the area in Good condition had decreased from 20km2 to 17km2 between the 2007-2012 and 2013-2018 reporting cycles, and one lake had declined from Good to Poor condition. The sample was also biased towards the highest quality SAC lakes, and it is possible that the national trend of habitat area in good condition is worse.
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, the short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was assessed as decreasing, and the predicted future trend in Structure and functions was assessed as negative. As a result, and owing to the significant and widespread pollution and hydrological pressures identified and the absence of conservation measures for the habitat, Future prospects were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad overall.
As Structure and functions and Future prospects were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad, the Overall Conservation Status of 3140 was assessed as Unfavourable-Bad.
As for the 2007-2012 cycle, the overall trend was assessed as deteriorating, based on the current condition of the Structure and functions, the decreasing short-term trend of habitat area in good condition, the identified pressures and lack of conservation measures, leading to a predicted negative future trend in Structure and functions and Bad Future prospects. Assessing trends in Structure and functions will continue to be a challenge. 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: The 6 years ago reported range is incorrect and should be 6200; 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: Based on WFD data from Waternet and Rijkswaterstaat. ||
->Future: Habitat type is pioneer vegetation and heavily depending on measures ||
->Conclusion: Based on data from Water Framework Directive ||
->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: There is insufficient information to report on the maximum area of habitat in unfavourable (not good) condition. Nevertheless, based on the area that has been assessed, 39% 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 - stable. ||
->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: An increase of area is caused by the re-estimation of the habitat-type of some lakes. ||
->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 causes locally gradual eutrofication and weakens the state of typical species. Also dispersal habitation causes nutrient loading and weakens the natural state of shores. A non-native species Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis) has colonized many lakes during last fifteen years. Mass occurences may change the ecosystem of the lake and replace typical species of the habitat.

Mass occurences of Canadian waterweed impair the ecological status of some lakes. However, the numerical proportion of the lakes, which are impaired due to Canadian waterweed mass occurences, is smaller than proportion of them of the total area of the habitat.

Maa- ja metsätaloudesta johtuva hajakuormitus aiheuttaa vähittäistä rehevöitymistä, ja heikentää tyyppilajien tilaa paikallisesti. Lisäksi rantarakentaminen aiheuttaa ravinnekuormitusta ja heikentää rantojen luonnontilaa. Vieraslaji kanadanvesirutto (Elodea canadensis) on levinnyt moniin järviin viimeisen viidentoista vuoden aikana. Massaesiintymiset voivat muuttaa järven ekosysteemiä ja syrjäyttää habitaatille tyypillisiä lajeja.

Vesiruton massakasvustot heikentävät joidenkin järvien ekologista tilaa. Kuitenkin vesiruton massakasvustojen takia ekologiselta tilaltaan heikentyneiden järvien lukumääräinen osuus on pienempi kuin niiden osuus luontotyypin kokonaisalasta.

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: Since 2013 improved freshwater habitat methodology is used and wider data set is available. ||
->Coverage: Since 2013 improved freshwater habitat methodology is used and wider data set is available. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based on expert’s opinion and data collection about this habitat was started in 2008. Each of 11 lakes were investigated only once during time period 2008-2012. ||
->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 one third of the investigated waters in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and S&F. Many factors affect water quality negatively e.g., acidification, pollutants, and, brownification. Management of water levels are of importance and many lakes have historically been lowered and still have negative effects. Areas of pasture are decreasing which reduce the area for the characteristic and typical species. Brownification are considered as a huge threat as it reduce the transparency and negatively affect typical and characteristic species where many of them are included in the red list. The habitat type is sensitive to eutrophication and reduced water quality which can affect the typical and characteristic species negatively. Many of the lakes are situated in agricultural areas and many of the lakes have been historically lowered for agricultural purposes. In som cases there has been a stabilisation in the system after lowering of the water table and natural conditions have been met. Areas of pasture ofther are decreasing which reduce the area for the characteristic and typical species. The habitat is in unfavorable conservation status. 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: 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: Lücken im Nordosten des Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->Coverage: im Süden des Verbreitungsgebiets günstiger Zustand ||
->HabCondition: Im Nordosten des Verbreitungsgebiets U2 ||
->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: Si les habitats élémentaires sont globalement mal connus, il est tout de même possible de faire ressortir quelques points :
- les habitats des Nitelletalia flexilis sont globalement plus restreints en distribution et plus liés à des eaux plus oligotrophes, acidiphiles à neutrophiles, donc plus rares ;
- parmi les communautés calcicoles, les herbiers exondables à Chara vulgaris sont les plus répendus, peut-être les plus polluo-résistants. ||
->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: The indicated difference in range area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: the monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018).
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction is based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).
Some ponds had been evaluated differently (not as annexe I habitats) during the initial inventory (2007 - 2012). The monitoring program (2016 - 2018) gave more precise results.
Because of this improved knowledge, we do not consider the grown range in comparison to the last reporting period as real gain but rather as more accurate data. ||
->Coverage: The indicated difference in surface area since the last reporting is due to improved knowledge: monitoring program (2016 – 2018), important progress of the national inventory of biotopes inside woodlands (2014 – 2018).
The indicated information concerning short-term trend direction is based on a monitoring program (random sample) outside woodlands (data from 2016 - 2018, ongoing).
During the initial survey (2007 - 2012), 1,05 ha of this habitat type were mapped. 71% of this area was monitored from 2016 - 2018 showing an increase of 19% of this habitat type which was likely due to improved knowledge/more accurate data. Additional 0,07 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (100% in good condition).
We estimated minimum area as being the sum of the original, not monitored area, the area within the 67% surveyed forests and the monitored area. The maximum area was estimated as being the sum of the original area multiplied by the positive trend determined within the random sample plus the area within wooded areas extrapolated to 100%.
Some ponds had been evaluated differently (not as annexe I habitats) during the initial inventory (2007 - 2012). The monitoring program (2016 - 2018) gave more precise results. ||
->HabCondition: Data concerning habitat condition are based on the country wide survey of habitats outside wooded areas (2007 - 2012), the results of the monitoring of some 71% of the area concerning 3140 (2016-2018) and the results of a country wide survey of forest habitats (2014 - 2018, 67% surveyed so far).
89% of the initially surveyed area and 100% of the monitored area was in good condition. Additional 0,0712 ha were surveyed from 2014 - 2018 within wooded areas (100% in good condition).
Area in good/not good condition was estimated using the same method as for minimum/maximum area. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Range and area of this habitat type are below their favourabe reference. During the initial inventory, 89% of the 3140 area has been evaluated as being in good condition, while the monitoring of 71% of this habitat type showed 100% in good condition. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (128 600km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (124 970 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.
Zasięg określono na podstawie znajomości rozmieszczenia siedliska przyrodniczego 3140 tzw. jezior ramienicowych. W warunkach polskich zasięg występowania siedliska ograniczony jest do terenów ostatniego zlodowacenia, czyli do obszarów północnej i centralnej Polski. Zasięg ten pokrywa się z występowaniem naturalnych zbiorników pochodzenia polodowcowego (N i NW Polska) oraz obszarem jezior Pojezierza Łęczyńsko-Włodawskiego. Zasięg jest zgodny z mapą rozmieszczenia zamieszczoną w „Poradniku…Natura 2000” (Piotrowicz 2004).
Siedlisko 3140 obejmuje ekosystemy wodne wód stojących. Warunkiem wykształcenia się siedliska jest dostępność zasobów wodnych o odpowiedniej jakości, właściwej dla roślinności ramienicowej. Generalnie rozmieszczenie i zasięg siedliska jest niezmienny. Dynamicznym zmianom podlega natomiast stan zachowania siedliska, co zostało odzwierciedlone w ocenie stanu zachowania. Oceniono, że zasięg jest stabilny. ||
->Coverage: Na podstawie badań monitoringowych siedliska prowadzonych w roku 2017 na 86 stanowiskach, powierzchnia generalnie wykazywała zadowalający stan zachowania z 80% stanowisk ocenionych jako we właściwym stanie zachowania (FV). Biorąc pod uwagę drastyczne pogorszenie się stanu zachowania siedliska w porównaniu do poprzednich badań, wykazane na podstawie innych parametrów i wskaźników wydaje się, że pozornie dobry stan zachowania powierzchni może wynikać z nieścisłości zdefiniowania tego parametru lub niewłaściwej interpretacji jego waloryzacji. Proces pogarszania jakości wód, który jest przyczyną degradacji roślinności i zaniku siedliska, nie wpływa na wielkość jeziora, co nie znaczy, że powierzchnia siedliska się nie kurczy lub nie zanika (zanikają warunki dogodne do rozwoju danego typu roślinności, mimo że powierzchnia zbiornika pozostaje niezmienna).
Jeziora ramienicowe podlegają silnym przekształceniom w związku z eutrofizacją i ograniczeniem warunków świetlnych spowodowanych rozwojem fitoplanktonu. Siedlisko to jest silnie zagrożone, ze spadkowym trendem zmian powierzchni w aspekcie krótkoterminowym. W aspekcie krótkoterminowym, na podstawie analizy wyników badań monitoringowych pomiędzy 2013 a 2017 rokiem, degradacja siedliska (zmiany przeźroczystości wody, zanik ramienic) dotyczyła 44% analizowanych zbiorników. Zmiany długoterminowe (od roku 1960) na podstawie obecności gatunków wskaźnikowych dla jezior ramienicowych, wskazują na ustępowanie sięgające ponad 40% stanowisk (Gąbka 2013). ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono w 2017 roku na 86 stanowiskach. Stan siedliska ustalono jako pogarszający się, oceniony na U2. Najczęstszą przyczyną złej oceny stanu siedliska była zła ocena wskaźników biotycznych, opisujących stan roślinności ramienicowej – uproszczenie jej struktury przestrzennej, spadek bogactwa taksonomicznego i/lub wkraczanie gatunków wskazujących na degradację, zazwyczaj typowych dla procesu eutrofizacji (bardziej odporne na wzrost zasobności wód gatunki roślin naczyniowych, wypierające gatunki ramienic). Negatywnym przekształceniom roślinności niemal zawsze towarzyszyło pogorszenie klimatu świetlnego w jeziorze (spadek zasięgu strefy świetlnej), które jest bezpośrednią przyczyną degradacji roślinności wodnej. Pozostałe parametry abiotyczne (odczyn, konduktywność) wykazywał pogorszony stan sporadycznie. Specyficzna struktura i funkcje wykazywały największy spośród parametrów stopień negatywnych zmian w porównaniu do badań poprzednich.
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: W związku ze stwierdzonym negatywnym trendem zmian powierzchni zajmowanej przez siedlisko, jego struktury i funkcji oraz braku wdrażania zabiegów ochronnych, perspektywy ochrony oceniono jako niezadawalające. W przypadkach wielu jezior ramienicowych zdegradowanych na skutek eutrofizacji wód, nie ma realnych możliwości utrzymania lub przywrócenia właściwego stanu ochrony siedliska. ||
->Conclusion: W porównaniu z poprzednimi wynikami raportu dla siedliska obserwuje się kontynuację trendu pogorszenia jakości siedliska i spadku liczby stanowisk we właściwym stanie zachowania, przede wszystkim na skutek pogarszającej się jakości wód (eutrofizacja) oraz skutkami wtórnymi tego procesu (wzrost biomasy fitoplanktonu, spadek przejrzystości wód, wycofywanie się najpierw wrażliwych, a następnie również tych bardziej tolerancyjnych gatunków ramienic, aż do zaniku roślinności ramienicowej i utraty cech siedliska).
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: 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 one third of the investigated waters, as assessed in the boreal region, based on 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. The habitat type is sensitive to eutrophication and reduced water quality which can affect the typical and characteristic species negatively. Many of the lakes area situated in agricultural areas and many of the lakes have been historically lowered for agricultural purposes. Still, the lowering have negative effect. However, in some cases there has been a stabilization in the system after lowering of the water table and natural conditions have been met. Areas of pasture are decreasing which reduce the area for the characteristic and typical species. The habitat is in unfavorable conservation status. 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: Range has been calculated on the basis of 1x1 km grid cells hosting sampling plots of the habitat type, recent mapping polygons and the distribution of the previous reporting. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: Future prospects for the range and area were estimated by best expert judgment, while for structure and functions on the basis of the data included in Hab_Mon CYPRUS database (ver. 3) (Dimopoulos et al. 2019). ||
->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: Critère pour évaluer l'habitat : conditions hydrologiques, conditions trophiques, concurrence avec les autres types de végétation, dynamique sédimentaire de la mare ||
->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 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: 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: 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 occurrence of habitat 3140 is being restricted to ‘Il-Qattara’, which falls within the Natura 2000 site - MT0000019 - L-Inħawi tad-Dwejra u tal-Qawra, inkluż Ħaġret il-Ġeneral. Here a deep freshwater pool is fed water all year round from spring seepage through the overhanging rock face, resulting in a body of perennial standing water which is typified by Chara spp. The other locations previously reported as 3140 are now classified under habitat ‘3170 – Mediterranean temporary ponds’ due to their ephemeral nature characteristic of such habitat in contrast to the ‘perennial standing water’ which characterises habitat 3140. Rock pools in the Maltese Islands are usually typified by the presence of species the life-cycle of which depends on the ephemeral nature of the habitat, such as Callitriche truncata, Damasonium bourgaei, Elatine gussonei, Ranunculus saniculaefolius, Triops cancriformis and Branchipus schaefferi. Thus the majority of the rock pools in the Maltese Islands fall under habitat 3170. ||
->HabCondition: The results in this datasheet are based on the assessment of selected pools. Only one pool is classed under this habitat type, since most pools are not dominated by charophytes, but by hydrophytic flowering plants. Such pools are classified under habitat type 3170.

Nitella flexilis, although reported in the past, was not observed for a number of years and was thus removed from the list of typical species of habitat 3140 for the Maltese Islands. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->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: This habitat has been insufficiently researched in Portugal. For this reason we have no basis for its assessment for the report period. ||
->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