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: Talus formations require a nearly vertical wall or an escarpment. Erosion of rock separates stones and gravel. The main reason for falling of stones and gravel is melting of ice in cracks in the rock. There is no known factors, which would affect formation of talus. Talus formations are unstable habitats for vegetation. There is no known factors, which would affect vegetation of talus formations. Habitat 8110 areas are stable and they are mainly within Natura 2000 -areas and protected areas.

Vyörysoraikkojen ja -lohkareikkojen syntyminen edellyttää lähes pystysuoran seinämän tai jyrkän rinteen, josta rapautumisen seurauksena irtoaa kiviainesta. Tärkein syy kivien putoamiselle on kallioseinämän halkeamiin ja rakoihin syntyneen jään sulaminen. Ei ole tiedossa tekijöitä, jotka vaikuttaisivat vyörysoraikkojen muodostumiseen. Vyörysoraikot ovat kasvillisuudelle epävakaa ja häiriöherkkä kasvualusta. Ei ole tiedossa tekijöitä, jotka vaikuttaisivat vyörysoraikkojen kasvillisuuteen. Luontotyypin esiintymät ovat pysyviä/vakaita ja ne sijaitsevat pääosin Natura 2000 -alueilla ja suojelualueilla.

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. Despite the area covered by the habitat has decreased since the previous period (3R), FRA (5.13) is approximately equal to (≈) as a consequence of a better knowledge and/or more accurate data rather then to a genuine change ||
->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: Siedlisko występuje na terenie regionu jedynie w Tatrach i na Babiej Górze, oraz w Bieszczadach (poprzednio siedlisko nie było podawane z tego pasma).
Zwiększyła się powierzchnia zasięgu z 489 do 600 km2 w wyniku innej niż poprzednio klasyfikacji płatów siedliska w Bieszczadach.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie w 2013 roku została oszacowana na podstawie literatury na 0,2 km2; po inwentaryzacji w ramach przygotowywanego Planu ochrony TPN i BgPN, oraz BPN (6,18 ha), łączna powierzchnia płatów siedliska została oszacowana na ok. 1,05 km2;
Trend powierzchni zajętej przez siedlisko jest stabilny. Nieznaczne zarastanie siedliska przez kosodrzewinę oraz inne drzewa i krzewy, zachodzi wolno, dotyczy niewielkiej części powierzchni w dolnych partiach piargówi i nie osiąga progu, który decydowałby o uznaniu trendu za ujemny.
Powierzchnia referencyjna określona została na równą aktualnie (tak jak poprzednio), czyli równą rzeczywistej powierzchni siedliska w regionie (choć w porównaniu do poprzedniego raportu, biorąc pod uwagę liczby, jest ona większa niż poprzednio). ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring prowadzono na 33 stanowiskach. Na wszystkich (100%) stan siedliska został oceniony na FV (w obu okresach obserwacji: 2013/14 oraz 2018).
Za stan dobry uznano siedlisko ocenione w monitoringu na FV – minimalnie i maksymalnie ta sama wartość.
Stan siedliska jest ogólnie dobry, silnie uzależniony od położenia stanowisk (głównie związek z wysokością nad poziom morza).
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: Piargi występują na terenach objętych ochroną obszarową jako obszary Natura 2000 i równocześnie parki narodowe . Znajdują się głównie w strefach ochrony ścisłej.
Zasięg w regionie stabilny, choć niewielki, bo ograniczony do miejsc o odpowiednich warunkach abiotycznych.
Powierzchnia stabilna, tylko okresowo nieznacznie zmniejszająca się na brzeżnych, najniżej położonych fragmentach stanowisk, ale w wyniku działania naturalnych procesów - regeneruje się.
Struktura i funkcje ocenione jako dobre w obu okresach obserwacji; trend stabilny. Brak istotnych zagrożeń. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie ocena stanu ochrony przeprowadzona na podstawie monitoringu prowadzonego na 33 stanowiskach w rejonie występowania siedliska (w 2 obszarach Natura 2000) i ocenie z planu ochrony BPN. Brak zmian w stosunku do ocen stanu ochrony i trendu.
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: Area covered by habitat is different (increasing) compared to the first report. In the first report (2012) another method for Surface area was used. ||
->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 increase in range is mainly due to the new range tool. ||
->Coverage: The area estimate is based on an automatic classification using the 50 meter height model from Lantmäteriet with a ´cut - off´ value of 23 degrees. Then information of bedrock is added to separate siliceous from calcareous.

Regarding area estimates of the habitats 8110, 8120, 8210 and 8220 the values from 2013 have been used. This is because a new height model, based on laser scanning, is in progress. If weather conditions are good, it will be complete during the summer of 2019. This will provide much better data on where and how much rocky screes and slopes there are. The plan is to do a complete overview of these habitats when the height model is complete. ||
->HabCondition: The short term trend of habitat in good condition is considered stable mainly based on information from NILS and the County Administrative Boards. The status of the entire area is not known. However, there are no indications of pressures/threats which could lead to any other conclusion than favourable (apart from the glaciers). The guidelines says that a favourable assessment requires at least 90 % of the area in ‘good’ condition and no more than 10 % ‘unknown’. Consequently, a pragmatic approach has been used, just performing a simple percentage exercise in order to meet these requirements. An effect of this is the production of what appears to be very exact numbers, though in reality just dividing them in 90 % and 10 % groups. ||
->Future: Future prospects of parameters range/area/structure and functions are heavily based on the assessment of ‘pressures and threats’, in particular the ‘threat’ part, since this is focusing on the future. Due to the absence of data indicating negative future prospects within the considered time period this habitat is assessed as having ‘good future prospects’ for all parameters. ||
->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 8110 habitat. A maximum gap distance of two 10km grid cells was used when running the range tool.
Short-term trend was estimated based on data from the current reporting period and the previous reporting period (NPWS 2013a). There were no recorded losses of area at the sample sites covered by the NSUH during these two reporting periods. The short-term trend assessed over the period 2007-2016 is stable and this is assumed to be valid over the default period of 2007-2018. Similarly the long-term trend, assessed as stable over the period 1994-2016, is assumed to be also valid over the default long-term trend 1994-2018. It should be noted that the NSUH surveyed two 8110 habitat sites within this reporting period compared with 13 sites in the last reporting period, therefore limiting the conclusions that can be made.
The number of 10km squares in the Range (156) is eight squares higher than the last monitoring period (NPWS 2013a). These changes are due to improved knowledge within the current reporting period. The Blackstairs Mountains (Tubridy et al. 2015) (one square), Cushbawn, Wicklow (Coillte Biodiversity Dataset) (one square), Knockmealdown Mountains (Foss et al. 2015) (five squares) and Caha Mountains SAC (000093) (Perrin et al. 2014c) (one square), all with data utilised from surveys in this reporting period, added to the range.
Favourable Reference Range has been increased since the last reporting period (NPWS 2013a) to reflect the improved level of knowledge. The Favourable Reference Range is the current range, reported in Section 4.1. ||
->Coverage: The period over which the surface area of the habitat was determined begins in 1975 when original survey work for the Habitat Assignment Project commenced and incorporates updates made by surveys between 1998 and 2016 that are listed in Section 3.2.
Area was calculated from the polygon shapefile and point shapefile used for distribution. For each point record not intersecting within a polygon that was yielding an area, 400 m2 of habitat was estimated. This was based on expert opinion applied in the previous reporting period and carried over to this reporting period in order to maintain consistency. Points intersecting within site boundaries of surveys carried out within the current reporting period, but not within 8110 habitat polygons, were examined, with the majority not included for area.
During the current reporting period 14 datasets with 8110 habitat recorded within them were utilised; Area was only fully assessed by the NSUH datasets (Perrin et al. 2014b, 2014c). The two NSUH sites (Caha Mountains SAC (000093) and Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185)) represent 6.7% of the total area of 8110 habitat recorded in Ireland, limiting the conclusions that can be made.
More detailed survey work of the 8110 habitat is needed, and it is expected that the area listed in Section 5.2 will be refined as more in-depth mapping of the 8110 habitat is completed. In particular, any area represented within the dataset by only a point needs to be surveyed in more detail. In addition to refining the areas of 8110 habitat currently known, there are probably still areas of unmapped 8110 habitat within the country. The area value entered is therefore a minimum.
Short-term trend in Area was deemed to be stable. At the sample of sites covered by the NSUH there is no evidence of loss of habitat since 2005. The trend was examined over the period 2005-2014 but is assumed to be the same for the default short-term trend period of 2007-2018. Long-term trend was examined over the period 1995-2014 but is assumed to be the same for the default long-term trend period of 1994-2018.
Favourable Reference Area (FRA) is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area. There is no information showing that an enlarged area is necessary for either typical species to reach favourable conservation status or for the necessary structures and functions to exist, therefore the surface area of the habitat when the Directive came into force in 1994 is taken to be the FRA. Whilst this figure is unknown it is deemed to be approximately equal to the current area as there is no evidence of significant declines since this time.
The difference in habitat extent between this reporting period and the last is due to the availability of more accurate knowledge of the area of habitat 8110, resulting in the refinement of some large area estimates based on CPU and DTM analysis data in the last reporting period. The majority of this refinement occurred in the Slieve Mish Mountains SAC (002185), County Kerry, with smaller area refinements in the Caha Mountains SAC (000093), Counties Cork and Kerry, and Carlingford Mountain, County Louth. Collectively there was a nett decrease in reported 8110 habitat of 7.19km2 between the previous reporting period and this reporting period due to the availability of more accurate data. Additional surveys in this reporting period resulted in a further addition of 2.36 km2 8110 habitat which was previously unmapped. There has been no genuine change in area of 8110 habitat ((20.33-7.19) + 2.36 = 15.50 km2). ||
->HabCondition: The NSUH (Perrin et al. 2014a) assesses Structure and functions at a monitoring stop level, using criteria to assess vegetation composition (including typical species), vegetation structure and physical structure. Criteria were adapted from the UK's Common Standards Monitoring (JNCC 2009) using expert judgement. The NSUH primarily assesses SACs and is currently incomplete. A total of eight monitoring stops were recorded across both NSUH sites surveyed within this reporting period. There were no failures of any criteria. For full details see the NSUH site reports (Perrin et al. 2014b, 2014c). Three relevés recorded in 8110 habitat as part of the Clubmoss Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.) were also utilised to assess the Structure and functions. These relevés lack details pertaining to criteria that assess vegetation composition and structure, and physical structure, within the local vicinity of stops, and therefore represent a “best case” situation in these areas for Structure and functions of 8110 habitat. There were no failures of any criteria assessed using the data from the Clubmoss Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.).
Of the sites assessed (area of approximately 1.04 km2) for Structure and functions in this reporting period, 100% of the area was assessed as being in good condition (Favourable). Equal weighting was given to each of the stops as each one assesses a comparable area of habitat. For the relevés from the Clubmoss Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.) however, only the actual footprint of the relevé (1 m2) could be used as no data from the local vicinity were recorded. The proportion in good (100%) and not-good condition (0%) was scaled up to the national estimate (15.50 km2 in good condition and 0 km2 not in good condition); however as the area assessed for Structure and functions in this reporting period only represents 6.7% of the national area of habitat 8110, data from the last reporting period were also utilised.
During the last reporting period 72.92% of the 8110 habitat was assessed as Favourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 11.30 km2 of the current area of 8110 habitat and this figure is used as the minimum area in good condition. 27.08% of the 8110 habitat was assessed as Unfavourable (NPWS 2013a). This equates to 4.20 km2 of the current area of 8110 habitat and this figure is used as the maximum area that is in not-good condition.
The most frequent criteria to fail the Structure and functions assessment in the last reporting period were ‘cover of bryophyte species and non-crustose lichens’, ‘proportion of vegetation composed of non-native species’, ‘number of positive indicator species’ and ‘cover of grass species and dwarf shrubs’ (NPWS 2013a). One relevé recorded in this reporting period (Clubmoss Monitoring Survey (O’Neill et al., in prep.) had more than 20% cover of grass species and dwarf shrubs, however as this criterion should be assessed at the scale of the local vicinity rather than the relevé, it was passed on expert judgement.
The short-term trend of habitat area in good condition was assessed over the period 2007-2016 but the trend was assumed to be the same for the default period of 2007-2018. The trend was taken to be stable as, based on the data recorded during this reporting period, there is no evidence that status has declined since the last reporting period. In fact, based on limited data, conclusions could be made that the status has improved; however, as this is based mainly on data from one part of the country (southwest Ireland: Cork and Kerry) with a poor national sample size, the trend was taken as stable based on expert opinion.
Typical indicator species for the 8110 habitat are: Asplenium adiantum-nigrum, Athyrium filix-femina, Blechnum spicant, Dryopteris spp. (count separately), Hymenophyllum tunbridgense, Hymenophyllum wilsonii, Saxifraga spathularis and Sedum rosea. ||
->Future: Short-term trend direction of Range is assessed as Stable.
Current range is equal to Favourable Reference Range.
Conservation status of Range is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Range is assessed as Stable, as no change in Range is expected based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Range are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction of Area is assessed as Stable.
Current area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conservation status of Area is therefore Favourable.
Future trend of Area is assessed as Stable, as no change in Area is expected based on the balancing of the threats and conservation measures that are currently in place.
Future prospects of Area are therefore Good.

Short-term trend direction is Stable for habitat that is in Good condition.
Current Structure and functions are assessed as Unfavourable as <90% of habitat is in “Good” condition. A maximum estimate of 27% of 8110 habitat is in poor condition, which equates to Unfavourable-Bad Structure and functions. However, due to insufficient data from this reporting period this 27% was carried over from the last reporting period and, on review with NPWS staff during the last reporting period, it was decided that an Unfavourable-Inadequate assessment was more appropriate due to the small margin on the decision and a lack of any major single impact. As there are no high-importance pressures or threats recorded within this reporting period, the assessment of Unfavourable-Inadequate was retained for this reporting period.
Conservation status of Structure and functions is therefore Unfavourable-Inadequate.
Future trend of Structure and functions is assessed as Stable, as although the threats of A09, A10 and L02 are expected to have a negative influence on Structure and functions, their presence is not expected to change the overall status of Structure and functions within the next 12 years. Where the conservation measure CA03 occurs it would be expected to balance the threats; however it should be noted that this is not a targeted measure for the 8110 habitat, nor is it implemented across the national distribution of the habitat.
Future prospects of Structure and functions are therefore Poor. ||
->Conclusion: The Conservation Status of Range and Area are Favourable in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Conservation Status of Structure and functions and Future prospects are Unfavourable-Inadequate in this reporting period, as they were in the previous reporting period.
The Overall Conservation Status was assessed as Unfavourable-Inadequate, as it was during the last reporting period. The status of Unfavourable-Inadequate during the current reporting period was due to <90% of the area of 8110 habitat being assessed as having Favourable Structure and functions.
Overall Trend in Conservation Status was assessed as stable in this reporting period, but as improving in the last reporting period. A qualifier of “improving” was applied in the last reporting period for the Structure and functions due to the Commonage Framework Plans (CFP). It was noted in NPWS (2013a), however, that “the CFP does not provide data specific to 8110 habitat and has had limited monitoring” and “that improvements due to lower grazing levels may be tempered by other ongoing impacts, and if levels become too low heath and scrub invasion could become problems”. Overgrazing, undergrazing and succession are recorded as medium-importance pressures during this reporting period, and the Structure and functions are still Unfavourable-Inadequate. As destocking took place almost two decades ago it would be rather speculative to continue to report an improving scenario. There are no data to support this but expert judgement would suggest that, at best, the Structure and functions trend over the last 12 years could be assumed to be stable. The change of trend for Structure and functions between reporting periods resulted in the change of trend in Overall Conservation Status. ||
->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: Future trend of Range is Overall stable; Future trend of Area is Overall stable; and Future trend of Structure and functions is Positive - slight/moderate improvement ||
->Conclusion: Conclusion on Range reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Range surface area is stable; and (ii) the current Range surface area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Range.
Conclusion on Area covered by habitat reached because: (i) the short-term trend direction in Area is stable; and (ii) the current Area is approximately equal to the Favourable Reference Area.
Conclusion on Structure and functions reached because habitat condition data indicates that between c.5-25% of the habitat is in unfavourable (not good) condition.
Conclusion on Future prospects reached because: (i) the Future prospects for Range are good; (ii) the Future prospects for Area covered by habitat are good; and (iii) the Future prospects for Structure and functions are poor.
Overall assessment of Conservation Status is Unfavourable-inadequate because one or more of the conclusions is Unfavourable-inadequate and none are 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  

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: Talus formations require a nearly vertical wall or an escarpment. Erosion of rock separates stones and gravel. The main reason for falling of stones and gravel is melting of ice in cracks in the rock. There is no known factors, which would affect formation of talus. Talus formations are unstable habitats for vegetation. There is no known factors, which would affect vegetation of talus formations. Habitat 8110 areas are stable and they are mainly within Natura 2000 -areas and protected areas.

Vyörysoraikkojen ja -lohkareikkojen syntyminen edellyttää lähes pystysuoran seinämän tai jyrkän rinteen, josta rapautumisen seurauksena irtoaa kiviainesta. Tärkein syy kivien putoamiselle on kallioseinämän halkeamiin ja rakoihin syntyneen jään sulaminen. Ei ole tiedossa tekijöitä, jotka vaikuttaisivat vyörysoraikkojen muodostumiseen. Vyörysoraikot ovat kasvillisuudelle epävakaa ja häiriöherkkä kasvualusta. Ei ole tiedossa tekijöitä, jotka vaikuttaisivat vyörysoraikkojen kasvillisuuteen. Luontotyypin esiintymät ovat pysyviä/vakaita ja ne sijaitsevat pääosin Natura 2000 -alueilla ja suojelualueilla.

Open Original Report  

Information provided in the field 2.7.5: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The higher range value is beacuse of the new range tool. ||
->Coverage: The area estimate is based on an automatic classification using the 50 meter height model from Lantmäteriet with a 'cut off' value of 23 degrees. Then information of bedrock is added to separate siliceous from calcareous.

Regarding area estimates of the habitats 8110, 8120, 8210 and 8220 the values from 2013 have been used. This is because a new height model, based on laser scanning, is in progress. If weather conditions are good, it will be complete during the summer of 2019. This will provide much better data on where and how much rocky screes and slopes there are. The plan is to do a complete overview of these habitats when the height model is complete. ||
->HabCondition: The short term trend of habitat in good condition is considered stable mainly based on information from NILS and the County Administrative Boards. The status of the entire area is not known. However, there are no indications of pressures/threats which could lead to any other conclusion than favourable (apart from the glaciers). The guidelines says that a favourable assessment requires at least 90 % of the area in ‘good’ condition and no more than 10 % ‘unknown’. Consequently, a pragmatic approach has been used, just performing a simple percentage exercise in order to meet these requirements. An effect of this is the production of what appears to be very exact numbers, though in reality just dividing them in 90 % and 10 % groups. ||
->Future: Future prospects of parameters range/area/structure and functions are heavily based on the assessment of ‘pressures and threats’, in particular the ‘threat’ part, since this is focusing on the future. Due to the absence of data indicating negative future prospects within the considered time period this habitat is assessed as having ‘good future prospects’ for all parameters. ||
->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: Abweichend von der Empfehlung in den Guidelines bei einer FV-Bewertung der Spezifischen Strukturen und Funktionen einen Schwellenwert von 90 % Flächenanteil in gutem Zustand anzuwenden, wurde in Deutschland im Regelfall der Schwellenwert von 80 % beibehalten, um unter anderem die Kontinuität zu den vorherigen Bewertungen zu wahren. ||
->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. Despite the area covered by the habitat has decreased since the previous period (3R), FRA (5.13) is approximately equal to (≈) as a consequence of a better knowledge and/or more accurate data rather then to a genuine change ||
->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: Siedlisko występuje na terenie regionu jedynie w Karkonoszach, oraz na Skalniaku (Rudawy Janowickie – poza obszarem Natura 2000) a także na Czarnej Kopie, Trójmorskim Wierchu i na Stromie (Masyw Śnieżnika) i w Rezerwacie Śnieżnik Kłodzki gdzie było obserwowane od dawna.
Powierzchnia zasięgu zwiększyła się z 860 do 1100 km2, w wyniku odmiennego sposobu jej obliczania.
W aktualnym okresie raportowym wartość podana w polu 4.1 została wyliczona przy użyciu dedykowanego narzędzia (Range Tool) przygotowanego przez ETC/BD oraz EEA, w sposób automatyczny na podstawie rozmieszczenia kwadratów, w których występuje siedlisko w regionie biogeograficznym. Przy obliczaniu powierzchni zasięgu siedliska zastosowano „gap distance” wynoszący 40km, a wyliczony przez narzędzie zasięg nie został przycięty do granic Polski. ||
->Coverage: Powierzchnia siedliska w regionie w 2013 roku została oszacowana na podstawie danych z inwentaryzacji w ramach przygotowywanego Planu ochrony KPN i PZO obszarów Natura 2000, oraz danych własnych K. Świerkosza; łączna powierzchnia płatów siedliska została oszacowana na ok. 0,9038 km2, poprzednio na 0,97 km2;
(Karkonoski PN – 86,41 ha
Skalniak - 0.47 ha (wydzielenia 13-25-2-12-191 -c -00 i
13-25-2-12-190 -g -00, nadl. Śnieżka)
Trójmorski Wierch (Masyw Śnieżnika) - 1,8 ha (tu skompleksowane z zadrzewieniami świerkowymi:, wydz. 13-16-1-03-14 -a -00 i 13-16-1-03-13 -o -00)
Rezerwat Śnieżnik Kłodzki - nadl Lądek - 1.2 ha,
nadl Międzylesie - 4 płaty o pow od 40 m2 do 70 m2. Łącznie 0.1 ha.
Stroma (Masyw Śnieżnika) - 0,4 ha, (nadl. Lądek 13-23-2-12-298 -a -00). Różnica w stosunku do poprzednio (2013) podanej wartości wynika z precyzyjniejszego jej oszacowania.
Brak danych o powierzchni rumowisk w Górach Izerskich, których nie uwzględniono w raporcie, a które być może powinny byc klasyfikowane jako 8110 (wg. SFD obszaru rumowiska były klasyfikowane jako 8150).
Trend powierzchni zajętej przez siedlisko jest stabilny. Zniszczenie poprzez wydeptanie jednego fragmentu rumowiska (stanowisko monitoringowe Pod Śnieżnikiem) obejmującego kilka arów powierzchni dotyczy wielkości mniejszej od 1% areału, decydującego o uznaniu trendu za ujemny; zarastanie siedliska przez kosodrzewinę oraz inne drzewa i krzewy, zachodzi wolno, dotyczy niewielkiej części powierzchni i także nie osiąga progu, który decydowałby o uznaniu trendu za ujemny. Poprzednio (2013) trend krótkoterminowy został błędnie określony jako wzrostowy, w wyniku odnalezienia nowych stanowisk siedliska. Długoterminowy był określany jako stabilny.
Powierzchnia referencyjna określona została na równą aktualnie (tak jak poprzednio), czyli równą rzeczywistej powierzchni siedliska w regionie. ||
->HabCondition: Monitoring prowadzono na 7 stanowiskach. Na blisko 86% stan siedliska (struktura i funkcja) został oceniony na FV. Na 1 stanowisku (14,3%) oceniono go na U2 stan zły. Poprzednio wszystkie stanowiska w PMŚ oceniono jako FV.

Stan siedliska jest ogólnie dobry, silnie uzależniony od położenia stanowisk (głównie związek z wysokością nad poziom morza i presją turystyczną). Trend uznano za stabilny, tak jak w poprzednim raporcie.

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: Wiekszość zasobów Piargów występuje na terenach objętych ochroną obszarową jako obszar Natura 2000 a także park narodowy. Znaczna część ich areału znajduje się w strefach ochrony ścisłej.
Zasięg w regionie stabilny, choć niewielki, bo ograniczony do miejsc o odpowiednich warunkach abiotycznych i odpowiedniej wysokości nad poziomem morza.
Powierzchnia okresowo nieznacznie zmniejszająca się na brzeżnych, najniżej położonych fragmentach stanowisk, ale w wyniku działania naturalnych procesów - regeneruje się. Część jest wydeptywana przez turystów (1 stanowisko). Ogółem na 86% stanowisk parametr ten był oceniony na FV.
Struktura i funkcje ocenione w regionie jako dobre (na 86% stanowisk). Trend stabilny. Brak naturalnych zagrożeń, a wpływ turystyki jest możliwy do ograniczenia.
Brak istotnych zagrożeń, z wyjątkiem Turystyki, która dotyczy niewielkiej części areału; ogółem perspektywy ochrony zostały ocenione na FV na ponad 70% monitorowanych stanowisk, a po blisko 14% na U1 i U2. ||
->Conclusion: Aktualnie ocena stanu ochrony na podstawie monitoringu prowadzonego na 7 stanowiskach w rejonie występowania siedliska (w 2 obszarach Natura 2000).
Poprzednio Perspektywy ochrony zostały ocenione na U1 (a w konsekwencji także Ocena ogólna), głównie ze względu na oddziaływanie turystyki. Aktualnie, ze względu na niewielką część zasobów poddaną tej presji i brak niekorzystnych przemian w samym siedlisku, na znaczącej większości areału, Perspektywy ochrony oceniono na FV. W obu raportach (2013 i 2019) tendencje stanu ochrony oceniono jako stabilne.
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: QA feedback : Confirmation de l'évaluation FV pour les Structures et fonctions - Espèces caractéristiques bien représentées, habitat occupant des surfaces conséquentes et suffisantes à son maintien. Habitat peu soumis aux impacts anthropiques et aux aménagements. Fonctionnement lié aux processus naturels d'éboulisation (rajeunissement du milieux par perturbations: laves torrentielles, glissements, apports de matériaux, etc...) ||
->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. Despite the area covered by the habitat has decreased since the previous period (3R), FRA (5.13) is approximately equal to (≈) as a consequence of a better knowledge and/or more accurate data rather then to a genuine change ||
->HabCondition: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report