Data Zone
The site was identified as internationally important for bird conservation in 2010 because it was regularly supporting significant populations of the species listed below, meeting ('triggering') IBA criteria.
Populations meeting IBA criteria ('trigger species') at the site:| Species | Red List | Season (year/s of estimate) | Size | IBA criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Western Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus | LC | breeding (2005–2009) | 10–20 males | C6 |
| Eurasian Pygmy-owl Glaucidium passerinum | LC | breeding (2005–2009) | 25–45 pairs | C6 |
| Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus | LC | breeding (2005–2009) | 15–30 pairs | C6 |
| Ural Owl Strix uralensis | LC | breeding (2005–2009) | 20–40 pairs | C6 |
| Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos | LC | breeding (2005–2009) | 1–2 pairs | C6 |
| Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus | LC | breeding (2004–2009) | 25–40 pairs | C6 |
| White-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos | LC | breeding (2004–2009) | 20–30 pairs | C6 |
Ideally the conservation status of the IBA will have been checked regularly since the site was first identified in 2010. The most recent assessment (2010) is shown below.
| IBA conservation assessment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year of assessment | State | Pressure | Response |
| 2010 | poor | high | medium |
| Whole site assessed? | State assessed by | Accuracy of information | |
| yes | habitat | medium | |
| State (condition of the trigger species' populations) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Actual vs Reference (units) | % remaining | Result | ||
| Western Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus | 25 / 30 (males) | 84 | moderate | ||
| Eurasian Pygmy-owl Glaucidium passerinum | 45 / 20 (pairs) | 100 | not assessed | ||
| Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus | 30 / 15 (pairs) | 100 | not assessed | ||
| Ural Owl Strix uralensis | 40 / 15 (pairs) | 100 | not assessed | ||
| Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos | 2 / 1 (pairs) | 100 | good | ||
| Picoides tridactylus | 30 / 20 (pairs) | 100 | good | ||
| Dendrocopos leucotos | 30 / 15 (pairs) | 100 | good | ||
| State (condition of the trigger species' habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitat | Quantity (% remaining) | Quality (% carrying capacity) | Result |
| Grassland | moderate (70–90%) | moderate (70–90%) | poor |
| Forest | moderate (70–90%) | good (>90%) | moderate |
| Pressure (threats to the trigger species and/or their habitats) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat | Timing | Scope | Severity | Result |
| Human intrusions and disturbance | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | high |
| Pollution | happening now | most of population/area (50–90%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | high |
| Invasive and other problematic species and genes | likely in short term (<4 years) | whole of population/area (>90%) | moderate decline (10–30% over 3 generations) | high |
| Natural system modifications | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Agricultural expansion and intensification | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Residential and commercial development | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Biological resource use | happening now | some of population/area (10–49%) | slow decline (1–10% over 3 generations) | medium |
| Climate change and severe weather | likely in long term (>4 years) | most of population/area (50–90%) | moderate decline (10–30% over 3 generations) | medium |
| No known threats | happening now | few individuals/small area (<10%) | no or slight decline (<1% over 3 generations) | low |
| Response (conservation actions taken for the trigger species and/or their habitats) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Designation | Planning | Action | Result |
| Most of area (50–90%) covered (including the most critical parts for important bird species) | A management plan exists, but it is out of date or not comprehensive | Substantive conservation measures are being implemented, but these are not comprehensive and are limited by resources and capacity | medium |
| Year | Protected Area | Designation (management category) | % coverage of IBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1981 | Gorczański Park Narodowy | Park Narodowy (II) | 96 |
| Habitat | % of IBA | Habitat detail |
|---|---|---|
| Forest | 97 | Native coniferous woodland; Mixed woodland |
| Grassland | 3 | Alpine, subalpine and boreal grassland |
| Land use | % of IBA |
|---|---|
| nature conservation and research | 51 |
| tourism/recreation | 45 |
| forestry | 5 |
| not utilised | 5 |
| agriculture | 2 |
Recommended citation
BirdLife International (2024) Important Bird Area factsheet: Gorce mountains (Poland). Downloaded from
https://datazone.birdlife.org/site/factsheet/gorce-mountains-iba-poland on 23/12/2024.