BSEP116B Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - Helcom

Table 5.1. Overview of national case study sites with a reference to the data source.
Case study
number
Country Name Description Data source
(unpublished)
1 Sweden Kvädöfjärden
(inner)
2 Sweden Askö-Landsort
area
Rocky archipelago area ca. 25 km² Olsson et. al. 2008
400 km² area, University research
station. Based on WFD data only.
Blomqvist 2007
3 Sweden Forsmark (inner) 32 km² of relatively unexploited Olsson et al. 2008
coastline
4 Sweden Holmöarna Ca. 15 km² archipelago area Olsson et al. 2008
5 Finland Archipelago Sea Area close to the Finnish mainland Ekebom et al. 2007
(inner)
6 Finland Finbo Archipelago area in Åland Ådjers & Lappalainen
2008
7 Russia Eastern Gulf of
Finland
Russian waters off the St. Petersburg
barrier
8 Russia Neva Bay 400 km² area inside the St. Petersburg
barrier
9 Estonia Gulf of Riga,
northern
Ca 8 000 km² area of open and
coastal waters
10 Estonia Pärnu Bay Ca. 700 km² bay with strong riverine
input
11 Latvia Gulf of Riga,
south
Single Latvian offshore monitoring
station
Golubkov 2007
Golubkov 2007
Ojaveer & Martin 2007
Ojaveer & Martin 2007
Ikauniece et al. 2007
12 Lithuania Curonian lagoon Large lagoon (national EUTRO-PRO)
13 Poland Puck Bay 360 km² inner part of Bay of Gdansk Andrulewicz &
Weslawski 2008
14 Germany Fehmarn Belt 69 km² area surrounding Fehmarn Karez et al. 2008
island
15 Germany Neustadt Bay 46 km² area, inner parts of Lübeck Karez et al. 2008
Bight
16 Germany Bülk
15 km² area outside Kiel Fjord Karez et al. 2008
(outer Kiel Fjord)
17 Germany Gelting Bight 44 km² area of relatively exposed Karez et al. 2008
coastline
18 Denmark Odense Fjord 62 km² shallow, eutrophic estuary HELCOM, 2006
19 Denmark Limfjorden 1 468 km² long semi-enclosed Andersen & Kaas 2008
waterbody
20 Denmark Randers Fjord 27 km long, shallow estuary HELCOM 2006
21 Denmark Isefjorden- Two connected fjords Andersen & Kaas 2008
Roskilde Fjord
22 Denmark The Sound 118 km strait with a distinct halocline Henriksen et al. 2008
Twenty-two national case studies from all nine
HELCOM Member Countries were made available
for testing the indicator-based biodiversity assessment
tool BEAT. The location of the study sites is
shown in Figure 5.1. Table 5.1 lists the sites and
data sources (unpublished case study reports). In
addition, the Baltic Proper as a whole was assessed
using a compilation of available indicators to test
and illustrate a geographically wider, sub-basin
approach.
In the instructions for providing the case studies,
no specific time period for defining the reference
status was given and, according to the background
information provided for each case study, the
reference period varied substantially, essentially
depending on the length of the data series. Furthermore,
owing to the shortage in available data,
no pre-defined indicators or indicator topics were
given and the case study providers were free to
select which indicators to report.
For the national case studies, the levels of acceptable
deviation, i.e., a moderate (or larger) deviation
from the indicated reference condition/state,
were chosen by the authors of the case studies
according to their expert judgement. However, the
highest possible value of the acceptable deviation
85