Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

178 A proposal for an approach to assess anthropogenic impacts on benthic habitats Selection of data The benthic habitats used in this indicator were based on the modeling work of the EUSeaMap project, which modeled over 200 biotopes (EUNIS level 4) for the Baltic Sea, based on substrate type, depth zone, salinity and bottom energy (Table 4.2). Because the use of over 200 biotopes is cumbersome, the fi rst testing of the indicator was done with 18 biotopes describing substrate type and depth zone (and combining the other parameters). More detailed habitat types can also be used, for example, in national or subregional assessments. The 18 benthic biotopes are described below. Table 4.2. Categories of broad-scale habitats from the EUSeaMap project. Infralittoral Circalittoral Deep sea mud & sandy mud mud & sandy mud mud & sandy mud sand & muddy sand sand & muddy sand sand & muddy sand coarse sediment coarse sediment coarse sediment mixed sediment mixed sediment mixed sediment till till till bedrock & boulders bedrock & boulders bedrock & boulders The project selected twelve physical pressures, which pose direct disturbance on seabed. The selected pressures were shipping in shallow water (
mean impact means that there are either several low impacts present in the site or one heavy impact. Such an approximation was seen rough but still applicable as a fi rst step towards more detailed assessments of cumulative human impacts. Classifi cation of Impacts The candidate indicator uses four different impact categories (not impacted, low impact, medium impact and high impact) to describe the cumulative impacts using mean and standard deviation to defi ne class boundaries (Table 4.3). The border between low and medium was defi ned as “signifi cant impact”. Technical details of the data handling and the GIS procedures are given in the section “Technical data” below (some information still missing). Table 4.3. A tentative classifi cation of impacts in the benthic cumulative impact index. Category Cumulative impact score Not impacted 0 Low impact 0 < à Mean Medium impact Mean à Mean + standard deviation High impact Mean + stdev à max. cumulative impact score Approaches to set the GES boundary for the condition of benthic habitats The HELCOM core indicators for BSAP and MSFD assessments have quantitative targets which defi ne the boundary between GES and sub-GES. The MSFD GES criterion 6.1 of the EC Decision 477/2010/EU calls for an indicator to measure “Extent of the seabed signifi cantly affected by human activities for the different substrate types”. This means that two thresholds must be defi ned: – the level of signifi cant impact (a precondition for the next defi nition) and – the level for GES, i.e. the proportion of benthic habitats which is not signifi cantly affected. The fi rst defi nition requires a thorough investigation of the impacts of different pressures on benthic habitats (which depend on the habitat type). If aiming at perfection, one should also estimate the signifi cance of synergistic impacts. At present, this information is not available and the CORESET project suggests using mean cumulative impact to denote “signifi cant impact” (see also text above). The second defi nition may be hard to set by ecological means. All anthropogenic impacts degrade the habitat quality and it may be diffi cult to fi nd sudden drops in the habitat quality along the pressure-state response curves. Another approach would be so-called “assessment of the ecological coherence” which measures the size, number and connectivity of areas and which has been previously used for assessments of MPA networks (see HELCOM 2010b and publications of the EU BALANCE project 13 ). A practical solution is to select a basis which is also used in the EU Habitats Directive. Under the directive a habitat which has 25% of area signifi cantly impacted is classifi ed to ‘Unfavourable - Bad status’. In this indicator we can assume that 15% of the habitat area is allowed to be signifi cantly impacted and still be in good environmental status, allowing some human use of the marine environment. 13 http://www.balance-eu.org/, particularly http://balance-eu.org/xpdf/balance-interim-report-no-25.pdf 179
Page 1:
Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
Page 4 and 5:
2 Helsinki Commission Katajanokanla
Page 6 and 7:
4 4.16. Cumulative impact on benthi
Page 8 and 9:
6 descriptions of the indicators. T
Page 10 and 11:
8 The CORESET expert group on biodi
Page 12 and 13:
10 fi sh stocks and change in diet,
Page 14 and 15:
12 Figure 2.3. The prevalence of pr
Page 16 and 17:
14 Seasonal changes in blubber thic
Page 18 and 19:
16 Blubber thickness suggestions Bl
Page 20 and 21:
18 Weaknesses/gaps Monitoring of th
Page 22 and 23:
20 2.3. Population growth rate of m
Page 24 and 25:
22 Annual adult survival 1 0,95 0,9
Page 26 and 27:
24 Existing monitoring data Informa
Page 28 and 29:
26 References Bäcklin, B. M. 2011.
Page 30 and 31:
28 Reproduction in the Baltic eagle
Page 32 and 33:
30 Breeding success The proportion
Page 34 and 35:
32 of the real number of nestlings
Page 36 and 37:
34 Gaps and weaknesses Minimum dete
Page 38 and 39:
36 2.5. Abundance of wintering popu
Page 40 and 41:
38 Table 2.10. Pressures affecting
Page 42 and 43:
40 Refrences Skov et al. (2000) Bir
Page 44 and 45:
42 termined by application of the 7
Page 46 and 47:
44 Approach for defi ning GES All s
Page 48 and 49:
46 Sampling It is suggested to incl
Page 50 and 51:
48 2.7. Fish population abundance 2
Page 52 and 53:
50 Coastal Fish - Community Abundan
Page 54 and 55:
52 When a reference data set cannot
Page 56 and 57:
54 well, but were not included in t
Page 58 and 59:
56 Weighting For Nordic Costal mult
Page 60 and 61:
58 12. Current monitoring Monitored
Page 62 and 63:
60 Błeńska M., Osowiecki A., Kra
Page 64 and 65:
62 10. Spatial considerations Fucus
Page 66 and 67:
64 2.15. Trend in the arrival of ne
Page 68 and 69:
66 jectives is to reach “No intro
Page 70 and 71:
68 Sweden Figure 2.23 shows the rat
Page 72 and 73:
70 Strengths and weaknesses of data
Page 74 and 75:
72 need to be revisited in light of
Page 76 and 77:
74 Considering the data set availab
Page 78 and 79:
76 In Denmark, the highest contamin
Page 80 and 81:
78 Status of a compound on internat
Page 82 and 83:
80 A temporal analysis (EU-RAR 2006
Page 84 and 85:
82 Pathways of PFOS to the Baltic e
Page 86 and 87:
84 In regions less affected by anth
Page 88 and 89:
86 3.4. Polychlorinated biphenyls a
Page 90 and 91:
88 actions related to the environme
Page 92 and 93:
90 The CORESET expert group decided
Page 94 and 95:
92 pheric deposition pattern (lowes
Page 96 and 97:
94 3.5. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (
Page 98 and 99:
96 GES boundaries and matrix Existi
Page 100 and 101:
98 Quality Assurance of PAH metabol
Page 102 and 103:
100 Ariese F, Burgers I, Oudhoff K,
Page 104 and 105:
102 GES boundaries and matrices Exi
Page 106 and 107:
104 3.7. Cesium-137 Authors: Jürge
Page 108 and 109:
106 Figure 3.5. Average surface lev
Page 110 and 111:
108 Temporal trends in concentratio
Page 112 and 113:
110 Other important sources are glo
Page 114 and 115:
112 Conceptual model of the sources
Page 116 and 117:
114 3.8 Tributyltin (TBT) and the i
Page 118 and 119:
116 GES boundaries and matrix Exist
Page 120 and 121:
118 Monitoring the compound Status
Page 122 and 123:
120 Recommendation TBT measurements
Page 124 and 125:
122 3. Frogs have been shown to app
Page 126 and 127:
124 not fi sh (Köhler et al. 2002;
Page 128 and 129:
126 The use of different fi sh spec
Page 130 and 131: 128 Kirchin, M.A. Moore, M.N. Dean,
Page 132 and 133: 130 3.11. Fish Disease Index: Exter
Page 134 and 135: 132 Confounding factors The multifa
Page 136 and 137: 134 analyses ICES data from various
Page 138 and 139: 136 An EAC is the threshold beyond
Page 140 and 141: 138 3.12. Micronucleus test Authors
Page 142 and 143: 140 main nuclei were not counted as
Page 144 and 145: 142 ing national data sets. Note: t
Page 146 and 147: 144 Baršienė J. Rybakovas A. 2006
Page 148 and 149: 146 3.13 A. Reproductive disorders
Page 150 and 151: 148 dead larvae can be induced by s
Page 152 and 153: 150 Strand, J, Dahllöf, I. (2005).
Page 154 and 155: 152 of contaminants in sediments wi
Page 156 and 157: 154 Eriksson Wiklund, A-K., and Sun
Page 158 and 159: 156 4. Candidate indicators for bio
Page 160 and 161: 158 Zooplankton-phytoplankton bioma
Page 162 and 163: 160 4.2. By-catch of marine mammals
Page 164 and 165: 162 4.3. Impacts of anthropogenic u
Page 166 and 167: 164 4.4. Fatty-acid composition of
Page 168 and 169: 166 7. Use of the indicator in prev
Page 170 and 171: 168 10. Spatial considerations Balt
Page 172 and 173: 170 4.10. Large fi sh individuals f
Page 174 and 175: 172 11. Temporal considerations Sam
Page 182 and 183: 180 Technical data Metadata This is
Page 184 and 185: 182 F igure 4.1. Map showing the cu
Page 186 and 187: 184 4.17. Biomass of copepods 1. Wo
Page 188 and 189: 186 4.19. Zooplankton species diver
Page 190 and 191: 188 indirectly impacted by eutrophi
Page 192 and 193: 190 Notes for the GES boundary The
Page 194 and 195: 192 Step 3: Prepare a list of speci
Page 196 and 197: 194 4.22. Phytoplankton diversity 1
Page 198 and 199: 196 4. Policy relevance Nonylphenol
Page 200 and 201: 198 among different studies/measure
Page 202 and 203: 200 4.27. EROD/CYP1A induction The
Page 204 and 205: 202 5.1. Summary of all supplementa
Page 206 and 207: 204 Table 5.1. (continues) Suppleme
Page 208 and 209: 206 5.5. Biopollution level index 1
Page 210 and 211: 208 NIS for aquaculture purposes. O
Page 212 and 213: 210 Balanus improvisus Baltic Katte
Page 214 and 215: 212 Figure 5.3. The scheme for asse
Page 216 and 217: 214 5.6. Organochlorine compounds G
Page 218 and 219: 216 EU Directive 2008/105/ EC Daugh
Page 220 and 221: 218 Table 5.4. Monitoring of HCB, H
Page 222: www.helcom.fi
show all

Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?