Compliance Checking for Coastal Water Directives

1. Water Framework Directive Directive 2000/60/EC Intercalibration for coastal waters Wendy Bonne JRC

6. Baltic Sea typology Extra type

7. Baltic Sea typology Proposed extension of BC 8 to the Darß Sill. Figure 1: Proposed extension of BC8 to the Darß Sill.

8. Baltic Sea typology Comment SE: BC1 only include a very small part of old type B3. Most of the old type B3a sheltered and B3b exposed is not included. BC1 2nd ICphase Old type B3: Sites in the area extending from the southern Bothnian Sea to the Archipelago Sea and the western Gulf of Finland No conclusion – documentation on discussion for old type B3 in 2nd phase SE in central Baltic disregarded

9. Baltic Sea typology Differences for phytoplankton and benthos to be documented if needed – delaying/avoiding is no solution Bottom layer salinity (mean value 1990-2000) Surface water salinity

10. NEA GIG typology: split of Skagerrak and Kattegat National typology for the Swedish and Danish Coastal Waters in Kattegat and Skagerrak. The red line suggest the division between Kattegat and Skagerrak where 8a is north of the line and 8b is south of the line. Hard bottom Shallow soft bottom

11. 1 area No different types macrophytes Same reference for muddy Same reference for sandy/mixed Black Sea GIG Common types macrobenthos IC with 2 WBs was initiated, but wrong IC was focused on 1 RO WB and 1 BU WB while they had the same reference conditions as other water bodies for macroalgae/ seagrasses and benthic invertebrate fauna! The common IC type was not defined in the correct way.

12. COASTAL WATERS Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure MT lacking

13. Coastal - Phytoplankton • WFD - composition, abundance, frequency and intensity of algal blooms and biomass; • All MS – biomass through chlorophyll a; • Majority (8 of 10) in NEA GIG assesses blooms • 3 examples methods of 3 different GIGs including composition • MED GIG only chlorophyll a (except FR) – no added value of blooms (stated by ES) • Baltic GIG only chlorophyll a + almost all total biomass • Justifications do not reflect a consensus • Recommendation: - to include only methods that have been validated - to improve scientific documentation for exclusion of abundance and bloom parameters

14. Chlorophyll a Biovolume Summer chla versus winter-spring TN mean concentrations for 37 different sites. Solid line shows the estimated relationship averaged over all sites, and dotted lines show relationship with the lowest factor (Dybsø Fjord) and the highest factor (Ringkøbing Fjord before change of sluice practice). DK: Relationship between total phytoplankton biovolume and TN based on data since 1998 from 22 Danish sites Similar scientific results are used to support the argumentation to include one parameter on the one hand but exclude another potential parameter on the other hand.

15. Explained by MS as too much scatter in the full salinity zone, but focused on one salinity zone (as for another MS) may give better relationship DK: Biovolume of euglenophytes versus TN at 22 different sites MSs should ask themselves if they can really define the G/M boundary with sufficient reliability before excluding any other parameter Figure DE 2: Relation between specific phytoplankton indices and TN concentration. Summer means May-September (n = 209)

16. COASTAL WATERS Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure LV lacking MT lacking

17. Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure COASTAL WATERS NEA GIG Not BE, NL, DK in NEA 1/26 Not DK, SE, NO in NEA 8/9/10 Not ES, PT in NEA 1/26 Not DK, SE, NO in NEA 8/9/10

18. Coastal – Macroalgae - seagrasses • WFD - abundance or cover and disturbance sensitive taxa; • Combined assessment in Baltic and Black Sea - 4 of 7 methods compliant in Baltic (of which 1 not validated) - methods in Black Sea not validated – only relative cover – sufficient assessment seagrasses? • Seagrass and saltmarsh assessment: parameters covered in MED GIG and NEA GIG – in latter not validated • Macroalgal assessment: only relative cover for 1 method in MED GIG – 2 subtidal methods only depth limit of species in NEA – only 4 of 11 methods validated

19. Coastal – Macroalgae - seagrasses • Recommendation: - to include only methods that have been validated - to include methods with relative abundance only if they correlate well with a common metric (including all required parameters)

20. Clear illustrations of method validation graphs Baltic Sea GIG (Although poor is lacking and better put depen-dent variable on X-axis for Baltic example) MED GIG

21. COASTAL WATERS Benthic invertebrate fauna: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure EE ? PL lacking LT not EE not MT lacking

22. Coastal – Benthic invertebrate fauna • WFD - diversity, abundance, sensitive taxa, composition and taxa indicative of pollution; • 21 of 27 methods cover required parameters; • Broad consensus: abundance is assessed as relative abundance for the majority of the methods, especially in MED GIG, NEA GIG and Black Sea • 1 case in Baltic with biomass instead of abundance • In MED GIG 5 of 7 methods exclude diversity • Recommendation: - to include EE method - to include only methods that are validated (has to include moderate class as well) - only Greece has provided requested graphs, to exclude other methods without better info

23. Justification for Estonia Linear regression of abundance-based ZKI index with BSPI, 76 observations, p = 0.087 Linear regression of biomass-based ZKI index with BSPI, 76 observations, p = 0.002

24. Clear illustrations of method validation graphs GreeceBentix Variation of Shannon diversity and Bentix along a gradient of increasing pressure indicator (organic carbon values) SloveniaM-AMBI

25. Coverage of ecological gradient GreeceBentix GM SpainMEDOCC GM

26. SpainBOPA

29. Coastal - Phytoplankton • Baltic Sea GIG: - Reference was set based on historical data/modelling/ relation with secchi depth and TN - benchmarking considered using TN. Probably with moderate sites (some high status) – unclarity on sufficiency of data per common type. • NEA GIG: - reference based on expert judgment/current reference sites - benchmarking considered based on expert judgment of risk assessments – only H status sites in UK available - with risk assessment only distinction between G/M possible

30. Coastal - Phytoplankton • MED GIG: - reference based on existing reference sites - benchmarking considered using Land Uses Simplified Index (LUSI) in the frame of a common boundary setting procedure - data probably sufficient • Black Sea GIG: - benchmarking not considered - no relevant data for pressure assessment available. - Reference and boundaries were set based on expert judgment of historical data, not in relation to a pressure indicator.

31. Coastal - Macroalgae- Angiosperms • Baltic Sea GIG: - Reference was set based on historical data/modelling/ relation with secchi depth and TN - benchmarking not considered yet. Pressure information not compiled • NEA GIG: - Reference based on expert judgment - Only for intertidal macroalgae for 1 biotype between FR – PT and ES (Cantabria) 7 reference sites available for benchmarking. For other elements (intertidal green macroalgae blooms - subtidal macroalgae – seagrasses - saltmarshes) not clear. Pressure information compilation planned. Due to water body assessments and in case of saltmarshes sometimes entire estuary, feasibility of any benchmarking is questioned and establishing relationship with pressure indicators is difficult.

32. Coastal - Macroalgae- Angiosperms • MED GIG: - Reference based on existing reference sites - Seagrasses: benchmarking performed with 10 ES and 4 FR high status sites selected according to the same criteria - Macroalgae: benchmarking is considered for 37 reference sites (sampled once except CY) selected according to the same criteria: IT 3 sites - GR 4 stations - HC 20 sites - ES 6 sites - CY 2 sites - SI 2 sites • Black Sea GIG: - Reference based on expert judgment or MED GIG reference - benchmarking not considered yet. Pressure information not compiled. Boundaries were set based on expert judgment, not in relation to a pressure indicator.

33. Coastal – Benthic invertebrate fauna • Baltic Sea: - reference was mainly set on biological criteria - for benchmarking the HELCOM Baltic Sea Pressure Index is evaluated. • NEA GIG: - reference based on some existing sites considered to be applicable to specific areas in the NEA. Check needed • MED GIG: - benchmarking is considered using reference sites selected according to the same criteria: Number of stations: ES 16 - GR 6 - CY 4 - IT 7– SI 4 - FR 3 sites • Black Sea: benchmarking not considered. Pressure information not compiled. Boundaries were taken over from NEA based on expert judgment, not established in relation to a pressure indicator.

36. Macroalgae MED GIG Common metric

37. Greek EEI method Technical report 1st phase EEI = 10 = High EEI = 8 = Good EEI = 6 = Moderate EEI = 4 = Poor EEI = 2 = Bad EQR = 1 = High EQR = 0.75 = Good EQR = 0.5 = Moderate EQR = 0.25 = Poor EQR = 0 = Bad

38. Greece Slovenia Cyprus The EEI value can be transformed in accordance to the EQRs of WFD: EEIEQR= 1.25x(EEIvalue/RCvalue)-0.25, RC=10 > The average absolute abundance (%) of ESG I and II are cross compared in a matrix to determine the Ecological Status Class of a Site, using 5 classes from high to bad, corresponding to 5 different numbers as the EEI value. EEI values 8 and 10 indicate sustainable ecosystems of good or high ESC, whereas EEI values of 6, 4 and 2 indicate that the ecosystems should be restored to a higher ESC.

39. (Macrophyte graphs are not original and were based on diverse sources) HOW TO USE EEI Fast (early-successional) vs. slow-growing (late-successional) species Ecological Status Groups

41. MED GIG Macroalgae New common metric

44. Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1 Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1 Time to assess data and for discussion Cooperation and monitoring Macroalgae Sea-grasses Common metric clarifications ! Cooperation WISER Cooperation and monitoring Common metric clarifications ! Cooperation WISER Revision 1st phase + 1 MS Revision Revision 1st phase with monitoring data added Revision 1st phase + 2 additional MSs Meeting ? 3 of 8 types green, others yellow or red

45. Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1 Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1 Time to assess data and for discussion Cooperation and monitoring Macroalgae Sea-grasses Common metric clarifications ! Cooperation WISER Cooperation and monitoring Common metric clarifications ! Cooperation WISER Revision 1st phase + 1 MS Finished Revision 1st phase with monitoring data added Revision 1st phase + 2 additional MSs 3 of 8 types green, others yellow or red