Common Monitoring Tool

Common Monitoring Tool WP3: Transnational joint strategy and tools for the better management and implementation of Natura 2000 sites WP (act.) 3.3: Transnational tools and strategy for the better management and implementation of Natura 2000 sites Final version 27.05.2013 Partners Nimfea Environment and Nature Conservtion Association (LP) (HU) Province of Ravenna (IT) Consortium of Management of Torre Guaceto - Brindisi (IT) Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein (AT) Development Agency for South Epirus - Amvrakikos (GR) Strandja Nature Park Directorate (BG) Veneto Region - Commissions Coordination Project Unit (IT) Timis County Council (RO) Lake Balaton Development Coordination Agency (HU) Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development (RO) Vienna University of Technology, Department of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy (AT) Municipality of Cacak (RS) Associated Partners University of Klagenfurt Department of Economics (AT) Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (RO)

Contents 1 Introduction and problem setting...3 1.1 Common target habitats and species selected by the PP...4 1.2 Common monitoring tool...5 1.2.1 The EU s guidelines...6 1.2.2 Assessment of conservation status...7 1.2.3 Field survey...9 1.2.4 Time scale...11 1.3 Indicators and criteria for habitats...12 1.4 Indicators and criteria for species...30 References...37 Annex...39 Impressum...40 Abbreviations CMT Common Monitoring Tool GL Guideline JTS Joint Transnational Strategy JTAP Joint Transnational Action Plan PP Project Partner SSE South East Europe WP Work package BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 2

1 Introduction and problem setting According to the official application form a major output of the present BE-NATUR project is the definition of guidelines and transnational tools for the better management of Natura 2000 sites. The Common monitoring tool is one part of this guideline beside other tools. The description of Action 3.3 (p 61 of the application form) points out, how this monitoring tool should be structured: Content: Goal: Definition of a monitoring method that covers data collection, analysis and processing for the habitats and species selected in WP 3.2 Allow evaluation of current conservation status of habitats and species Specific action planning on the management level Objective: This tool should be used to monitor the effectiveness of conservation actions including direct interventions on habitats or species Methodological approach: The tool should be developed in a transnational process of knowledge exchange Output should respond to the Dir. 92/43/EEC It is important to mention, that the purpose of this Common monitoring tool is NOT to serve as a tool on the national level for the reporting and monitoring according to article 11 of the Dir. 92/43/EEC (conservation status of habitats and species for the biogeographic regions). The monitoring tool should provide a concrete common and standard tool to evaluate the effectiveness of management measures on site level, as it is mentioned in the article 17 of the Dir. 92/43/EEC. Within the BE-NATUR project, the monitoring tool should serve to measure the impact of the direct interventions on the habitats and species that have been selected for the joint transnational action plans (JTAP). To meet these objectives, the developed methodological approach has to be focused on special needs according to the selected species and habitats and should be the result of transnational knowledge exchange. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 3

1.1 Common target habitats and species selected by the PP Representative habitats and species with an international distribution range and a multinational responsibility were chosen to serve as pilot features. They are used as examples to develop tools and strategies for the improvement of their conservation status such as the Joint Transnational Action Plans and the Common Monitoring Tool. In the third coordination meeting in Vienna in September 2012 some slight adoptions from the initial set of features were undertaken due to organizational and time restrains. The species and habitat groups listed below are the result of an international expert meeting. Habitat groups Coastal and halophytic habitats & dunes (1130, 2110, 2120, 2130, 2250) Freshwater habitats and forests (3130, 91E0, 92A0) Alkaline fens and Cladium fens (7210*, 7230) Species groups Ciconia ciconia Phalacrocorax pygmeus Emys orbicularis Coordinator Gianluca Salogni (VRE) Radojica Gavrilovic (CACAK) Hanns Kirchmeir, Tobias Köstl (VIETU) Coordinator Fábián Zsófia (NIMFEA) Massimiliano Costa (PRA) Ivan Kamburov (STRANDJA) Liparis loeselii AREC, LBDCA Table 1: Species and habitats listed and sorted by responsible BE-NATUR project partners and coordinators. Figure 1: Habitats and species subjects of the Joint Transnational Action Plans BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 4

1.2 Common monitoring tool Short description This tool is intended to be a complete Monitoring Guide covering all features selected in the BE-NATUR project. Based on the Gap Analysis Joint Transnational Action Plans were developed in order to some of the most prominent habitats and species with a transnational distribution range in Europe. As a result of the Action Plans, direct and indirect interventions related to the protective objectives for the target habitat groups and species were developed by each project partner. The present monitoring tool is aimed to assess the conservation status of these features and the success of the interventions. Therefore, it is inevitable to assess the conservation status before the interventions are being carried out to have baseline data necessary to draw correct conclusions. Goal The goal is to design a monitoring tool to survey the current conservation status of habitats and species and the success of the direct interventions Target group Protected area manager or any consultancy who are responsible for the planning of the direct interventions and the implementation of the monitoring Time frame Basic assessment should be carried out previous to interventions are implemented The frequency of the assessments has to be adapted to the specific species or habitat Requisites Up-to-date cartographic materials such as aerial photographs, landuse maps Any existing survey data such as vegetation maps, distribution maps Exact knowledge on the location, extend and possible impact of the interventions Detailed description The development of a common monitoring method represents a crucial step in the structure of the Joint Transnational Strategy. The goal is to design a monitoring tool in order to survey the current conservation status and the success of the direct interventions. There are already monitoring approaches developed by some EU-member states. As defined in the proposal of the BE-NATUR -project a common tool applicable for all member states should be developed to harmonize management of Natura 2000 features of conservation interest. Based on the Gap Analysis Joint Transnational Action Plans were developed in order to some of the most prominent habitats and species with a transnational distribution range in Europe. As a result of the Action Plans, direct and indirect interventions related to the BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 5

protective objectives for the target habitat groups and species were developed by each project partner. The present monitoring tool is aimed to assess the conservation status of these features and the success of the interventions. Therefore, it is inevitable to assess the conservation status before the interventions are being carried out to gain baseline data, which are essential to draw correct conclusions. The conservation status of a habitat or a species can be defined at three different levels: The uppermost level is the conservation status at EU-level, describing the distribution range and trend, important structures and the conservation status of characteristic species. The second level is the degree of conservation at the Natura 2000 site, which describes the structure, function and recovering capacity of the feature of conservation. On the other end of the scale there is the local degree of conservation which describes the conservation status of the individual plots or single populations. 1.2.1 The EU s guidelines According to Article 1 from the Council Directive 92 / 43 EEC (habitats directive) the definition for the favorable state of conservation is: Conservation status of a natural habitat and species means the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within the territory referred to in Article 2. The conservation status of a natural habitat will be taken as favorable when: Its natural range and areas it covers within this range are stable or increasing, and The specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and The conservation status of its typical species is favorable as defined above According to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION S GUIDANCE (2007) for the description of the Favourable conservation status uniform categories are to be used (EDGAR P. & GENT T. 2005): - Favourable Conservation status (A) - Unfavourable Conservation status Inadequate (B) - Unfavourable Conservation status Bad (C) - Unknown BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 6

The present approach is indicating that every status but A should be considered as unfavourable. This approach is more radical than the approach used by Ellmauer (2005) and BFN (2010), which tends to draw a rather positive picture of the conservation status of a protected species or habitat: A: excellent conservation status B: good conservation status C: medium to bad conservation status On the long term the development or trend of a certain indicator can be of much higher significance than the actual situation. A value of B can be considered as passable, but if the conservation status has dropped from a former A to an actual B this means a significant deterioration. Therefore, EDGAR & GENT (2005) propose that an unfavorable, but improving conservation status should be indicated by a further remark showing (+), for continuing decline (-) can be added. Additionally, an expert statement has to be added which should contain a qualitative and objective evaluation of the situation. This written evaluation is inevitable for a precise interpretation, whereas a stand-alone, aggregated value of A, B or C may not be sufficient to show all aspects. 1.2.2 Assessment of conservation status The monitoring schemes added in the annex shall be used in order to create a homogenous dataset throughout Europe. The monitoring scheme itself is providing a structure to follow, but also concedes a certain flexibility to the executing scientist. Basically, criteria are aggregated to one value for each indicator. All three indicators are then aggregated to a total value, which is shown in the following scheme: BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 7

Figure 2: Scheme showing the process of assessment of the Conservation status For practical purposes, there is basically no weighting of the particular criteria and indicators in this approach. Nevertheless, some criteria may have a much higher impact on the conservation status than others. In case that the expert opinion is diverging from the aggregated value, the expert opinion will overrule the aggregated value. In such a case a short but clear statement has to be given in order to make the decision comprehensible. Looking at the habitat scheme, for each of the three main indicators such as Integrity of characteristic habitat features, Integrity of characteristic species inventory and Disturbances an aggregated conservation status should be assigned. The pressure indicators disturbances are being calculated in a way that the worst value is determinating the aggregated value (only one criterion assigned as C is enough to make the whole aggregate Disturbances C). This approach is susceptible to overestimation of certain criteria, therefore the scientist s ability of proper appreciation and evaluation of the state of the criterion is crucial. The whole procedure has to be carried out for every single subplot. This is the only way to create a distinct picture of the singular subplots of each habitat type at a site. A comprehensive set of baseline data is essential for a sound management concept. The same procedure should be applied for the species monitoring scheme. The main topics are Status of population, Habitat quality and Disturbances. In this case, only BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 8

status of population can be calculated according to the matrix shown below, all other values have to be calculated via the lowest value. In case of only one criterion, the conservation status of the indicator is taken over. A B C In case of two criteria, following raster scheme should be applied: Criterion I A B C Criterion II A A A B B A B C C B C C In case of three criteria, following raster scheme should be applied: AAA = A AAB = A AAC = B ABB = B ABC = B BBB = B ACC = C BCC = C BBC = C CCC = C The overall conservation status will be calculated in the same way y the values of the main indicators Integrity of characteristic habitat features, Integrity of characteristic species inventory and Disturbances, respectively Status of population, Habitat quality and Disturbances for the species. In case of four or more criteria, the worst value will determine the total value of the indicator (as mentioned above). 1.2.3 Field survey Habitats In order to make clear which habitats are to be monitored, firstly an exact mapping of the existing habitats has to be carried out. All polygons that contain a habitat type have to be displayed. The resolution of the Orthophotos should be 1:5,000 to be able to record all habitats as polygons. Line and point features should not be used for the mapping the habitats, because it would give misleading information on the area of the habitats. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 9

Based on that scale, the relevant accuracy of drawing polygon boarders on the fieldmap is about 0.5 mm to each side which makes a tolerance range of+/- 2.5 meters in the field. As in most cases the boarders of habitat types are not that sharp in nature, this accuracy is supposed to be sufficient. The minimum size of a polygon from a technical point of view is about 25 m². Smaller features have to be aggregated to lager neighboring polygons or have to be digitized in a larger scale on the screen. In this case it is important, to make notes on the size of the polygon in the field (e.g. width of the small river is 1-2m). In many cases, it is more suitable to integrate small habitat plots into the larger neighboring polygon, as also the management of small units is hard to administrate. A small habitat should only be included into a complex with neighboring habitat types, if they are ecologically match together. For example: a small patch of riparian forest between a pasture and a river should be integrated to the river polygon, as it is ecologically attached to the river ecosystem. The exact delineation of habitats on the map and the integration of this data into a Geographic Information System (GIS) will give the important information of size and location of the habitats. For each polygon, a monitoring form has to be filled in the field by a vegetation ecologist or adequate expert. In case that a habitat is significantly heterogeneous concerning the indicators for the assessment of the conservation status, it has to be divided into singular polygons (e.g.: parts of dunes are covered by shrubs and bushes from those not covered or drained and un-drained parts of the same fens) Large habitat-polygons covering several hectares such as forests or waste grasslands have to be investigated via random sampling method, where the density of sampling plots depends on the variance of the habitat. For each polygon a field form should be filled. The header should cover the following information: Name of Natura 2000 site Polygon number (unique!) Date of survey Name of field expert conducting the survey Name of the main habitat type within the assessed polygon Percentage of the main habitat type within the polygon Name of the sub-habitat type 1 (if there are more than 1 habitat type in the polygon) Percentage of the sub-habitat type 1 Name of the sub-habitat type 2 (if there are more than 1 habitat type in the polygon) Percentage of the sub-habitat type 2 BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 10

Natura 2000 site 1 Date of survey expert name Polygon nr. Habitat type and relative proportion in the habitat (percentage) Main-Type Sub-Type1 Sub-Type2 % % % Figure 3: Sample for the header of the field form Species The field mapping procedure for the species is very specific to each species. See the recommendations for field mapping in the chapter of indicators and criteria for the species. 1.2.4 Time scale In many cases, the effect of conservation measures can not be evaluated immediately after the implementation of the measures. Changes in the water or land management regime show their effect only after a couple of years. So the purpose of the monitoring tool is not only to document the status quo before the implementation of the direct intervention and after a short time later before the end of the project in January 2014. The tool is developed to serve as a long term monitoring tool and is designed to serve scientifically based evaluation of specific conservation measure and their short and long term effect on the selected species and habitats. The methodical approach as well as the monitoring results produced within the BE- NATUR project should help to enhance the effectiveness of the European Network of Natura 2000 sites. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 11

1.3 Indicators and criteria for habitats In the following chapter, the indicators and criteria for the selected habitat types are listed. 7210 - Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species from the Caricion davallianae 7230 - Alkaline fens 3130 - Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea 91E0 - Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior 92A0 - Salix alba and Populus alba galleries 1130 - Estuaries 2110 - Embryonic shifting dunes 2120 - Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") 2130 - Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") 2250 - Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. The habitat-indicator Characteristic species composition is not aimed to give a comprehensive nor complete list of species. Each operator is self-responsible to revert to data valid for the specific region. A discriminating weight is given to specific species as indicators of integrity. The e.g. acts to show that certain key-note species are associated with particular habitat / breeding condition requirements and habitats in good condition may include these two species (within a biogeographical area; yet they will include others in other regions). This is distinction creates a more consistent criteria gradation. Attached to the criteria list, there are recommendations for the field mapping attached. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 12

Indicators for 7210 Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species from the Caricion davallianae The following schemes are based on the concepts elaborated by the BFN (2010) and have been slightly modified: Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitat features Overall dominance of > 50 25 50 < 25 Cladium mariscus (%) Share of Cladium mariscus > 50 10-50 < 10 specimen flowering or with fructification (%) Characteristic species Present Mostly present Only partially present composition Species inventory Typical plant species (cryptogamic and phanerogamic): e.g. Cladium mariscus, plus key-stone species from the habitat types 7230 or 7140 Cladium-stands in complex with species-rich alkaline fens (calcareous-rich occurrence) or typical silting vegetation patterns at base-rich, oligotrophic waters; regionally sitetypical, dominant Cladium stands Cladium-stands in complex with vegetation types base-poor or slightly eutrophic fens respectively waters; site-typical, dominant Cladium stands Cladium-stands in complex with eutrophic reeds or marsh vegetation respectively species-poor degeneration stages of fens Disturbances None to low Medium High Soil or peat depletion (surroundings within a radius of 500m from the sites outer boarders) Neither on site nor in the surroundings In the surroundings, but without any negative impact to the site (drainage, disturbance) on the site itself Deterioration of vegetation and upper peat layer [in % of the site] Indicate the source Surface ratio of drained peat body [%] accompanied by the occurrence of indicator species [species and dominance] Acidification: dominance of indicator species (species and dominance) Nitrophyta and Neophyta (species and dominance) Dominance of shrub encroachment [%] Reforestation respectively planted shrubs [coverage in %] In the surroundings with a negative impact on the site or directly site (drainage, disturbance) <5 5-10 >10 Mostly absent (<5) Low ratio (5-10) Larger ratio (> 10) <5 5-10 >10 <5 5-10 >10 <10 10-25 >25 0 5 >5 BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 13

Recommendation for field mapping (Ellmauer ed. 2005) Basically, one can distinguish between primary and secondary types of Cladium fens. Primary stands usually appear as an element in the accretion zone of water bodies or in shallow ponds. These stands are usually dominated by Cladium mariscus and can be considered as stable ecosystems, where no management or tending strategies are necessary (Ellmauer 2005). Secondary (human introduced) sites, which are established on abandoned fens (7230) or Molinia meadows (6410) should be regarded as this habitat type (7230, 6410), when it is feasible to re-establish this original habitat types by proper land management in short time (5 years). Indicator species of disturbance: The primary stands usually have a water level of 20cm above ground and are characterised by only few species beside of Cladium mariscus. The occurrence of Carex elata, Deschampsia cespitosa, Eupatorium cannabinum, Juncus effusus, Mentha aquatica or Phragmites australis may indicate a disturbance of water level or nutrient cycle. To assess the hydrology measurements of (ground) water level is needed. Best time for field survey: June-August BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 14

Indicators for 7230 Alkaline fens Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic habitat features Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad Dominance of low-growing swards consisting of typical sedge- and rush-vegetation > 75 50 75 < 50 and fen-mosses (%) Dominance of reeds, large sedges and tall forbs (%) < 25 25-50 > 50 Characteristic species composition Present Mostly present Only partially present Species inventory 12 species, at least 3 of them showing > 5% dominance 6 11 species, at least 1 of them showing > 5% dominance 3 5 species Disturbances None to low Medium High Soil or peat depletion (surroundings within a radius of 500m from the sites outer boarders) Neither on site nor in the surroundings In the surroundings, but without any negative impact to the site (drainage, disturbance) Deterioration of vegetation and upper peat layer [in % of the site] Indicate the source Drainage (expert evaluation + justification) Surface ratio of drained peat body [%] accompanied by the occurrence of indicator species [species and dominance] Nitrophyta and Neophyta (species and dominance) Dominance of shrub encroachment [%] Reforestation respectively planted shrubs [coverage in %] <5 5-10 >10 Ditches mostly overgrown, not functioning or the fens are extensively waterlogged Recommendation for field mapping Ditches partially silted, effects of drainage is regressing or the fen is partially waterlogged In the surroundings with a negative impact on the site or directly on the site itself site (drainage, disturbance) Ditches are still functional, almost no silting and typical hydrology is only seldom represented Mostly absent (<5) Low ratio (5-15) Larger ratio (> 15) <5 5-10 >10 <10 10-25 >25 0 5 >5 (Ellmauer ed. 2004) Especially sites that are mown once a year can build transition stages to Molinia meadows (6410) and are hard to be separated form these. On those sites, a mixture of characteristic species of both habitat types (7230, 6410) may occur. The following criteria may help to distinguish between the alkaline fens and other similar habitat types: 7220 Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion): all sites based on tufa formations should be regarded as 7220. 7240 Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae: sites with alpine species in higher altitudes and without turf-layer should be regarded as 7240. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 15

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species from the Caricion davallianae: if Cladium mariscus has more than 75% of vegetation cover and regular mowing is not possible, the site should be regarded as 7210. Indicator species of disturbance: The primary stands usually have a water level of 20cm above ground and are characterised by only few species beside of Cladium mariscus. The occurrence of Carex elata, Deschampsia cespitosa, Eupatorium cannabinum, Juncus effusus, Mentha aquatica or Phragmites australis may indicate a disturbance of water level or nutrient cycle. Woody species like Alnus glutinosa, A. incana, Betula pubescens, B. pendula, Frangula alnus, Populus tremula, Salix aurita, S. cinerea are indicating succession to forest habitats. The occurrence of the following species indicates the transition to other habitat types: Molinietalia: Deschampsia cespitosa, Filipendula ulmaria, Juncus effusus, Lychnis floscuculi, Molinia caerulea, Persicaria bistorta, Scirpus sylvaticus, Serratula tinctoria, Succisa pratensis Magnocaricion: Carex paniculata, C. rostrata, C. cespitosa Phragmition: Cladium mariscus, Phragmites australis To assess the hydrology measurements of (ground) water level is needed. Draining systems can be assessed during field survey. Best time for field survey: June-August BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 16

Indicators for 3130- Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic habitat featureadequate Favourable Unfavourable in- Unfavourable bad Silting vegetation Number of typically pronounced vegetation structure elements: pygmy rush lawns, small sedge reeds, large sedge reeds, reed beds, dwarf shrub heath, bog myrtle, downy-birch forest or raised bog 2 1 0 Hydrophytes resp. shore weed vegetation Number of typically distinct vegetation structure elements: ground covering Nitella-lawns, floating hornwort communities, floating plant community, shore weed / pygmy rush lawns 3 2 1 Dominance of hydrophytes resp. shore weed vegetation on the habitable area >50% 10-50% <10%, et least singular plants Characteristic species composition present mostly present only partially present Species inventory (key-stone species) 7 species 3 6 species 2 species Disturbances None to low Medium High Decline of the water table Not perceptible Present; medium deterioration Present; heavy deterioration Ratio of disturbance indicators in the <10 10-50 >50 hydrophyte resp. shore weed vegetation [%] (indicate species and dominance) Ratio of the shore line which is modified <10 10-25 >25 by human interference (just negative impacts, no management concordant to the conservation targets) [%] Degree of disturbance by recreational use [% of the overall site] Medium (all other combinations) Recommendation for field mapping None to low, just casually and in a small scale (<10) High (permanent or on a large scale (> 15)) According to Ellmauer (2005), there are two major sub-types: 3131 perennial amphibious communities dominated by shore weed communities This subtype can be found on oligotrophic standing water bodies which are deficient in lime. Theses sites are permanently flooded. 3132 annual amphibious communities dominated by pygmy-rush communities This subtype can be found on mesotrophic, sandy or muddy sites such as dead river branches, river banks, drainage ditches which dry out periodically. The habitat type resp. its subtypes should be recorded separately. The delineation of the habitat type should comprise the whole water body that harbours the relevant vegetation as well as adjacent habitats such as reeds, tall forb communities and sedge reeds accompanying oligotrophic and mesotrophic standing water bodies. Mapping should be carried out during the main development stage in late summer/autumn. Associations of shore weed at dystrophic standing waters (e.g. Ranunculo- Juncetum bulbosi) should rather be allocated to the habitat type 3110. Differentiation towards 3140 and 3150 which can be found directly adjacent to the present habitat type is based on vegetational aspects. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 17

Indicators for 91E0 - Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior and 92A0-Salix alba and Populus alba galleries Indicator A B C Characteristic habitat Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad features Development stages / spatial structure Both mature and regenerating development stages present Both mature and regenerating development stages present Few mature stand formations; only one or two development stages present Mature trees Extensive presence Predominately present only partially present Deadwood > 30 m³/ha 30-4 m³/ha < 4 m³/ha Characteristic species present mostly present only partially present composition Woody plant species Share of characteristic woody plants 90% Share of characteristic woody plants 70% Share of characteristic woody plants <70% Herbaceous layer Fauna Species composition is typical Woodland and wetland species present Species composition is slightly modified Woodland and wetland species present Species composition is heavily modified Woodland and wetland species mostly absent Disturbances None to low Medium High Damages to soils an hydrological regime Damages to forest vegetation and structure Presence of atypical indicators Fragmentation and other disturbances None or slight modifications to soils and hydrological conditions No or very restricted anthropogenic damage to the structure and extent of the stands. Terrestrialization not evident by the absence of atypical terrestrial species within the community. Based on available habitat area, the extent and connectivity among stands of this habitat type shows extensive development and good connectedness among the stands and among other terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Moderate to low-level modifications to hydrological regime affecting soils and growth conditions Very restricted to slight anthropogenic damage to the structure and extent of the stands. Terrestrialization effects are slight. Atypical terrestrial species within the community have a limited distribution but are not common. Based on available habitat area, the extent and connectivity among stands of this habitat type shows restricted development and moderate to good connectedness among the stands and among other terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Significant and extensive modifications to hydrological regime affecting soils and growth conditions Extensive and prevalent anthropogenic damage to the structure and extent of the stands. Terrestrialization evident by the prevalence of atypical terrestrial species within the community. Based on available habitat area, the extent and connectivity among stands of this habitat type shows restricted development and poor to no connectedness among the stands and among other terrestrial or aquatic habitats. Invasive plant species No non-indigenous Few and/or scattered Non-indigenous woody plants BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 18

woody plants present non-indigenous woody plants; herbaceous nonindigenous and invasive herbaceous species may be present but in very small numbers or isolated clumps. common and often forming extensive stands. Herbaceous non-indigenous and invasive herbaceous species common. Recommendation for field mapping (Ellmauer ed. 2004) The minimum area for a polygon of this habitat type should be at least 1.000 m². A connected, uniform stand is considered to be a forest patch (units with inadequate vegetation < 10% can be tolerated). A connected patch must show no dissections larger than the length of a tree, otherwise it has to be recorded as two separated patches. Furthermore, patches that show significant variations in their conservation status, should be separated, according to the minimum size. Moreover, any elements that are directly connected to ecosystem structure and functions such as different succession stages, zone or openings should be integrated as well as natural structures such as rivers and openings should be integrated, as long as they do not represent independent habitat types. A clear distinction to habitat types that are often associated with 91E0 such as riparian forests (91F0), Oak-Hornbeam-forests (9160), canyon forests (9180) or riparian forests dominated by Black Alder and Ash or Alder swamps. Especially Alder swamps can be very similar and a differentiation may be difficult. The presence of hardwood species such as Quercus robur, Tilia spp. or Ulmus spp. gives a good indication on the boarder of 91E0 towards riparian forests, Oak-Hornbeam-forests (9160) and canyon forests (9180). Grabherr et al. (1998) identified disturbance indicator species for the habitat type 92E0. The following table is showing species that have been found frequently and also have been identified regularly as disturbance indicators: Achillea millefolium, Plantago major, Prunella vulgaris, Ranunculus acris, Rubus fruticosus, Solidago gigantea, Taraxacum officinale, Trifolium pratense, Urtica dioica BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 19

Indicators for 1130-Estuaries Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic present mostly present only partially present habitat features Mouth structure The mixing of freshwater and sea water and the reduced current flows in the shelter of the estuary lead to deposition of fine sediments, often forming extensive intertidal sand and mud flats. The deposition of fine sediments is not so extensive and there are only few parts of the mouth river with intertidal sand and mud flats. The deposition of fine sediments is mostly absent and the intertidal sand and mud flats are substituted by dikes or other water barriers. Vegetation structure Dynamic Rich benthic algal communities, Zostera beds (Zosteretea) and vegetation of brackish water as Ruppia maritima (Ruppietea); along the shore there are communities with Spartina maritima (Spartinetea) or Sarcocornia perennis (Arthrocnemetea). Natural dynamics are not limited; the mouth of river can leave or move sediments, change direction and wander along the seaside. The benthic algal communities are still present, but Zostera beds (Zosteretea) are often absent or only substituted by the vegetation of brackish water as Ruppia maritima (Ruppietea); along the shore there are just few spots with Spartina maritima (Spartinetea) or Sarcocornia perennis (Arthrocnemetea). Natural dynamics are partially limited; with lock of some kinds of dynamics (e.g. there are dikes locking the final part of the mouth). Only the benthic algal communities are sometimes present, while along the shore the typical vegetation is completely absent. Natural dynamics are heavily influenced; only minor sediments leaving or moving are still possible, but the river bed is completely embanked. Characteristic species present mostly present only partially present composition Plant species: Zostera noltii; Ruppia maritima; Spartina maritima; Sarcocornia perennis Integrity of characteristic species inventory Regionally/locally typical inventory is almost complete (Presence of all 4 species listed above) Majority of the species present (Presence of 2-3 species listed above) Only several species present (Presence of jus 1-2 species listed above) Animal species: Fish: Petromyzon marinus, Acipenser sturio, Acipenser naccarii, Huso huso, Aphanius fasciatus Disturbances None to low Medium High Ratio of disturbance indicators (exotic species) Disturbance resp. modification of the structure through coastal protection measures Disturbance by recreational use/tourism/boating/fishing Washing-up of waste and pollutants Disturbance indicators are missing or only scarcely present Small share of the coenosis (5-10%, depending on the conflict potential of the species) Lage share of the coenosis (>10%, depending on the conflict potential of the species) None or very low Low to medium High (e.g. numerous dikes and embankments) None or very low Waters and sediments containing no or only little waste/pollutants Small scaled or temporary separated In places a higher share of waste/pollutants Wide spread, regularly Large amounts of waste/pollutants Construction activity and None Few (e.g. a path, a cartway) Stronger (roads or fragmentation bridges, river ports) Other disturbances None or very low Low to medium High BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 20

Recommendation for field mapping (BFN 2010) According to the European commission, mapping of estuaries must include the whole hydrological unit, including the whole extend of the river mouth and also river sections that are devoted to a regular influence of salt and brackish water. Common connected habitats are 3270-Rivers with muddy banks with Chenopodium rubri p.p. and Bidention p.p. vegetation, 91E0-Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno- Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) and 91F0-Riparian mixed forests of Quercus robur, Ulmus laevis and Ulmus minor, Fraxinus excelsior or Fraxinus angustifolia, along the great rivers (Ulmenion minoris). Small islands that are not flooded at mean high water (MHW) have to be excluded. The delineation at sea-side has to be assessed by the water chemistry (degree of salinity). Practically, this differentiation is very difficult; therefore the boarder can be drawn along an imaginary line connecting the furthermost landmarks which are looming into the sea. The most important distinguishing criterion towards the habitats types 1150-Coastal Lagoons and 1160-Large shallow inlets and bays is a continuous flow of fresh water. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 21

Indicators for 2110-Embryonic shifting dunes Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitat features Dune structure Natural relief and various structures accordant to the physio-geographical potential Predominantly natural relief and well developed dune structure Dune structure only poorly or fragmentarily developed (linear, jagged) Vegetation structure Dynamic Jagged grassy patches as characteristic for the habitat type Low-growing drift line vegetation at the boarders Complete zonation from the initial stages up to the bordering shifting dunes Natural dynamics are not limited; active encroachment coast with regular redevelopment of dunes (sufficient sand supply) Mostly jagged grassy patches as characteristic for the habitat type Partially drift line vegetation at the borders Good zonation from the initial stages up to the bordering shifting dunes Natural dynamics are partially limited; but the regular redevelopment of dunes (sufficient sand supply) is ensured Considerable poor dune structure resp. only fragmentarily pronounced Dune zonation resp. typical vegetation incomplete resp. fragmentarily pronounced Excessively spreading of thick or tall growing vegetation types Natural dynamics are heavily influenced; only minor sand supply, therefore dune redevelopment is only marginal Characteristic species present mostly present only partially present composition Plant species: Cakile maritima, Elymus farctus ssp. borealiatlanticus, Honckenya peploides, Leymus arenarius, Salsola kali Integrity of characteristic species inventory Regionally/locally typical inventory is almost complete (Presence of all 5 species listed above) Majority of the species present (Presence of 3-4 species listed above) Only several species present (Presence of jus 1-2 species listed above) Animal species: Birds: Charadrius hiaticula, Charadrius alexandrinus, Sterna albifrons Disturbances None to low Medium High Ratio of disturbance indicators (ruderal species, neophytes) Disturbance indicators are missing or only scarcely present Small share of the vegetation (1-5 or 5-10%, depending on the conflict Disturbance resp. modification of the structure through coastal protection measures Disturbance by recreational use/tourism/beach cleaning Washing-up of waste and pollutants Construction activity and fragmentation Lage share of the vegetation (>5 or >10%, depending on the conflict potential of the species) potential of the species) None or very low Low to medium High (e.g. numerous sand barriers) None or very low Small scaled or temporary separated Wide spread, regularly Debris containing no or only little waste/pollutants In places a higher share of waste/pollutants Large amounts of waste/pollutants None Few (e.g. a path) Stronger (several hiking paths) Other disturbances None or very low Low to medium High BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 22

Recommendation for field mapping (BFN 2010) Main criterion for a delineation of this habitat type is the presence of plant species typical for salty sand coastal soils. A further criterion is an elevation from a few centimetres above sea level up to 30 cm above the surrounding beach. Initial stages dominated by littoral species growing along the drift line (Cakiletea maritimae) without significant dune formation should be assigned to the 1210- Annual vegetation of drift lines. Large areas without vegetation should be also excluded. A distinguishing criterion towards 2120- Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") is the absence of Ammophilia arenaria. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 23

Indicators for 2120-Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitat features Dune structure Natural altitudinal and spatial development Vegetation structure Dynamic Characteristic species composition High structural diversity (multi-linear dune complexes with maximum height >5m) Complete succession from young stages with jagged beach grass vegetation up to mature stages showing a transition towards grey dunes or dune shrubs Natural dynamics are not limited; active encroachment coast with regular redevelopment of dunes (sufficient sand supply) Predominantly natural altitudinal and spatial development Medium structural diversity (2-3 rows of dune complexes with heights of 2-5m) Almost complete succession from young stages with jagged beach grass vegetation up to mature stages but certain stages are only poorly developed Natural dynamics are partially limited; but the regular redevelopment of dunes (sufficient sand supply) is ensured Dune structure only poorly developed on a larger scale Predominantly uniform beach grass meadows, jagged initial stages and/or a lack of mature stages Natural dynamics are heavily influenced; only minor sand supply, therefore dune redevelopment is only marginal present mostly present only partially present Plant species: Ammophila arenaria, X Calammophila baltica, Calystegia soldanella, Cerastium diffusum, Elymus arenarius, Eryngium maritimum, Festuca rubra ssp. arenaria, Lathyrus maritimus, Oenothera oakesiana (=ammophila) Integrity of characteristic species inven- present (Presence of 5-10 Majority of the species tory species listed above) Regionally/locally typical inventory is almost complete (> 10 characteristic plant species) Only several species present (predominantly pure stands of beach grass; < 5 characteristic plant species ) Animal species: Birds: High number of ground-nesting breeding species present, e.g. Sterna sandvicensis, Larus fuscus, Sterna paradisaea, Larus argentatus, Larus canus Hymenoptera: Ground nesting insects such as Osmia maritima, Colletes halophilus Disturbances None to low Medium High Ratio of disturbance indicators (ruderal species, neophytes) Disturbance resp. modification of the structure through coastal protection measures Disturbance by recreational use/ tourism/beach cleaning Disturbance indicators are missing or only scarcely present None or very low None or very low Small share of the vegetation (1-5 or 5-10%, depending on the conflict potential of the species) Low to medium (e.g. small scale planting of beach grass) Small scaled or temporary separated Large share of the vegetation (>5 or >10%, depending on the conflict potential of the species) High (e.g. numerous sand barriers, planting of beach grass, coverage of open soils, concrete cover) Wide spread, regularly Washing-up of waste Debris containing no or only In places a higher share of Large amounts of BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 24

and pollutants little waste/pollutants waste/pollutants waste/pollutants Construction activity and fragmentation None Few (e.g. a path) Stronger (several hiking paths) Other disturbances None or very low Low to medium High Recommendation for field mapping Main criterion for delineation of the habitat type is a dominance of beachgrass Ammophila arenaria resp. Ammocalamagrostis baltica. Dunes without these keystone species have to be excluded. Mature stands of Ammophilia should be only assessed if there is no humification process yet. This accumulation of soil would cause a shift of characteristic vegetation elements towards 2130- Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation grey dunes. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 25

Indicators for 2130-Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") Indicator A B C Integrity of characteristic Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitat features Dune structure Natural relief Predominantly natural relief Vegetation structure Dynamic Natural altitudinal and spatial development with a high structural diversity (multi-linear dune complexes with maximum height >5m) Complete succession of typical biotopes, from young base-rich stages with jagged dry meadows up to mature, more acidophilic stages with silver grass meadows rich in mosses and lichens Dominance of dune-specific woody plants <10% Natural dynamics are not limited; active encroachment coast with regular redevelopment of dunes; Development of new initial stages of grey dunes out of white dunes Low variety in altitudinal and spatial development Medium structural diversity (only narrow belts of grey dunes with heights of 2-5m) Almost complete succession of typical biotopes, some single stages are only small scaled Dominance of dunespecific woody plants 10-25% Natural dynamics are partially limited; but the regular redevelopment of dunes (sufficient sand supply) is ensured Dune structure only poorly developed on a larger scale Only very narrow and low belts of grey dunes with low structural diversity Succession of characteristic biotopes is incomplete, eg. Dominated by uniform, species-poor meadows High dominance of dune-specific woody plants (> 25%) Natural dynamics are heavily influenced; therefore large scale senescence of the vegetation,; lack of open sandy spots Characteristic species Present mostly present only partially present composition Plant species: Phanerogames: Agrostis capillaris, Aira caryophyllea, Aira praecox, Anthyllis vulneraria, Carex arenaria, Cerastium semidecandrum, Corynephorus canescens, Festuca ovina agg., Festuca rubra ssp. arenaria, Galium verum, Hieracium pilosella, Hieracium umbellatum, Jasione montana, Koeleria arenaria, Myosotis ramosissima, Ononis repens, Ornithopus perpusillus, Phleum arenarium, Rumex acetosella, Sedum acre, Silene otites, Spergula morisonii, Thalictrum minus, Trifolium arvense, Veronica officinalis, Viola canina, Viola tricolor ssp. tricolor (var. maritima) Mosses: Lichen: Integrity of characteristic species inventory Brachythecium albicans, Ceratodon purpureus, Dicranum scoparium, Tortula ruraliformis, Polytrichum piliferum, Racomitrium canescens Cetraria aculeata, Cladonia rangiformis, Cladonia ciliata, Cladonia foliacea, Cladonia furcata Regionally/locally typical inventory Majority of the species Only several species is almost complete (> 20 present (Presence of 10- present (< 10 charac- characteristic plant species) 20 species listed above) teristic plant species ) Animal species Birds: High number of ground-nesting breeding species present, e.g. Tadorna tadorna, Columba oenas, Oenanthe oenanthe Hymenoptera: Ground nesting insects such as Osmia maritima, Megachile maritime, Colletes impunctatus Disturbances None to low Medium High Ratio of disturbance indi- Invasive neophytes are miss- Only punctual occur- Large scale occur- BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 26

cators (ruderal species, neophytes) Disturbance resp. modification of the structure through coastal protection measures ing, other disturbance indicators < 1% None or very low rence of invasive neophytes such as Rosa rugosa or Campy-lopus introflexus, showing only minor propagation tendencies Small share of disturbance indicators (< 10%, depending on the conflict potential of the species) Low to medium (e.g. small scale planting of beach grass) rence of invasive neophytes share or other disturbance indicators (>10% respectively strong propagation tendency) High (e.g. Large scale coverage or planting of open sandy spots) Disturbance by recreational use/tourism/beach cleaning Afforestation/Planting of woody plants Grazing (not as a management measure) Construction activity, Fragmentation Other disturbances (e.g. deposition of waste) None or very low None None or only in a small scale (e.g. rabbits) Small scaled or temporary separated Only punctual, no propagation tendency of planted species Slightly intensive (partially tendency towards species impoverishment) None or very low Few (e.g. few paths, old bunker ruins) None or very low Low to medium High Wide spread, regularly Large scale respectively strong propagation tendency of planted species Very intensive on a large scale (predominately shortly grazed or damaged pasturelike grasslands) Stronger (several hiking paths, roads) Recommendation for field mapping (BFN 2010) The presence of vegetation of characteristic syntaxa such as Corynephorion, Thero- Airion-cohort and also Mesobromion is the most important distinguishing criterion. Whereas small, flat patches in-between dune structures and small patches without vegetation should be assessed, vast sandy plains and sites lacking in coastal influences should be excluded. Grey dunes dominated by woody plants such heaths, shrubs and pioneer forests can also be not assigned to the habitat type 2130. They have to be separately assessed and assigned to the habitat types 2140-Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum, 2150- Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea), 2160-Dunes with Hippophaë rhamnoides, 2170-Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae), 2180-Wooded dunes of the Atlantic, Continental and Boreal region and 2190-Humid dune slacks. A demarcation towards humid dune slacks is the missing of moisture indicators. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 27

Indicators for 2250 - Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. Indicator Favourable B C Integrity of characteristic Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitat features Dune structure Natural altitudinal and spatial development High structural diversity (multi-linear dune complexes with maximum height >5m) Predominantly natural altitudinal and spatial development Medium structural diversity (2-3 rows of dune complexes with heights of 2-5m) Dune structure only poorly developed on a larger scale Vegetation structure > 110 individuals / ha 110-70 individuals / ha < 70 individuals /ha Regeneration index Ratio of juvenile and adult plants (> 1 year) > 1 : 2 Ratio of juvenile and adult plants (> 1 year) 1 : 2 1 : 1 Ratio of juvenile and adult plants (> 1 year) < 1 : 1 Characteristic species Present mostly present only partially present composition Keystone plant species: Anthyllis barba-jovis, Anthyllis hermanniae, Asparagus acutifolius, Cakile maritima, Centaurea pumlilo, Ceratonia siliqua, Chamaerops humilis, Clematis cirrhosa, Clematis flammula, Coridothymus capitatus, Cutandia maritima, Dianthus morisianus, Elytrigia juncea, Ephedra fragilis, Ephedra distachya, Helianthemum stipulatum, Juniperus oxycedrus, Juniperus phoenicea, Juniperus communis, Limoniastrum monopelatum, Limoniastrum elaphonisicum, Limonum graecum ssp. graecum, Lonicera implexa, Lotus halophilous, Malcolmia flexuosa, Medicago marina, Muscari spreitzenhoferi, Myrtus communis, Nigella stricta, Ononis natrix, Pancratium maritimum, Periploca angustifolia, Phagnalon graecum, Phillyrea angustifolia, Phillyrea media, Pistacia lentiscus, Prasium majus, Pseudorlaya pumila, Rhamnus alaternus, Rubia peregrina, Ruscus aculeatus, Salsola kali, Satureja thymbra, Silene colorata, Silene succulenta, Smilax aspera, Triplachne nitens, Valantia hispida, Verbascum spinosum, Vulpia fasciculata, Zygophyllum album Characteristic species composition None to low Medium High Regionally/locally typical inventory is almost complete (> 10 characteristic plant species) Majority of the species present (Presence of 10-5 species listed above) Only several species present (< 5 characteristic plant species ) Disturbances None to low Medium High Deposition of waste / dumping No waste deposition Detectable, but within limits Detectable and beyond limits Grazing damages Absent Detectable, but within limits Significant damages to young plants and herba- Cover of root exposure / Erosion Number of broken branches Presence of invasive species (e.g. Carpobrotus acinaciformis, Agave americana, Pinus brutia, Carpobrotus edulis) None to very few bare roots are detectable No traces of broken branches Locally exposed root network, only few trees affected Only isolated and sporadic ceous layer Root network of juniper trees is extensively exposed, many trees affected Significant amounts of branches have been broken / removed Absent Limited invasion Significant presence BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 28

Recommendation for field mapping The main criterion to delineate habitat patches is the presence of coastal sand dunes in combination with Juniperus oxycedrus subsp. macrocarpa and Juniperus phoenicea species in Greece (Kazakis et al. 2010) and J. oxycedrus, J. phoenicea und J. communis in Italy (Salogni et al. 2012). Keystone species as listed above are taken from Kazakis et al. (2010). http://www.junicoast.gr/en/publications/deliverables/ BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 29

1.4 Indicators and criteria for species For the Joint Transnational Action Plans the following three species have been selected: Ciconia ciconia (European White Stork) Phalacrocorax pygmeus (Pygmy Cormorant) Emys orbicularis (European Pound Turtle) Conservation status of a species means the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect its long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2 The conservation status will be taken as favourable when: Population dynamics data on the species indicate that it is maintaining itself on along-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficient large habitat to maintain its population on along-term basis Important monitoring targets: Population size Population trend Habitat quality Habitat extend Summer, winter and staging habitat conditions Stepping-stone habitats (i.e. micro-habitat refugia., etc.) Corridors BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 30

Indicators for Emys orbicularis The following scheme is based on data from BFN (Hrsg.) (2010). Indicator A B C Status of population Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad Population size > 40 adults 20-40 adults < 20 adults Population structure / Reproduction Adults and > 10 sub-adults, additionally juveniles Adults and 5-10 sub-adults, additionally juveniles Adults and < 5 sub-adults, additionally juveniles Habitat quality Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad Aquatic habitat Diversity and share of key requisites (surface ratio measured on the water surface) Diversity and number of adequate sun bathing spots Terrestrial habitat Condition of riverine vegetation Nesting sites a) shallow slack water zone b) dense submerse herbaceous vegetation, c) muddy ground All present and a) and b) each > 50 % All present and a) and/or b) each 20-50 % Not all present or a) and/or b) < 20% Types: a) unshadowed banks, b) living woody plants in the water, c) deadwood in the water, d) rocks in the water, e) tussocks of living plants in the water, accumulation of dead plant materials in the water 3 types and > 10 spots 2 types or 3-5 spots 1 type or < 5 spots optimal Only partially open or too dense Extensively too dense or too open Distance to water < 300m 300 1.000 m > 1.000m Exposition and shading Very favourable, SSE SSW and all-season without shading Others than A and B Favourable, SSW-WSW or ESE-SSE and all-season without shading or SSE- SSW with temporary shading Number of potential nesting Numerous, >10 Sufficient, 5-10 Rare, <5 sites per assemblage Threat of predators (e.g. No Yes wild boars) Distance to the next assemblage <500m 500-1.00m >1.000m Disturbances None to low Medium High General Recreational pressure none At the banks At the banks and from the water Use of fertilizer and pesticides No use recognisable (agricultural use > 10 m from the water body) Not possible for this parameter Aquatic habitats Fishing activity None Low resp. non hazardous for the species Water balance of the surroundings (within a range of 300 m) Destruction of actual habitat (drainage, construction activities, roads) Nesting sites Maintenance Site of interest and surroundings undisturbed None Not necessary or frequent but species-appropriate Disturbances in the surroundings, but not on the site of interest Not possible for this parameter Not possible for this parameter Recognisable (agricultural use directly adjacent to the water body) Others Disturbances (Melioration) on the site of interest Present Missing, even though necessary or not optimal resp. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 31

Succession at the nesting sites: average coverage by shrubs in % Isolation Roads directly adjacent to the habitats Coverage by woody plants < 5% None Coverage by woody plants 5-10% Present, but low frenquented (only open for agriand silvicultural use) Inter- and intraspecific competition Non-indigenous specimen None Not possible for this parameter not species-appropriate Coverage by woody plants >10% Present, medium to high frequentation (road open to public traffic) Present Recommendation for field mapping Based on BFN (ed.) (2010) To estimate the population size, the assessment has to be conducted from April to June in the water bodies and from March to June as well as August to October on the breeding sites on land. Schneeweiss & Müller (2001) have shown, that a catch and repeated catch method using 10 box-traps or fykes on 100 meters of shore line within 1-3 weeks of exposure is appropriated. The traps have to be checked daily. It is recommended, to mark the trapped individuals with white colour on the carapax. To identify individuals, pictures from upper and bottom side can be done to document the individual pattern on the head and front legs. Additionally to the trapping, also sightings from boat with binoculars should be recorded. From May to July also the breeding sites should be visited to count females when they hide their eggs. It is also helpful to check randomly the adjacent habitats and to ask local land users, nature conservation authorities or NGO s about their observations. All sightings should be recorded. The estimation of the population structure is done by measuring the length and weight of the individuals (age classification) and by recordings on juveniles on land. To do so, the breeding sites are checked in March and April to count the successful and depredated eggs or eggshells. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 32

Indicators for Ciconia ciconia Indicator A B C Status of population Favourable Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad Population development in a 10 years period Range of population (presence on 10x10 km squares) Increasing and/or stable range Constant range No of breeding pairs Increasing population Stable or slightly fluctuating population Reproduction success (average over a 10 years period) Breeding success (No. of youngs fledged/pair) Decreasing range Decreasing population > 2,5 2,5-2,0 <2,0 or decreasing trend Occupation of existing nests >80% 80-50% <50% Proportion of unsuccessful <10% 10-30% >30% nesting pairs Habitat quality Habitat size Extent of areas suitable for storks (grasslands and open wetlands within 3 km radius from the nest) > 25 % 10 25 % < 10 % Extent of good quality habitat size Habitat structure and quality Presence of invasive plant species or bushes on grasslands increasing stable decreasing <5% 5-25% >25% Biological water quality > 80 % good > 80 % fair > 80 % moderate Management of grasslands Grazing Mowing, intense grassland No management (used as a feeding site) Use of pesticides around feeding sites Not used Use of hazardous pesticides Nesting Safety of nesting sites (presence of nest holder nest on electric pylons) Only slightly hazardous pesticides, only on crop fields > 90 % 50-90 % < 50 % No of possible nest sites > 100 x actual No. of nests 10-100 x actual No. of nests < 10 x actual No. of nests Safety of birds Presence of hunting No hunting < 10 % of flyway area countries > 10 % of flyway area countries Safe electric networks (% of bird friendly pylons in the 1000 m buffer around nests) Knowledge Area covered by censuses within 5 years > 90 % 70-90 % < 70 % > 50 % 20-50 % < 20 % BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 33

Public relations People reached with PR actions about bird protection (% of country population) Volunteers involved to censuses or protection activities (compared to country population) > 20 % 20-5 % < 5 % >1/10 000 1/10 000 1/100 000 <1/100 000 Recommendation for field mapping The focus should be put on the number of appropriate nesting sites and the ratio between occupied and unoccupied nests. Another important parameter is the degree of breeding success, i.e. the number of fledged young ones per breeding pair. Since breeding activity usually starts in spring (early April) the focus on the assessments has to be put on this period., but feeding period (early July) is the most informative. All existing nest have to be registered and located (e.g. GPS). Additionally, all known feeding grounds have to be assessed and mapped. Special attention has to be paid to the management practices (such as mowing regime, grazing activity, fertilizing, drainage ) on the preferential foraging sites. These assessments have to be carried out by interrogation of local famer and land owner as well as on-site surveys. It is not enough to map only Natura 2000 sites because these are usually only feeding sites for the White Stork. Censuses have to cover breeding sites, e.g. villages, too! BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 34

Indicators for Phalacrocorax pygmeus Indicator A B C Status of population Favourable Inadequate Bad Population development in a 10 years period Range of population (pres- Increasing range Constant range Decreasing range ence on 10x10 km squares) No of breeding pairs Increasing or stabilized population Fluctuating population or evidence of fluctuation without clear trends Reproduction success (average over a 10 years period) Occupation of existing nests >80% 80-50% <50% Proportion of unsuccessful nesting pairs Reproduction success (juveniles surviving the first year) <10% 10-30% >30% Decreasing population > 3 juveniles 3-2 juveniles < 2 juvenile Habitat quality Favourable Inadequate Bad Habitat size Extent of good quality habitat size Increasing or stable Decreasing by <5% per year Habitat structure and quality Biological water quality Nesting sites Habitat structure integrity/ quality > 80 % good (indicators of conditions near to or as type-specific reference conditions) > 80 % fair conditions, with slight anthropogenic degradation prevalant Decreasing by > 5% per year > 80 % moderate (indicators of significant degradation) > 80 % good > 80 % fair > 80 % moderate Disturbances None to low Medium High General Poaching and killing activity None Less than 5 killings per year More than 5 killings per year Fishing activity None or nearly none near the sensitive sites for the species (roost, nest sites). Extensive and evidence of disturbance and displacing of birds. Feeding habitats Pollution of surface waters No pollution recognisable Recognisable (agricultural use adjacent to the feeding and nesting habitats) Use of biocides, hormones and chemicals Destruction of actual habitat (cuttings, construction activities) No use recognisable None Recognisable (agricultural use adjacent to the feeding habitats) Not applicable for this parameter Intensively and demonstrating frequent disturbance at nesting and roosting sites. Recognisable (agricultural use directly on the feeding habitats and impacting other habitats utilized by the species) Recognisable (agricultural use directly on the feeding habitats) Present in close proximity or at sites used by the species. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 35

Recommendation for field mapping - All colonies must be mapped each year - Nest number census must be completed each year - All roost sites mapped - Roost congregations mapped - Foraging habitats (habitat selection and preferences) identified and mapped; representative preferred foraging habitat types mapped. - Geo-refrenced mapping and delineations analyzed and interpreted every year. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 36

References BFN (ed.) (2010): Bewertung des Erhaltungszustandes der Arten nach Anhang II und IV der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie in Deutschland. Überarbeitete Bewertungsbögen der Bund-Länder-Arbeitskreise als Grundlage für ein bundesweites FFH-Monitoring. Im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Natuschutz FKZ 805 82 013. 206 pp. BFN (ed.) (2010): Bewertung des Erhaltungszustandes der Lebensraumtypen nach Anhang I der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie in Deutschland. Überarbeitete Bewertungsbögen der Bund-Länder-Arbeitskreise als Grundlage für ein bundesweites FFH- Monitoring. Im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Natuschutz FKZ 805 82 013. 87pp. Biondi E., Casavecchia S. 2010: The halophilous retro-dune grasslands of the Italian Adriatic coastline. In: Braun-Blanquetia, vol. 46, 2010, pp 111-127 European Commission (Hrsg.) (2007): Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC" (final version Feb 2007) Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/guidance/index_en.htm Edgar, P.& Gent, T. (2005): Defining FCS and Setting Favourable Reference Values (FRV). Herpetological Conservation Trust, November 2005, with additional comments by Thomas Sperle, NABU. In: European Habitats Forum 2006: Towards European Biodiversity Monitoring. Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation status of European habitats and species. Wien, Cambridge, Bruxelles. 80 pp Ellmauer, T. (ed.) (2005): Entwicklung von Kriterien, Indikatoren und Schwellenwerten zur Beurteilung des Erhaltungszustandes der Natura 2000-Schutzgüter. Band 1: Vogelarten des Anhangs I der Vogelschutz-Richtlinie. Im Auftrag der neun österreichischen Bundesländer, des Bundesministerium f. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und der Umweltbundesamt GmbH, 633 pp. Ellmauer, T. (ed.) (2005): Entwicklung von Kriterien, Indikatoren und Schwellenwerten zur Beurteilung des Erhaltungszustandes der Natura 2000-Schutzgüter. Band 3: Lebensraumtypen des Anhangs I der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie. Im Auftrag der neun österreichischen Bundesländer, des Bundesministerium f. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und der Umweltbundesamt GmbH, 616 pp. Fujiwara, K., Box, E. O., Harada, A. (2010): The warm-temperate richness zone in coastal dune vegetation of the continental vast sides Northern hemisphere). In: Braun-Blanquetia, vol. 46, 2010, pp 261-269 Grabherr, G., Koch, G., Kirchmeir, H. & Reiter, K (1998): Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Veröffentlichungen des Österreichischen MaB-Programms; Bd. 17: 493 S Kazakis, G., Ghosn, D., Remoundou, E. (2010): Actions for the conservation of coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. in Crete and the South Aegean (Greece). From: Deliverable A.2.1: Report on plant associations, community types, composition and struc- BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 37

ture of coastal sand dunes with Juniperus spp. in Crete, LIFE07NAT/GR/000296 JUNICOAST- Krause, J., Drachenfels, O. v., Ellwanger, G., Farke, H., Fleet, D.M., Gemperlein, J., Heinicke, K., Herrmann, C., Klugkist, H., Lenschow, U., Michalczyk, C., Narberhaus, I., Schröder, E., Stock, M., Zscheile, K. Bewertungsschemata für die Meeres- und Küstenlebensraumtypen der FFH-Richtlinie - 21er Lebensraumtypen: Dünen an den Küsten des Atlantiks sowie der Nord- und der Ostsee. In: Schnitter, P., Eichen, C., Ellwanger, G., Neukirchen, M. & E.Schröder (Bearb.). 2006: Empfehlungen für die Erfassung und Bewertung von Arten als Basis für das Monitoring nach Artilel 11 und 17 der FFH-RL in Deutschland. Berichte des Landesamtes für Umweltschutz Sachsen- Anhalt (Halle), Sonderheft 2. Salogni G., Costa M., de Franco F., Kamburov I, Loreggian M., Berto P., Ziglio S. 2012: BE-NATUR: BEtter management and implementation of NATURa 2000 sites. WP3: Transnational joint strategy and tools for the better management and implementation of Natura 2000 sites. Joint Transnational Action Plan on Coastal Sand Dunes. Unpublished manuscript. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 38

Annex Definition of Activity 3 in Work package 3: Excerpt of the Project proposal, page 61 Description of the activity a) joint definition of a common monitoring method (transnational tool): data collection, analysis and processing of the data aimed allowing the proper evaluations of the current conservation status of habitats and species and the proper prediction and consequent specific action planning of management interventions in the natural sites. The output will be a concrete common and standard tool responding to the Dir. 92/43/EEC (art. 18). This tool will be useful for the previous and subsequent mentoring activity to the realisation of the direct intervention of implementation of TJAP (cfr wp4.2), in order to have comparable data to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions these outputs of the action 3.1, and partly 3.2 represent different "pieces" and "working steps" for the definition of a common transnational strategy for nature preservation and implementation of Natura 2000 network in South-East-Europe. The guideline will also contain the interpretation of the habitats and their classification according to the typical vegetation of SEE and of each Country. The guideline will have the form of one document containing transferable tools and key information concretely responding to the directive 92/43/EEC. The Monitoring tool and GL will be produced in English and disseminated through USB pen drives and in pdf version downloadable versions will be available on the web site. The GL will be furthermore printed by each PP (200 copies per PP). Both tools will be disseminated according to the activities foreseen in WP2, and during the trainings foreseen in WP4. Role of each partner ERDF PP1 defines a proposal of monitoring method which will be assessed and improved through the contribution of the experts of each PP and with the supervision and consultancy of the TSC. In the same way the ERDF PP1, draw up a draft of the contents of the GL containing the transnational strategy, which will be jointly improved, completed and revised by the PPs experts with the consultancy and supervision of the TSC. The PP having experience on the interpretation of the habitats and their classification will provide the assistance and key information to draw up the related section of the GL. ERDF PP1 is furthermore responsible for the editing of the GL, which will be transferred to the partners in the form of file for printing their own copies. In the same way, the monitoring method (final version) will be drawn up by ERDF PP1 in the form of "friendly printing" handbook. Each PP is responsible for producing his own set of USB pen drives containing both tools. ERDF PP4 is responsible for uploading both tools onto the project web site for free consultation and download. The translation of both tools into their national language is up to each PP. BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 39

Impressum Editors: Hanns Kirchmeir, Tobias Köstl E.C.O. Institute of Ecology Kinoplatz 6, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria Ph. +43 463 504144, Fax +43 463 504144-4 Email: kirchmeir@e-c-o.at Michael Getzner, Denise Zak Centre of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the Department of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Planning Vienna University of Technology (VIETU) Resselgasse 5, 1040 Vienna, Austria Ph. +43 1 58801 280320, Fax +43 1 58801 9280320 Email: Michael.Getzner@tuwien.ac.at, Denise.Zak@tuwien.ac.at With contributions from: Nimfea - Nimfea Environment and Nature Conservation Association VIETU - Vienna University of Technology, Department of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy AREC - Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein ETANAM - Development Agency for South Epirus - Amvrakikos S.A.L.G.O. PRA - Province of Ravenna TORRE GUACETO - Consortium of management of Torre Guaceto Strandja NPP - Strandja Nature Park Directorate RVE - Veneto Region - Spatial planning and parks department DDNI - Danube delta national institute for research and development TM - Timis County represented by Timis County Council LBDCA - Lake Balaton Development Coordination Agency Cacak - City of Cacak DDBRA - Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority Work package (WP3) leader: PPR1 VIETU (project partner 1, Vienna University of Technology) BE-NATUR project SEE Programme COMMON MONITORING TOOL 40