Chapter 5. Overview of Current Eutrophication Risk Assessment Methodologies and Criteria

Chapter 5. Overview of current eutrophication risk assessment methodologies and criteria in European countries

5.1. Introduction

Since assessments should be region and type specific in the WFD, the country specific information collected will be compiled to provide region and type-specific values and ranges, whereeverwherever possible. Only water body types vulnerable to eutrophication are included (lake and river types in boreal or highland areas can be excluded?). Since the intercalibration process and the scientific support for this process provided by the REBECCA project are ongoing, but far from being finalised, the first version of this chapter will be mainly based on risk assessment criteria used by member states in the Article 5 reports (sub-chapters 5.3-5.5). Thus at this stage it has not been possible to compile region and type-specific information for all regions and types, but examples are given in sub-chapter 5.2 on metrics and boundaries suggested for some regions and types of water bodies.

The metrics used in this chapter are taken the most commonly used metrics, which are all included in the checklists in chapter 2.

5.2 Contribution from the Intercalibration process

What can be expected from the GIGs as outcome of the intercalibration process?

Description of eutrophication relevant (common) metrics used by the different GIGs for the different water categories.

5.2.1Lakes

Intercalibration metrics used for lakes are: tot-P, Chl-fa, phytoplankton composition (% bluegreens, % chrysophytes, others?), macrophyte composition (% isoetids?), reduction in depth distribution of macrophytes etc.

Examples of preliminary results, such as ref. conditions. for tot-P and chl-fa in differrentdifferent lake types in Northern GIG (figures from NGIG workshop in Helsinki in April 2005 to be included)

The intercalibration process will not provide information on the indirect effects of eutrophication, such as oxygen depletion in bottom waters and fish kills.

5.2.2. Rivers

Ian Codling

5.2.3 Coastal (and transitional?) waters

Kalliopi Pagou

Intercalibration metrics being used for coastal watersaccording to GIG reports (found in CIRCA) are:

chl-a (common metric among all GIGs but differ from summer mean to 90% percentile, mean, median, mode, min, max, etc),

phytoplankton (NEA GIG: yes; MED GIG: they will not intercalibrate on phytoplankton species at this stage because it is difficult to agree on metrics, but they are discussing on phytoplankton bloom abundance, HABs composition, etc; Baltic GIG no; BLACK SEA GIG: yes, ratio between species)

macroalgae (considered by MED GIG and BALTIC SEA GIG as depth limit, etc)

Angiosperms (considered by MED GIG (Posidonia oceanica) and BALTIC SEA GIG (Zostera) as depth limit, meadow density, etc)

Benthic invertebrates (considered by MED GIG and BALTIC GIG NEA GIG (?), Black Sea GIG: no, several methods/metrics from species composition to indices as AMBI, etc)

Physicochemical characteristics (for supporting interpretation): ToC, Salinity, transparency, total P and reactive P, total N , nitrite, nitrate, ammonium, silicate by MED GIG and BLACK SEA GIG, NEA GIG (?), BALTIC (?). BLACK SEA GIG considered BOD, disO2 and % saturation. disO2 by NEA GIG.

Intercalibration sites for transitional waters were submitted from Baltic Sea GIG (3), NEA GIG (1?), MED GIG (only 1 country (Fr) and MS required to postpone IC exercise fro this water category within this group), Black Sea GIG (No?)

However NEA GIG intends to intercalibrate Fish for transitional waters (species composition, number of species, number of diadromous species, etc)

Examples of preliminary results as are reference conditions for chl-a, probably could not be possible to be presented before the end of September 2005, when GIGs are reporting (However examples exist representing national procedures proposed for examination/intercalibration during MED GIG meeting in February 2005, regarding phytoplankton, macroalgae, angiosperms and benthic invertebrates. Other GIGs?),

5.3 Eutrophication assessment methodologies and criteria for lakes

Given below are ranges of values for reference conditions or equivalent values used to designate water bodies as being not at risk of failing the WFD objective, as well as values and ranges used to classify or designate water bodies in less than moderate status or equivalent values used to designate water bodies as being at risk of failing the WFD objective. Also the range of values for water bodies in good or moderate status or possibly at risk are given wherever available information have been provided. The values and ranges are based on results from the questionnaire as well as other sources of information, such as the Article 5 reports.

5.3.1 Methodology used for boundary setting for separate metrics

Give brief information on methodology used to derive values and boundaries (existing classification systems, newly developed WFD-compatible classification systems, regional data sets, paleo-data, models)

5.3.2 Nutrient enrichment (causative factors) in lakes

Information may initially be compiled as shown in table below. Metrics highlighted in bold font are those used in Intercalibration

Country / Metric or parameter / Reference conditions or not at risk / Good or moderate status or possibly at risk / Moderate or lessPoor or bad status or at risk / Web-link or literature ref. to method description
x / Tot-P
Tot-N
N/P-ratio
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
y / Tot-P
Tot-N
N/P-ratio
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
Etc.

After the initial compilation we can try to sort and aggregate the table by region and type as far as possible.

5.3.3 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment in lakes

Information may be compiled as shown in table below. Metrics highlighted in bold font are those used in Intercalibration

Country / Metric or parameter / Reference conditions or not at risk / Good or moderate status or possibly at risk / Moderate or lessPoor or bad status or at risk / Web-link or literature ref. to method description
x / Chlorophyll a
Biovolume
% ref. phytoplankton taxa
% impact phytoplankton taxa
Reduction in depth distribution macrophytes
% cover of macrophytes
% ref. macrophyte taxa
% impact macrophyte taxa
Turbidity
Transparency (Secchi depth)
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
y / Chlorophyll a
Biovolume
% ref. phytoplankton taxa
% impact phytoplankton taxa
Reduction in depth distribution macrophytes
% cover of macrophytes
% ref. macrophyte taxa
% impact macrophyte taxa
Turbidity
Transparency (Secchi depth)
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
Etc.

After the initial compilation we can try to sort and aggregate the table by region and type as far as possible.

5.3.4 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment in lakes

Information may be compiled as shown in table below. Metrics highlighted in bold font are those used in Intercalibration (for lakes no metrics for indirect effects are used)

Country / Metric or parameter / Reference conditions or not at risk / Good or moderate status or possibly at risk / Moderate or less Poor or bad status or at risk / Web-link or literature ref. to method description
x / TOC or other organic matter metric
O2 in hypolimnion
% ref. benthic invertebrates taxa
% impact benthic invertebrates taxa
Benthic invertebrates biodiversity
Fish abundance (CPUE)
% ref. fish taxa
% impact fish taxa
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric

After the initial compilation we can try to sort and aggregate the table by region and type as far as possible.

5.4 Eutrophication assessment methodologies and criteria for rivers

5.4.1 Methodology used for boundary setting for separate metrics

5.4.2 Nutrient enrichment (causative factors) in rivers

Equivalent content as for lakes, but using river-specific criteria according to check list

5.4.3 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment in rivers

Equivalent content as for lakes, but using river-specific criteria according to check list

5.4.4 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment in rivers

Equivalent content as for lakes, but using river-specific criteria according to check list

5.5 Eutrophication assessment methodologies and criteria for coastal and transitional waters

5.5.1 Methodology used for boundary setting for separate metrics

5.5.2 Nutrient enrichment (causative factors) in coastal and transitional waters

Equivalent content as for lakes, but using coastal and transitional waters-specific criteria according to check list.

Metrics highlighted in bold font are those used in Intercalibration

Country / Metric or parameter / Reference conditions / Good status / Moderate or less status / Web-link or literature ref. to method description
x / Tot-P
Tot-N
N-species
Si
N/P, N/Si, P/Si-ratio
salinity
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
y / Tot-P
Tot-N
N-species
Si
N/P, N/Si, P/Si-ratio
Salinity
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
Etc.

After the initial compilation we can try to sort and aggregate the table by region and type as far as possible.

5.5.3 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment in coastal and transitional waters

Equivalent content as for lakes, but using coastal and transitional waters -specific criteria according to check list

Metrics highlighted in bold font are those used in Intercalibration

Country / Metric or parameter / Reference conditions / Good status / Moderate or less status / Web-link or literature ref. to method description
x / Chlorophyll a concentrations
biomass (org C, cell numbers)
species composition (Diatoms/dinoflagellates)
frequency and duration of blooms
shifts in species composition to higher proportion of harmful or toxic species
annual primary production
macrophytes (including macroalgae):
biomass
shifts in species composition
reductionin in depth distribution
surface distribution
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
y / Chlorophyll a concentrations
biomass (org C, cell numbers)
species composition (Diatoms/dinoflagellates)
frequency and duration of blooms
shifts in species composition to higher proportion of harmful or toxic species
annual primary production
macrophytes (including macroalgae):
biomass
shifts in species composition
reductionin in depth distribution
surface distribution
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric
Etc.

5.5.4 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment in coastal and transitional waters

Equivalent content as for lakes, but using coastal and transitional waters -specific criteria according to check list

Metrics highlighted in bold font are those used in Intercalibration

Country / Metric or parameter / Reference conditions / Good status / Moderate or less status / Web-link or literature ref. to method description
x / TOC /Org.matter
dO2 , % saturation
increased frequency of low oxygen concentration
anoxic zones
benthic invertebrates
changes in abundance and biomass
changes in species composition
indices (AMBI, BENTIX)
Benthic invertebrates biodiversity
Fish abundance (for transitional waters)
Species composition
Number of species
Number of diadromous species, etc)
Etc. / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric / Mean value and range for each metric

5.6 Pressure and other criteria and other status criteria used for Article 5 risk assessment relevant for eutrophication

Table showing commonly used pressure and status criteria (no values, just a list of criteria), used for article 5 risk assessment. Refer to Appendix with more detailed and quantitative values for each criterium used by different member states. The appendix can be drafted as soon as the member states have responded to the questionnaire.

If pressure criteria are water category specific, they should be integrated in the different water category sub-chapters.

Table showing values used for risk assessment (Article 5) by the different countries

Criteria / % agriculture / Population density / Point sources / Others
Country x
Not at risk
Possibly at risk
At risk
Country y
Not at risk
Possibly at risk
At risk
Etc.

These can be sorted according to region later