Article 17 web tool

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Due to data gaps the range is smaller than it might be in reality. There is a need for further exploration of the habitat, the data available is incomplete and will be partially outdated next reporting period. ||
->Coverage: There is a strong need of further exploration of the habitat, the whole of the habitat should be revised and newly evaluated. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: There is only very limited data available, but based on expert opinion Area as well as S&F are likely to be continuously degenerating, reason are synergies with the adjacent habitats 7110/7120/7140. ||
->Conclusion: There is a strong need for further exploration and enhancement of the data available. ||
->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: Structure and functions are based on the information collected by the monitoring programme and programme of measures related to the implementation of WFD.

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

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: 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: Paucispecific habitat characterized by a moderate specific diversity at national and biogeographic scale.
The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status is not useful. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale or catchment area basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (400 km2) jest wyższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (392 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 i przeprowadzonego monitoringu. Siedlisko 3160 obejmuje zbiorniki wodne. Generalnie rozmieszczenie i zasięg siedliska jest niezmienny lub bardzo mało zmienny, uzależniony od uwarunkowań klimatycznych i dostępności zasobów wodnych. Zanikanie siedliska może następować głównie poprzez zarastanie jeziora dystroficznego i jego przechodzenie w ekosystem torfowiskowy (proces naturalny) lub poprzez antropogeniczną degradację ekosystemu np. na skutek wydobywania torfu. Monitoring wskazuje, że w przypadku braku istotnego zwiększenia presji w postaci zmian stosunków wodnych, degradacji pod wpływem działalności człowieka (np. wydobywanie torfu, zarybianie) zasięg i powierzchnia siedliska powinna pozostawać w stanie stabilnym. Monitoring prowadzony na dwóch stanowiskach w regionie alpejskim wykazał zanik powierzchni jednego stanowiska przez zarośnięcie oraz właściwy stan zachowania drugiego, co wskazuje, że pozostała powierzchnia siedliska pozostaje w stanie stabilnym. ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnie siedliska oszacowano na potrzeby raportowania w 2013 roku na podstawie standardowych formularzy danych obszarów Natura 2000, zweryfikowanych i zaktualizowanych w roku 2018. Na podstawie wyników badań monitoringowych prowadzonych w 2016 roku na dwóch stanowiskach siedliska w regionie alpejskim stwierdzono niezmieniony stan zachowania siedliska na stanowiskach (jedno stanowisko w stanie złym, drugie dobrze zachowane). Generalnie powierzchnia siedliska w bioregionie stabilna. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono w 2016 r. na dwóch stanowiskach w bioregionie. Pomimo stwierdzenia złego stanu jednego stanowiska i właściwego drugiego, stan siedliska stabilny, niezmieniony od poprzedniego raportu.
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: Stan zachowania siedliska oraz perspektywy ochrony są niepewne ze względu na bardzo małą liczbę stanowisk reprezentujących siedlisko w regionie. Siedlisko należy do cennych i objętych stosunkowo dobrą ochroną w Polsce. Odpowiednio podjęte działania ochronne mogą zapewnić utrzymanie siedliska w regionie. Nie bez znaczenia dla zachowania siedliska jest również jego trudna dostępność – otaczające zazwyczaj jeziora dystroficzne tereny podmokłe, torfowiskowe ograniczają penetrację tych ekosystemów przyczyniając się do ograniczenia presji antropogenicznej. ||
->Conclusion: W porównaniu z poprzednimi wynikami raportu dla siedliska, proporcje stanowisk w poszczególnych klasach stanu były takie same, co wskazuje na stosunkowo stabilny stan ochrony siedliska 3160 w regionie alpejskim. Zły stan oraz niepewne perspektywy ochrony wynikają ze złego stanu jednego z dwóch stanowisk – stanowisko pod obserwacją pod kątem odtwarzania się 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: 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: The habitat type is common, however there is little data from monitoring of these rather small lakes. The habitat type is fairly common and the pressure and threat is low. Thus an expert judgement is that 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: Creation of ponds in the framework of the Integrated Life Project (BNIP) ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Range was calculated using the range tool, based on the current known distribution of the 3160 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10 km grid cells was used. The resultant range contained 187 x 10 km cells.
Unlike the other Annex I lake habitat types that occur in Ireland (3110, 3130, 3140 and 3150), ponds or pools with lake habitat 3160 can be lost through damage and degradation of peatland. The habitat would have been widespread in the Irish midlands in the past, but was lost from this region through drainage of raised bogs for peat extraction and coniferous forestry. Drainage of blanket bog for similar reasons also led to significant declines along the western seaboard. Most of this habitat destruction would have occurred before the end of the 1980s; however, losses of blanket bog pool systems to forestry continued until at least the early 1990s. While individual sites may have been lost since 1994, it is considered unlikely that these led to a reduction in the habitat’s range.
No dedicated monitoring programme exists for lake habitat 3160 in Ireland. While the conservation status of blanket bogs (7130) and wet heaths (4010) continues to be Unfavourable-Bad (and deteriorating), in the absence of 3160-specific survey data, it is assumed that the range of the habitat is stable.
The range has increased by 400 km2 since the last reporting cycle, owing to the incorporation of the site-specific conservation objective mapping data at the 1:5,000 scale. Existing data were used to classify previously unclassified lake segments. The change is therefore a combination of the use of a different method and more accurate data; however, no new field survey data were available for the reporting cycle. ||
->Coverage: The distribution was used to estimate habitat area, following the approach employed for the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015). Estimates used the surface area of the lake and pond polygons classified as containing the habitat. It became clear during mapping of 3160 for the 2007-2012 report and the site-specific conservation objectives that many dystrophic lakes and ponds, within areas of blanket bog in particular, were not mapped at 1:50,000 or 1:5,000 scales. Therefore, the surface areas provided are considered likely to underestimate the area of the habitat in Ireland.
The minimum estimate summed the surface areas of all 13,034 lake segments that were classified as containing the habitat (26.5 km2).
The maximum estimate included a correction factor for unclassified lake segments. Following the 2007-2012 methods (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015), it was assumed that 96% (10 km2) of the area of the 4,158 unclassified segments of less than 1 ha in area is habitat 3160. 26.5 km2 and 10 km2 were summed to give the maximum of 36.5 km2.
No long-term trend was reported, owing to the absence of reliable, field-based data on the habitat.
A single area value of 32.1 km2 was provided for the 2007-2012 reporting cycle, which is within the range reported here (26.5-36.5 km2). The changes result from the incorporation of 1:5,000 scale mapping data (different method). ||
->HabCondition: Habitat 3160 is a naturally dystrophic, botanically species-poor habitat found in peatland areas, commonly as a mosaic with blanket bog and wet heath habitats. By definition, the habitat requires highly oligotrophic conditions.
There is no dedicated monitoring programme for lake habitat 3160 in Ireland and a standard method for assessing its conservation condition at individual sites has not yet been developed. As a result, there is no reliable means of estimating the area in ‘good’ and in ‘not-good’ condition.
EPA WFD water quality data are available for five lakes considered likely to have habitat 3160 (Loughs Tay, Bray Lower and Upper Glendalough in SAC 002122, Lough Enask in SAC 002034, and Loughaunore, also in Connemara). As the sample size is small, it is uncertain whether these data are representative of the condition of habitat across its distribution in lakes. Lake data cannot be representative of the condition of the habitat in peatland pool systems. Nevertheless, the data for the five lakes were examined, using the approach adopted for habitat 3110 (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015), and WFD data for 2013-2015 (Fanning et al., 2018). A target of High Status was used for each of the five elements Macrophyte, Phytobenthos, Phytoplankton, Nutrient Conditions and Acidification. For Structure and functions to be considered to be in Favourable condition, all five elements had to reach high status. If one or more WFD element was moderate, poor or bad status, conservation condition was assessed as Bad. If one or more element was at good status, but none were moderate, poor or bad, Structure and functions were assessed as in Inadequate conservation condition. Only one of the five lakes was assessed in Good/Favourable condition, two were in Poor/Unfavourable-Inadequate condition and two in Bad/Unfavourable-Bad condition. In terms of area, this was 3 ha in Good condition, 31 ha in Poor condition and 83 ha in Bad condition. Macrophytes were at High Status in one lake, Good Status in two and Moderate Status in two. By contrast, phytoplankton status was high at five lakes and nutrient condition status at three, which could suggest that the macrophyte assessment is influenced by the habitat’s naturally low species richness. This further emphasises that the WFD data cannot be reliably used at this point in time to assess the condition of habitat 3160.
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:
1. the sample size was small and restricted to lakes. The occurrence of the habitat in the five lakes has not been confirmed;
2. confidence is very low in the applicability of WFD metrics to assessment of the conservation condition of habitat 3160;
3. no data were available for peatland pool systems; however it is noted that the Conservation Status of blanket bogs (7130) and wet heath (4010) were assessed as Unfavourable-Bad and deteriorating for the reporting cycle.
The overall Unfavourable-Inadequate Structure and functions assessment is conservative and in keeping with the Conservation Status for the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013).
The 2007-2012 assessment was informed by research demonstrating significant impacts in blanket bog lakes as a result of conifer plantation forestry (Drinan, 2012; Drinan et al., 2013 a, b). The loss of the high conservation value odonate and coleopteran species from impacted lakes was of particular concern. The changes in hydrochemistry, chydorid and macroinvertebrate assemblages documented were the result of enrichment, rather than acidification, processes. A 2013 review of other research into the impacts of forest operations, particularly clear-felling, on water quality demonstrated that significant increases in nutrient, sediment and DOC are common across forests on peatland, particularly during and after clear-felling (NPWS, 2013; O Connor, 2015). For the 2007-2012 report, by combining:
1. the significant negative ecological impacts documented in the studied blanket bog lakes, with
2. the data on physico-chemical impacts on water quality emerging from studies on forestry on peatland, and
3. the scale of the pressures, notably forestry on peatland, peat extraction and other degradation of peatland, in the catchments of dystrophic lakes and ponds in Ireland,
the habitat was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.

While blanket bog pool systems are found in the wettest areas of upland and western peatland that are best protected from on-going pressures, the on-going Bad status of the associated peatland habitats is a cause for concern. Given the scale of the pressures on peatland, notably forestry, peat extraction and overgrazing, Poor and Bad conservation condition may be more widespread for the habitat in small lakes.
Dedicated monitoring of habitat 3160 is a priority for the next reporting cycle (2019-2024).
In the absence of data on the condition of the habitat, the trend in Structures and function must be reported as unknown.
Work is needed to develop specific conservation condition assessment methods for habitat 3160 in pool systems and in lakes. As part of this, the applicability of the WFD lake elements/metrics to assessing 3160 conservation condition should be tested. Further elucidation of the natural variation in habitat 3160 and its ecological requirements is also required, in particular in relation to altitude. The development of indicators and targets for supporting conditions such as water colour and organic matter, as well as the more standard suite of nutrients, is also a priority in order to inform conservation objectives and measures.
The list of typical 3160 species has not changed since the 2007-2012 cycle and was reported in NPWS (2013) and O Connor (2015). O Connor (2015) provides details of how the list was derived. The typical species include plant species, chydorid cladoceran species and aquatic macroinvertebrate species. The typical plant species were: Sphagnum cuspidatum, Sphagnum auriculatum (= denticulatum), Juncus bulbosus, Potamogeton polygonifolius, Cladium mariscus, Eleogiton fluitans, Menyanthes trifoliata, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Nitella flexilis, Nitella translucens, Nymphaea alba, Sparganium angustifolium, Utricularia intermedia, Utricularia minor. The typical chydorid cladoceran species were: Alona affinis, Alona costata, Alona rustica, Alonella excise, Alonella nana, Alonopsis elongata, Camptocercus rectirostris, Chydorus sphaericus, Eurycercus lamellatus and Pleuroxus truncatus. The typical aquatic macroinvertebrate species were: Acilius sulcatus, Aeshna juncea, Agabus arcticus, Cordulia aenea, Dytiscus lapponicus, Gyrinus minutus, Gyrinus substriatus, Helophorus flavipes, Hydroporus gyllenhalii, Hydroporus obscurus, Hydroporus pubescens, Hydroporus tristis, Ilybius aenescens, Leptophlebia vespertina, Pyrrhosoma nymphula, Sigara scotti. ||
->Future: The Future prospects of the Range, Area and Structure and functions of habitat 3160 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: Four pressures of high importance were recorded and two of medium importance and all were listed as threats, owing to their likely continuation. These pressures and threats result in changes in water quality and hydrological regime and, therefore, have a 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 3160 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 (for 3160 and associated habitats - 7130, 4010, etc.), conditions and significant pressures and threats; and there is likely to be a significant time-lag before conservation measures, once implemented, take effect (e.g. measures to reverse hydrological damage to peat). 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. 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-term trend of the Area was 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. 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: As there has been no dedicated monitoring of habitat 3160, no short-term trend in Structure and functions could be reported. Based largely on the 2007-2012 report, which was informed by ecological impacts documented in blanket bog lakes, data on water quality impacts emerging from studies of forestry on peatland, and the scale of the pressures on peatland from forestry, peat extraction, agriculture and other developments of peatland, the Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate. Given the scale of the threats, particularly the maturation of conifer plantations on peat, and the absence of specific conservation measures, the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Poor.
As the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Poor, the Future prospects for habitat 3160 were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate overall. ||
->Conclusion: Range: There is no evidence of a decline in range since the Directive came into force (stable short- and long-term trends). While the range of dystrophic lakes and ponds is believed to have declined prior to the Directive, the area of the current range is large at approximately 22% of the terrestrial grid, and the habitat is widespread, occurring in 13 counties. Therefore, it is assumed that the current range includes all significant Irish ecological variations of the habitat and is sufficient to allow the long-term viability of the habitat, i.e. the range is equal to the Favourable Reference Range. As a result, Range was assessed as Favourable.
Area: There is no evidence of a decline in area since the Directive came into force (stable short-term trend) and the area is large at 26.5-36.5 km2. It is assumed that the current area includes all significant Irish ecological variations of the habitat, is sufficiently large to allow the long-term viability of the habitat and, therefore, the estimated minimum surface area of the habitat is equal to the Favourable Reference Area. As a result, Area was assessed as Favourable.
Structure and functions: As there has been no dedicated monitoring of habitat 3160, the Structure and functions assessment was based largely on the 2007-2012 report, which was in turn informed by ecological impacts documented in blanket bog lakes, data on water quality impacts emerging from studies of forestry on peatland, and the scale of the pressures on peatland from forestry, peat extraction, agriculture and other developments of peatland. Using these data, and informed by the conservation assessments of blanket bogs (7130) and wet heaths (4010), the Structure and functions were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate. No short-term trend in Structure and functions could be reported.
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-Inadequate. Although the short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as unknown, owing to the significant and widespread pollution and hydrological pressures identified and the absence of conservation measures for the habitat, the predicted future trend in Structure and functions was assessed as negative. Therefore, Future prospects were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate overall.
As Structure and functions and Future prospects were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, the Overall Conservation Status of 3160 was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.
As trends for Range and Area were assessed as stable, and Structure and functions trends were unknown, the overall trend was assessed as stable in accordance with the reporting guidelines and ETC advice. For the 2007-2012 cycle, the overall trend was reported as decreasing, based on the identified pressures (particularly on-going turf-cutting, maturing conifer crops, overgrazing and wind farm developments) and lack of conservation measures. The change in reported trend does not represent a genuine change or an improvement in knowledge.
Work is needed to develop specific conservation condition assessment methods for habitat 3160 in pool systems and in lakes, as well as to test the applicability of the WFD elements/metrics to assessing 3160 conservation condition in lakes. Further elucidation of the natural variation in habitat 3160 and its ecological requirements is also required, in particular in relation to altitude. The development of indicators and targets for supporting conditions such as water colour and organic matter, as well as the more standard suite of nutrients, is also a priority in order to inform conservation objectives and measures.
Assessing trends in Area and Structure and functions will continue to be a challenge. Even where dedicated and standardised monitoring and assessment methodologies are in use, data will be too temporally infrequent to estimate or quantify the trend magnitude or identify when changes in trend occur. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The 6 years ago reported range is not 100% correct, but we assume that no change in range larger than 10% occurred. A change of 10% is used as a threshold for positive or negative trends. The Favourable Reference Range in Bijlsma et al. (2014) has been corrected. ||
->Coverage: No reliable new data on area available. ||
->HabCondition: No data on area with good S&F available. In Noord-Brabant a positive trend in the habitat type conditions was shown (Van Dam et al. 2017). This overrules the TS-score of U2 (based partly on longer ago extinct species), leading to an overall S&F-score of U1. ||
->Future: Effects of climate change will affect the habitat ||
->Conclusion: See 6.8. 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, based on the area that has been assessed, 56% of the habitat 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 not more than 10% below 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 poor; 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.
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 Favourable to Unfavourable-bad. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Structure and functions are based on the information collected by the monitoring programme and programme of measures related to the implementation of WFD.

Rakenteen ja toiminnan arviointi perustuu vesipuitedirektiivin toimeenpanoon liittyvissä seurannoissa ja toimenpideohjelmissa kerättyyn tietoon. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Diffuse pollution to surface waters due to agricultural and forestry activities is by far causing the biggest threat for the habitat. It causes gradual eutrofication and weakens the state of typical species. Climate change increases the risk of nutrient pollution and may cause eutrofication. Nationally most of the largest lakes are regulated for flood protection and hydropower production purposes. Regulation changes the zonation of aquatic vegetation, destroys bird nests (for example of Gavia artica) and weakens the fry production of fish. Further dispersal habitation causes nutrient loading and weakens the natural state of shores.

Selvästi suurin uhka luontotyypille on maa- ja metsätaloudesta johtuva hajakuormitus, joka aiheuttaa vähittäistä rehevöitymistä, ja heikentää tyyppilajien tilaa.
Ilmastonmuutos lisää ravinteiden huuhtoutumisen riskiä ja voi aiheuttaa rehevöitymistä. Suurinta osaa suurista humusjärvistä säännöstellään tulvasuojelun ja energiantuotannon tarpeisiin. Säännöstely muuttaa kasvillisuuden vyöhykkeisyyttä, tuhoaa lintujen, mm. kuikan pesiä ja heikentää kalojen poikastuotantoa. Lisäksi rantarakentaminen aihe aiheuttaa ravinnekuormitusta ja heikentää rantojen luonnontilaa.

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: It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based only N2000 areas during 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.
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: The habitat type is common, however there is little data from monitoring of these rather small lakes. The habitat type is fairly common and the pressure and threat is low. Thus an expert judgement is that 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: There is a strong need of further exploration of the habitat, the whole of the habitat should be revised and newly evaluated. ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: There is only very limited data available, but based on expert opinion Area is likely to be continuously degenerating, reason are synergies with the adjacent habitats 7110/7120/7140. Same applies less intense to Range and S&F. ||
->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: Many more data have become available on this habitat through N2000 sites
mapping. Information= Oliver Schott (see detailes into mail 14/03/2019) ||
->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: 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: Superficie proposée en 2018 : somme de la superficie des mailles issues de la modélisation MNHN (4800 km²) + 11 mailles (1100 km²) ajoutées manuellement. ||
->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: Paucispecific habitat characterized by a moderate specific diversity at national and biogeographic scale.
The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status is not useful. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale or catchment area basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (10 000 km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (13 385km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. Wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy wyliczaniu zasięgu za pomocą Range Tool wzięto pod uwagę mniejszy „gap distance” niż w raporcie opracowanym w 2013 roku. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski.
Zasięg określono częściowo na podstawie znajomości rozmieszczenia siedliska, a częściowo na podstawie przeprowadzonego monitoringu. Siedlisko 3160 obejmuje zbiorniki wodne. Generalnie rozmieszczenie i zasięg siedliska jest niezmienny lub bardzo mało zmienny, uzależniony od uwarunkowań klimatycznych i dostępności zasobów wodnych. Zanikanie siedliska może następować głównie poprzez zarastanie jeziora dystroficznego i jego przechodzenie w ekosystem torfowiskowy (proces naturalny) lub poprzez antropogeniczną degradację ekosystemu np. na skutek wydobywania torfu. Monitoring wskazuje, że w przypadku braku istotnego zwiększenia presji w postaci zmian stosunków wodnych, degradacji pod wpływem działalności człowieka (np. wydobywanie torfu, zarybianie) zasięg i powierzchnia siedliska powinna pozostawać w stanie stabilnym. ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnie siedliska oszacowano na potrzeby raportowania w 2013 roku na podstawie standardowych formularzy danych obszarów Natura 2000, zweryfikowanych i zaktualizowanych w roku 2018. Na podstawie wyników badań monitoringowych prowadzonych w 2016 roku na 54 stanowiskach siedliska w bioregionie kontynentalnym stwierdzono właściwy stan zachowania siedliska (FV), zmniejszenie powierzchni stwierdzano jedynie w przypadku pojedynczych stanowisk (przypadki incydentalne). Generalnie powierzchni siedliska w bioregionie stabilna. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono w 2016 r. na 56 stanowiskach w bioregionie. Stan siedliska stabilny, oceniony jako FV.
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: Stan zachowania siedliska oraz perspektywy ochrony są dobre. Siedlisko należy do cennych i objętych stosunkowo dobrą ochroną w Polsce. Odpowiednio podjęte działania ochronne oraz ze względu na wyróżnienie siedliska jako przedmiotu ochrony (Natura 2000), jako siedlisko cenne powodują, że perspektywy ochrony są dobre. Nie bez znaczenia dla zachowania siedliska jest również jego trudna dostępność – otaczające zazwyczaj jeziora dystroficzne tereny podmokłe, torfowiskowe ograniczają penetrację tych ekosystemów przyczyniając się do ograniczenia presji antropogenicznej. ||
->Conclusion: W porównaniu z poprzednimi wynikami raportu dla siedliska, proporcje stanowisk w poszczególnych klasach stanu były takie same, co wskazuje na stosunkowo stabilny stan ochrony siedliska 3160.
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.
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: The habitat type is common, however there is little data from monitoring of these rather small lakes. The habitat type is fairly common and the pressure and threat is low. Thus an expert judgement is that 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: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report