Guidance on establishing nutrient concentrations to support good ecological status Introduction and overview Martyn Kelly.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multivariate Data Analysis Chapter 4 – Multiple Regression.
Advertisements

PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
MJ Paul Tetra Tech Inc. Center for Ecological Sciences RTP, NC USING BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT: APPLICATIONS, OPPORTUNITIES,
Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive Ulrich.
© WRc plc 2010 Agenda item 3b: Summary of WISE electronic delivery: presentation of an example.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Comparison of freshwater nutrient boundary values Geoff Phillips 1 & Jo-Anne Pitt 2 1 University of Stirling & University College London 2 Environment.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund Third phase of deWELopment project Scope of the work Warsaw, 1st Feb
EMODnet Chemistry 3 Kick-off Meeting May 2017
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
Dave Jowett, Chair UK Marine Task Team
CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
Purpose Independent piece of legislation, closely integrated in a larger regulatory framework (complement to WFD): prevent deterioration protect, enhance.
Taking forward the common understanding of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD
SoE Guidance – Biological reporting sheets
EU Water Framework Directive
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Intercalibration of Opportunistic Algae Blooms
WG 2.5 Intercalibration.
The normal balance of ingredients
Revision of MSFD Decision 2010/477/EU - overview
Group 2.
WGC-2 DG Meeting Towards a Guidance on Groundwater Chemical Status and Threshold Values 14:00 – 16:00 21 April 2008 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nutrient Standards: Proposals for further work
WGGW Rome – 2-3 Oct 2014 Threshold Values Questionnaire Tony Marsland (AMEC Associate consultant providing support to WGGW on behalf of the European.
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.
IC manual: what and why Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
confidence in classification
EU Water Framework Directive
Alternative Methodology for Defining Good Ecological Potential (GEP)
Working Group A ECOSTAT progress report on Intercalibration Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002
EU Water Framework Directive
Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive and Inland Waterway Transport Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European Commission.
IMPRESS Guidance and Policy Summary Water Directors Copenhagen, 21-22nd November 2002 Working Group leaders: Volker Mohaupt, Umwelt Bundes Amt Isobel.
Legal issues and compliance checking in WFD implementation SCG meeting 5-6 November 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European.
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
UK Technical Advisory Group
Status of the Nutrient Best Practice Guide
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
WGC-2 Status Compliance and Trends
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
Statistical Methods for Assessing Compliance – case studies Task 3.1B
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
More difficult data sets
EU Water Framework Directive
Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
The Statistical Tool Kit determination of valid nutrient boundary values Geoff Phillips.
Session 2a Working with more difficult data sets: short gradients
ECOSTAT nutrient work : Brief update February 2017
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
Article 8 Guidance – Integration levels and methods
Multiple Pressures nutrient boundary setting
Summary – Day 1 Martyn Kelly.
Validation and alternative approaches
Session 1d Selecting appropriate thresholds
Relationships for Broad & Intercalibration Types Geoff Phillips
Deriving river TP standards from lake standards
Developing, understanding and using nutrient boundaries
Mismatches between nutrients and BQEs: what does it tell us?
The use of pressure response relationships between nutrients and biological quality elements as a method for establishing nutrient supporting element boundary.
ECOSTAT nutrient work : Brief intro
Geoff Phillips & Heliana Teixeira
Presentation transcript:

Guidance on establishing nutrient concentrations to support good ecological status Introduction and overview Martyn Kelly

Purpose What it is not: a step towards international nutrient standards that will be enforced by the European Commission What it is: guidance to help Member States understand concentrations necessary to support GES At GES “nutrient concentrations [should] not exceed the levels established so as to ensure the functioning of the ecosystem and the achievement of the values specified for the biological quality elements (Annex V, Section 1.2) Who for? Everyone, in theory, to check their current standards; more specifically, for MS developing or revising standards

Key principles What fractions are measured? What is the temporal resolution of data? N and/or P? Do we understand ecological processes? What about multiple stressors? A causal relationship between nutrient(s) (“pressure”) and a biological variable (“response”) can be expressed in a statistically meaningful manner which can inform decisions for managing water bodies Several facets: Ecological Chemical Statistical Regulatory How do we deal with noisy datasets, non-linearity, short gradients and associated issues? How much does the regulatory regime influence the approach to setting nutrient standards?

Historical roots: Vollenweider and the OECD models Several principles emerge: Need for international co-operation Use of regression analysis Need to incorporate statistical uncertainty Recognition that different types of lake need different standards.

Ecological principles Early methods developed for phytoplankton in deep lakes Linear regression models less powerful in many other ecosystems Shallow lakes (“alternative stable states”) Rivers Coastal and transitional waters Multiple stressors N versus P When is a bivariate cause-effect relationship appropriate? How do other stressors interact with variable of interest? How do MARS outputs help us?

Chemical principles “Pressure” = excess supply of limiting nutrient Do we know what this is? How? N:P ratio? Bioassay? Does it vary through the year? How representative is the measure used? Annual / seasonal average versus spot samples? Sampling frequency? Does fraction equate to “available”? TP in lakes: the “pressure” is also the “response” Units Different in freshwaters and marine/transitional waters

Statistical principles To be covered by Geoff

Regulatory issues Objective is to minimise mismatch between classifications based on biology and nutrients Therefore increase likelihood that interventions will lead to change in biology Biology  GES < GES Chemistry GES No problem Mismatch! Left: use of line of best fit. Some rivers wrongly downgraded

How is nutrient standard used? Action triggered as soon as boundary is exceeded? Use upper confidence interval to minimise “false positives” (i.e. action where biology  GES) Exceedance of nutrient boundary is one of several strands of evidence that needs to be considered Lower boundary may be appropriate

Feasibility checks Intercalibrated BQE known to be sensitive to nutrients in the water bodies under consideration? Dataset spans at least four status classes? Linear response across range of interest? H/G and G/M boundaries Predictive power? (regression v categorical approach) Can national types be merged? Can you work with neighbouring MS?

Overview of process (“Road map”) Do you have nutrient thresholds at present If so ... Check via Tables If not ... Use flow charts

Other approaches Establish historical baselines (DE) Modelling approaches (SE) Multivariate analyses Site-specific predictions (UK) Use lake standards to derive river standards (NO) Scope for more to be added ...

Validation Check standards using independent data / variables Arctic charr to check thresholds in deep lakes Chara to check thresholds in shallow lakes Cyanobacteria abundance Palaeoecology Other ideas ?

Comments received Who is the document for? Clarify when categorical approaches should be used Multiple pressures identified … but what are the solutions? Nutrient combination rule? Identify role of nutrient history / internal loading Protecting downstream water bodies Validation should be developed Big document … move toolkit and broad type thresholds to annex?