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: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: There are only few pressures or threats to this habitat type in the largely uninhabited alpine region. Pollution spreading from Russia has some minor effects on water quality. Climate change may result in harmful changes in water temperatures and hydrology, possibly critical for the breeding of some fish species and other animals.

Alpiinisella alueella tähän luontotyyppiin kohdistuu vain vähän uhkia tai paineita. Venäjältä tulevalla kaukokulkeutumisella on joitain vähäisiä vaikutuksia veden laatuun. Ilmastonmuutos saattaa muuttaa vesien lämpötilaa ja hydrologiaa, millä voi olla suuri merkitys joidenkin kalojen ja muiden vesieliöiden kannalta.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: L'effet des énormes crues (2013, 2014) n'a pas été vérifié et n'est pas simple à évaluer de façon intuitive. Les gros aménagements hydrologiques qui ont suivi ne paraissent pas favorables à un fonctionnement naturel du cours d'eau et à une restauration des structures et fonctions de l'habitat. Cela s'ajoute aux effets des infrastructures résidentielles et sportives liées à l'activité ski et aux effets de l'hydroélectricité sur les régimes des cours d'eau pour justifier de structures et fonctions de plus en plus perturbées. ||
->Future: L'artificialisation des régimes hydrologiques pour l'hydroéléctricité, les aménagements réalisés à la suite des grandes crues de 2013 et 2014, les perspectives de développement d'infrastructures de sport d'hiver ne permettent pas d'envisager une amélioration des structures et fonctions de l'habitat dont les perspectives peuvent donc être considérées comme médiocres. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status at biogeographical scale is not useful for the assessment of the conservation status. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 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 river types in the region, the ecological status is considered to be good or high in about 45% of the investigated waters in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and F&S.Hydromorphological parameters coupled to structures and functions was also considered in the expert judgement (information available but not presented here).The pressure on the habitat is considered to be lower than for the boreal or continental region. 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: The trend can be 'stable' or 'increasing', but certainly not 'decreasing'. ||
->Coverage: Trend (field 5.6) based on comparison of distribution map of 2012 (Leyssen et al. 2012) and 2018 (Leyssen et al. 2018) and comparison of presence or absense of the habitattype on sites visited in both 2007-2012 and 2013-2017 (ca. 50 locations). ||
->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: Si la surface de l'habitat ne change pas, les structures et fonctions s'altèrent en lien avec les dégradations physico-chimiques des eaux de surface, auxquelles s'ajoutent les modifications des régimes des cours d'eau issues d'aménagements plus ou moins anciens. Une banalisation des herbiers qui structurent l'habitat en résulte probablement, avec la transformation des cortèges floristiques sélectionnant les espèces les plus tolérantes aux stress
environnementaux. ||
->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 distribution was used as the range, i.e. the range tool was not used. The resultant range contained 822 x 10 km cells.
Little is known about the characteristics or ecology of the habitat (Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation) in Ireland. Weekes et al. (2018) described four main categories of river macrophyte communities and found that diversity was highest in bryophyte communities. Further study is needed to describe the high conservation value sub-types (ecological variants) of the habitat, typical species, ecological requirements and responses to anthropogenic pressures, in order to improve knowledge of the habitat’s distribution and range.
As the range is based on the distribution of rivers, and there is no evidence of a decline in the range of rivers, it is assumed that the Range of habitat 3260 is Stable. Given the poor understanding and limited data on habitat 3260, no long-term trend has been reported. ||
->Coverage: The surface area of habitat 3260 was based on the distribution of rivers. The area reported for the 2007-2012 cycle (234.9 km2) was used as the estimated ‘Best single value’ Surface area. This figure was based on the Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) Wetted Area data (based, in turn, on predictive modelling completed in 2012) (see NPWS, 2013).
Little is known about the characteristics or ecology of the habitat (Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation) in Ireland. Weekes et al. (2018) described four main categories of river macrophyte communities and found that diversity was highest in bryophyte communities. Further study is needed to describe the high conservation value sub-types (ecological variants) of the habitat, typical species, ecological requirements and responses to anthropogenic pressures, in order to improve knowledge of the habitat’s distribution and area.
As the area is based on the distribution of rivers, and there is no evidence of a decline in the area of rivers, it is assumed that the Area of habitat 3260 is stable. Given the poor understanding and limited data on habitat 3260, no long-term trend has been reported. ||
->HabCondition: Little is known about the characteristics or ecology of the habitat (Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation) in Ireland. Weekes et al. (2018) found a rich diversity of bryophyte communities within Irish rivers but lower diversity among vascular plant communities. Further study is needed to fully describe the high conservation value sub-types (ecological variants) of the habitat, their typical species, ecological requirements and responses to anthropogenic pressures, in order to improve knowledge of the habitat’s structure and functions.
In Ireland, many river communities represent an altered state caused by anthropogenic impacts on habitats, particularly changes in hydrology and morphology. In preparing site-specific conservation objectives for the habitat, efforts have been made to identify the site-specific vegetation and other communities of high conservation value (NPWS, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018). High conservation value sub-types are associated with natural hydrological regimes, including functioning floodplains. A natural flow regime is required for both plant communities and channel geomorphology to be in Favourable condition, exhibiting typical dynamics for the river type (Hatton-Ellis and Grieve, 2003). For many sub-types, high flows are required to maintain the substratum necessary for the characteristic species; others are characterised by high groundwater contribution; others by naturally, slow-flow and fine sediment deposition and/or tidal influence.
The specific ecological requirements will vary among sub-types. Naturally base-rich and nutrient-poor rivers are likely to be the most threatened.
As no dedicated monitoring programme exists for habitat 3260 in Ireland and a standard method for assessing its conservation condition at individual sites has not been developed, data on river water quality have been used to infer the status of the Structure and functions. It must be cautioned that the applicability of WFD tools to assessing the habitat’s conservation condition has not yet been tested. The specific water quality targets are likely to vary among sub-types.
The assessment used the data from the 2007-2012 cycle (NPWS, 2013), and incorporated EPA WFD data for 2013-2017 (Fanning et al., 2018; Tierney and O’Boyle, 2018; Trodd and O’Boyle, 2018). For the 2010-2015 period, 57% of monitored river water bodies were classified as being at high or good ecological status and 69% of the channel length was unpolluted (Fanning et al., 2017). The areas of the habitat in good condition were based on the value of 69% channel length. It was assumed that the EPA WFD sample was fully representative and, therefore, that the condition was known for 100% of the habitat area. Minimums were based on the 21 SACs designated for the protection of habitat 3260, which had an estimated surface area of river channel of 17 km2 (using the IFI Wetted Area data). 69% of 17 km2 is 12 km2 in ‘good’ condition, 31% is 5 km2 in ‘not-good’ condition. 69% of the national, ‘best estimate’ area of 234 km2 is 161 km2 in ‘good’ condition, 31% is 73 km2 in ‘not-good’ condition.
Although the estimated area in ‘not-good’ condition/Unfavourable of 31% is greater than 25%, Structure and functions were assessed as Inadequate overall, because confidence in the assessment is low given the poor knowledge of the distribution, ecology, conservation-value and water quality requirements of habitat 3260, including the applicability of WFD tools to assessing its conservation condition.
The number of high ecological status (Q4-5 and Q5) river water bodies has continued to decline from 31.6% of sites in the 1987-1990 period, to 17.6% in 2013-2015 and 17.0% in 2014-2017 (0.6% = 14 sites) (Fanning et al., 2017; Tierney and O’Boyle, 2018; Trodd and O’Boyle, 2018). While there was a minor improvement in the number of the most pristine sites (Q5) from 23 in 2013-2015 to 30 in 2015-2017, the long-term trend is of significant decline, from 13.4% of sites in the 1987-1990 period to just 1.1% in 2015-2017 (Trodd and O’Boyle, 2018). Overall, between 2007-2009 and 2010-2015, 1,227 (57%) river water bodies remained stable, 418 (20%) improved and 499 (23%) declined in status (Fanning et al., 2017). Between 2013-2015 and 2016-2018, however, river biological quality fell by 3%, a net decline of 72 water bodies (Trodd and O’Boyle, 2018). As the decline in high status sites is considered most relevant to the assessment of trends in conservation status, the short-term trend was assessed as decreasing.
Typical species have not been fully defined but may include higher plants, bryophytes, algae and invertebrates. Further work is required to fully describe the typical and characteristic species of habitat 3260. The list of typical species for habitat 3260 was based on the interpretation manual of EU habitats (CEC, 2013) and is the same as that reported for the 2007-2012 cycle: Berula erecta, Callitriche spp., Fontinalis antipyretica, Myriophyllum spp., Potamogeton spp., Ranunculus aquatilis, Ranunculus peltatus, Ranunculus penicillatus, Ranunculus trichophyllus, Zannichellia palustris. Further work is required to incorporate and build upon the work of Weekes et al. (2018). ||
->Future: The Future prospects of the Range, Area and Structure and functions of habitat 3260 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 and five of medium importance were recorded and all were listed as threats, owing to their likely continuation. These pressures and threats result in changes in hydromorphology and water quality and, therefore, have negative influence on the status of the habitat’s Structure and functions.
Conservation measures: No habitat-specific, concrete conservation measures are currently being undertaken to maintain, restore or enhance areas of 3260 habitat, either within SACs or the wider countryside. It will take time to identify conservation measures based on the ecological requirements of the habitat, combined with the site-specific conservation objectives, conditions and significant pressures and threats; and there is likely to be a significant time-lag before conservation measures, once implemented, take effect (e.g. measures to reverse hydrological damage to peat and other organic soils). Therefore, conservation measures cannot halt or reverse the negative influence of the threats in the next 12 years.
Range: The short-term trend of the Range was 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 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: The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as decreasing, based on the on-going decline in High Status rivers sites. Although the estimated area in ‘not-good’ condition/Unfavourable was 31%, Structure and functions were assessed as Inadequate overall, because confidence in the assessment is low. While measures under the WFD RBMP should help improve water quality generally, addressing the loss of High Status sites will be a significant challenge and will involve a time-lag. Therefore, the predicted future trend has been assessed as negative. The Future prospects of the Structure and functions were, therefore, assessed as Poor.
As the Future prospects of the Structure and functions were assessed as Poor, the Future prospects for habitat 3260 were assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate overall. ||
->Conclusion: Range: As the Range is based on the distribution of rivers, it covers most of the terrestrial grid and all counties. Therefore, the current range includes all Irish ecological variations of the habitat, is sufficiently large to allow the long-term viability of the habitat and is equal to the Favourable Reference Range. The short-term trend of the Range was assessed as stable. Therefore, the Conservation Status of the Range was assessed as Favourable.
Area: The estimated surface area of the habitat is equal to the Favourable Reference Area and includes all Irish ecological variations and is sufficient to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat type. There is no evidence of a decline in Area since the Directive came into force (stable short-term trend). As a result, Area was assessed as Favourable.
Structure and functions: Biological and physico-chemical data were available from the WFD for over 2,300 river sites. 56% of water bodies were at High or Good Ecological Status in 2015-2017. 69% of river channel length monitored 2010-2015 was at High or Good Ecological Status, therefore 31% was in ‘not-good’ status. Although the estimated area in ‘not-good’ condition/Unfavourable of 31% is greater than 25%, Structure and functions were assessed as Inadequate overall, because confidence in the assessment is low given the poor knowledge of the distribution, ecology, conservation-value and water quality requirements of habitat 3260, including the applicability of WFD tools to assessing its conservation condition.
The short-term trend in Structure and functions was assessed as decreasing, based on the on-going decline in High Status rivers sites. 31.6% of sites in the 1987-1990 period were at High Status, 17.6% in 2013-2015 and 17.0% in 2014-2017.
Confidence is low in both the condition and trend assessments as general water quality indicators have been used in the absence of habitat-specific indicators and data.
Future prospects: The Future prospects of Range and Area were assessed as Good. The Future prospects of Structure and functions were assessed as Poor. 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 3260 was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate.
As for the 2007-2012 cycle, the overall trend was assessed as deteriorating, based on the identified pressures and lack of conservation measures, leading to a predicted negative future trend in Structure and functions.
Further study is needed to fully describe the high conservation value sub-types (ecological variants) of habitat 3260, their typical species, ecological requirements and responses to anthropogenic pressures, in order to improve knowledge of the habitat’s structure and functions. As well as developing specific conservation condition assessment methods for habitat 3260, the applicability of the WFD elements/metrics used above needs to be tested.
Assessing Structure and functions and Overall trends will continue to be a challenge. Even where dedicated and standardised monitoring and assessment methodologies are in use, data will be too temporally infrequent to estimate or quantify the trend magnitude or identify when changes in trend occur.
There has been no genuine change or improved knowledge; in fact, 31% of channel length was reported as polluted in both water quality monitoring cycles (2007-2009 and 2010-2015). ||
->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 5600; therefore the range is decreasing, but less than 10%.
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, however severe negative trends have been reported for the Swalm (the habitat type has nearly disappeared) and the Veluwe area (strong decline). ||
->HabCondition: S&F assessment based on NDFF analysis, in co-operation with CBS, showed a positive trend from U2 to U1, but the number of species was too low. Together with TS an overall assessment of U1 seems okay, even though data are limited. Trend (based on limited data) seems positive. ||
->Future: Water plants in brooks are increasing, but in many cases they are not the relevant species of the habitat type. ||
->Conclusion: S&F assessment based on TS analysis + NDFF analysis with limited data. ||
->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 area of habitat in favourable (good) v unfavourable (not good) condition. Nevertheless, the information available clearly indicates that most of the habitat is in unfavourable condition (including >95% across England, Scotland and Wales), and that overall the condition of the habitat is potentially improving. ||
->Future: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Positive - slight/moderate improvement ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is 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 poor.
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 - increasing.
||
->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: Water courses of this habitat type are fairly common in the whole area. However, their structure and function is often impaired due to hydrological changes and pollution caused by agriculture, forestry and, e.g., peat extraction. Especially the forestry activities like clear cutting, tillage, ditching and use of fertilisers pollute headwaters.

Habitat type is usually characterised by abundant bryophyte vegetation in rapids, although there is much variation in the characteristics of the habitat type depending on the soil type (peat, moraine or clay) and land use in the catchment area.

Due to the linear nature of this habitat type estimation of a realistic surface area is difficult.

The habitat type may overlap with Fennoscandian natural rivers (3210).

Tähän luontotyyppiin kuuluvat virtavedet on yleisiä koko alueella, mutta niiden rakenne ja toiminta on usein heikentynyt maa- ja metsätalouden, ja esimerkiksi turpeenoton aiheuttamien hydrologisten muutosten ja kuormituksen takia. Metsätalouden toimista erityisesti päätehakkuut, maanmuokkaus, ojitus ja lannoitus kuormittavat latvavesistöjä.

Luontotyyppiä luonnehtii yleensä runsas sammalkasvillisuus koskipaikoilla, vaikkakin vaihtelu luontotyypin ominaisuuksissa on suurta riippuen maaperästä (turvetta, moreenia tai savea) ja valuma-alueen maankäytöstä. Tämän luontotyypin luonteeseen kuuluu lineaarisuus, eikä pinta-alaa voida arvioida luotettavasti.

Luontotyyppi voi olla päällekkäinen Fennoskandian luonnontilaisten jokireittien (3210) kanssa.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: Surface area of the Habitat 3260 is presented in kilometers, because of the linear pattern of the habitat. ||
->HabCondition: Area in point 6.1c is presented in kilometers, because of the linear pattern of the habitat. ||
->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: 14% of habitats are low quality, therefore this amount indicated as to be not in good condition. Area of good condition - indicated the amout of habitats in good and excelent quality ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: It is not possible to measure a change of 1%, as previous assessments were based only on 32 investigated rivers 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, monitoring inside Natura 2000 and other relevant environmental monitoring, it is possible to estimate the condition for 1/3 of the habitat, 2/3 are considered as unkwnown (or uncertain). Thus, the structures and functions for the 1/3 of the actual habitat type is expected to be favourable in > 30% of the cases and the rest is not. For 2/3 of the total area, the situation is considered unknown (uncertain). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: In general for all river types in the region, the ecological status is considered to be good or high in about 17% of the investigated waters in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and S&F. Hydromorphological parameters coupled to structures and functions was also considered in the expert judgement (information available but not presented here). Forestry may have an negative impact if it is not carried out with good environmental consideration. Many rivers are indirectly affected by water regulation (e.g. hydropower) with faunal barriers preventing dispersal of organisms. Water systems high up in the system often become oligotrophic. Conclusively, the pressure is ongoing and leads to further deterioration and prevent dispersal of organisms to their natural habitats. Historically, to be able to transport timber, a lot of the water courses have been straightened and canalized. Restoration is done however many objects need to be restored so the rate is slow. There are still effects of acidification and even if the acidified precipitation is decreasing, recovery are slow in some regions, especially south-west Sweden. Management of water levels cause erosion and may hinder establishment of plants in the littoral zone. Many rivers lack functional littoral zones. Alien species spread naturally or are facilitated by compensation releases. Water quality is negatively affected by acidification and pollutants (nutrients, metals, chemicals). The boreal region is less densely populated with more agricultural areas inducing a lower pressure as compared to contintenal region. Clearing ditches adjacent to the habitat increase transport of suspended matter together with pollutants (nutrients, metals etc). There is no indication of improvement of the situation on a biogeographical level. Thus, the trend is assessed as deteriorating, as reported 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Considering that roughly 65% of continental waters are in good conditions and that new sampling sites show poor or bad situations related to biological assessment (e.g. fishes), the former assessment of 2013 has been downgraded to U2.
WFD measures should give results in the near future (2030) ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The assessment of the habitat’s area and the conservation status are partly based on the monitoring network settled for the WFD in Wallonia.

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 Nordostendes Verbreitungsgebiets bzw. fehlende Größenanteile gehen auf fehlende aktuelle Daten zurück, bedeuten aber im Regelfall keine tatsächlichen Verluste im Verbreitungsgebiet des LRT. ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen regional 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: Les habitats les plus eutrophes au sein de l'habitat générique sont ceux en meilleur état de conservation mais la situation ne se décline pas simplement en fonction des habitats élémentaires : il existe des groupements plus ou moins fragiles dans chacun, qui devraient nous semble-t-il être considérés de façon distincte dans l'évaluation.

L'étude de Loury (2015) sur l'habitat 3260 dans des cours d'eau de l'est francilien indique que les stations qui présentent un cortège floristique le plus proche de l’habitat tel qu'il est référencé dans les Cahiers d'Habitat ont été observées dans des portions urbaines et chenalisées des cours d’eau. Elles possèdent les caractéristiques stationnelles et le cortège typique de l’habitat, signifiant qu’ils ne sont pas dégradés du point de vue de l'UE.
Cependant, leur fonctionnalité hydrologique et écologique est altérée à cause d’une connectivité transversale inexistante. Il serait important de prendre en compte l’environnement de l’habitat pour réaliser une évaluation complète, intégrant notamment l'état naturel de la ripisylve et l'hydromorphologie.
D'autres indicateurs couramment utilisés (IBMR, IBGN, IBD, IPR, QBR...), certains relevés dans le cadre du réseau DCE, seraient à croiser pour évaluer plus finement l'état de conservation de cet habitat. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat U1 pour les structures et fonctions. L'absence de distingo fait par l'UE entre les différents habitats élémentaires ne doit pas occulter le fait que les communautés s'appauvrissent et/ou se banalisent, ce qui génère au global une détérioration des fonctions écosystémiques de l'habitat. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status at biogeographical scale is not useful for the assessment of the conservation status. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: During the survey of 2018, 112,7 km of brooks and rivers were analysed. In 44,9% of the surveyed waters (based on sections of 100 m), typical species for the 3260 habitat type have been found. For the maximum surface area, the river length by river width of all rivers (out of the Moselle) was thus multiplied by 0,449.

Minimum surface area was taken from last reporting period, where the data used came from a set of survey stations in the lower reaches of a number of watercourses (roughly 480 stations were analysed over the 5 year period). The
100 stations reported as sites of 3260 have been chosen on the
basis of indicator plants present at the site (often only 1 species),
resulting in only 20% of the total sites that were surveyed and
leaving the situation in the vast majority of our watercourses
unknown. At the time, it was estimated that in the higher reaches more of the habitat remains. The area has been computed: river length by river width of all rivers (out of the Moselle) multiplied by 0,21 (=100/480). ||
->HabCondition: During the survey of 2018, 112,7 km of brooks and rivers were analysed. In 44,9% of the surveyed waters (based on sections of 100 m), typical species for the 3260 habitat type have been found. 73,8% of the habitat type were in good condition (27,4% if you consider only the inventory of typical species). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: During the survey of 2018, 112,7 km of brooks and rivers were analysed. In 44,9% of the surveyed waters (based on sections of 100 m), typical species for the 3260 habitat type have been found. 73,8% of the habitat type were in good condition (27,4% if you only consider the inventory of typical species). ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Zasięg określony został na podstawie obserwacji siedliska w ramach inwentaryzacji 2006, monitoringu GIOŚ i PZO obszarów dla obszarów Natura 2000, zaktualizowany w 2018.
Wartość podana w polu 4.1 (11 400km2) jest niższa niż wartość podana w raporcie z 2013 r. (17 548 km2), ale faktyczny zasięg nie uległ zmianie w porównaniu z poprzednim okresem raportowania. WWartość 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. ||
->Coverage: Na potrzeby raportowania w 2007 i 2013 roku powierzchni siedliska nie oszacowano (brak danych). W 2018 roku powierzchnia oszacowana na podstawie badań monitoringowych oraz danych ze standardowych formularzy danych dla obszarów na 22 km2 z pewnością nie wyczerpuje zasobów siedliska w Polsce. Ponieważ wiele stanowisk siedliska leży poza obszarami Natura2000, powierzchnia zajmowana przez siedlisko jest większa niż wynikająca z PZO.
Na podstawie wyników badań monitoringowych z 2011 oraz 2016 roku na 70 stanowiskach stwierdzono, że powierzchnia siedliska w Polsce wykazywała ogólnie dobry stan zachowania w obu okresach badawczych (odpowiednio, 80 i 76% stanowisk ocenionych na FV). Niekorzystne zmiany powierzchni siedliska obserwowano głównie w południowej części Polski, w dolinie rzeki Odry. Zmiany te wynikały ze spadku udziału i pokrycia gatunków włosieniczników na stanowiskach, nawet do całkowitego ich wycofywania się. Przyczyną takiego stanu były pogorszone warunki siedliskowe w korycie rzecznym (głównie zmiany hydromorfologiczne, rzadziej spadek jakości wód), a także naturalna dynamika zbiorowisk włosieniczników w wodach płynących. Ponieważ jednocześnie zbiorowiska włosieniczników były notowane na innych stanowiskach, stan powierzchni siedliska uznano za stabilny z nieznaczną tendencją do spadkowej, wymagającej dalszej obserwacji. Natomiast stan siedliska podlega pogorszeniu, ze względu na pogorszenie oceny parametru "perspektywy ochrony". ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring siedliska przyrodniczego prowadzono w 2016 roku na 70 stanowiskach.
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: Perspektywy ochrony niezadowalające wobec narastającej presji na koryta rzeczne. ||
->Conclusion: Stan siedliska oceniony jako niezadowalający (U1), głównie ze względu na niezadowalające perspektywy ochrony, przy stosunkowo dobrze zachowanej specyficznej strukturze i funkcji na badanych stanowiskach. Pogorszenie perspektyw ochrony spowodowane obserwowanym wzrostem presji na rzeki.
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, it is possible to estimate the condition for 1/3 of the habitat, 2/3 are considered as unkwnown (or uncertain). Thus, the structures and functions for the 1/3 of the actual habitat type is expected to be favourable in >30 % of the cases and the rest is not. For 2/3 of the total area, the situation is considered unknown (uncertain). ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: In general for all river types in the region, the ecological status is considered to be good or high in about 10 % of the investigated waters in the work according the framework directive (VISS) and S&F. Hydromorphological parameters coupled to structures and functions was also considered in the expert judgement (information available but not presented here).Forestry may have an negative impact if it is not carried out with good environmental consideration. Many rivers are indirectly affected by water regulation (e.g. hydropower) with faunal barriers preventing dispersal of organisms. Water systems high up in the system often become oligotrophic. Conclusively, the pressure is ongoing and leads to further deterioration and prevent dispersal of organisms to their natural habitats. Conclusively, the pressure is ongoing and leads to further deterioration of important structures and functions and prevent dispersal of organisms to their natural habitats. Historically, to be able to transport timber, a lot of the water courses have been straightened and canalized. Restoration is done however many objects need to be restored so the rate is slow. There are still effects of acidification and even if the acidified precipitation is decreasing, recovery are slow in some regions, especially south-west Sweden. Management of water levels cause erosion and may hinder establishment of plants in the littoral zone. Many rivers lack functional littoral zones. Alien species spread naturally or are facilitated by compensation releases. Water quality is negatively affected by acidification and pollutants (nutrients, metals, chemicals). The continental region is more densely populated with more agricultural areas inducing a higher pressure as compared to bor/alp region. Clearing ditches adjacent to the habitat increase transport of suspended matter together with pollutants (nutrients, metals etc). There is no indication of improvement of the situation on a biogeographical level. Thus, the trend is assessed as deteriorating, as reported 2013. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: N/A ||
->HabCondition: Critères pour évaluer ce paramètre : qualité physico-chimique des eaux ; fonctionnement hydrologique ; fragmentation, connectivité ; invasions biologiques ; diversité phytocénotique ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: QA feedback : Confirmation du résultat des Structures et fonctions en U1- L'ensemble des critères examinés est globalement moyen variant du très bon au mauvais selon les situations ||
->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 equal to the area of the habitat within the Natura 2000 network (pSCIs, SCIs and SACs) (11.1), as reported for the previous reporting period (2007-2013). ||
->HabCondition: Assumption: 90% of habitat area is estimated to be in good condition. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Coverage: The estimate of habitat area is based on an extrapolation method or expert based judgement, using when appropriate the techniques suggested by the ETC. Such methodologies may have a degree of uncertainty that cannot be quantified; for this reason, the values included in the report are to be considered approximate estimates. ||
->HabCondition: Very species rich, complex and diversified habitat. The identification of a group of typical species effective for the assessment of the conservation status at biogeographical scale is not useful for the assessment of the conservation status. It is necessary to identify the target species for the monitoring at regional scale basing on local floristic assemblages. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

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

Open Original Report  

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