1. Finnish Environment Institute Seppo Rekolainen REBECCA News in March 2005

2. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 2 Issues in this presentation Knowledge gaps, and what REBECCA is going to do Toxic pressures and responses Example of the coming relationships: Coastal macroalgae responses REBECCA’s contribution to intercalibration and later phases of the WFD implementation Uncertainties in classification

3. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 3 Knowledge gaps Knowledge gaps are identified –Report available in print and in the REBECCA Toolbox (www.rbm- toolbox.net/rebecca)www.rbm- toolbox.net/rebecca REBECCA’s response to these gaps have been now collected – will be included in the next REBECCA Newsletter

4. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 4 REBECCA Toolbox

5. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 5 Toxic Pressures and Responses Background: Only few data available to establish relationships between toxic pressures and biological QEs Generic Modelling Framework for Toxic Pressures and Response Analysis: based on existing tool: OMEGA applicable for rivers, lakes and coastal waters flexible: adding new chemicals or improved relationships taking into account multiple toxic stress including toxic pressures related to both water and sediment both direct toxic impact and bio-accumulation (secondary poisoning) not to be used for setting EQS for river basin managers to assess potential impacts of toxics concentrations

6. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 6 Framework for TPR Analysis Key model: OMEGA –assessment of %-affected species and critical biota concentrations (bio-accummulation) as a function of contaminant exposure via water and sediment –OMEGA-database: existing relationships toxic pressures and reponses (lab toxicity tests, field tests, QSARs)

7. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 7 OMEGA: Examine contaminant at the pertinent ecological level using methodologies describing Species Sensitivities Distribution Algae Amphibian Invertebrates Fish Normal distribution Framework for TPR Analysis

8. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 8 Framework for TPR Analysis Database laboratory tests Substance – species – sensitivity (NOEC/ LC50/EC50) Fill gaps with QSARs Select subset e.g. phytoplankton or fish Calculate SSD curve Chemical measurements Total water or sediment Dissolved Concentration Summation of similar acting compounds TU normalised Partitioning Specific methods e.g. pore water, SEM/AVS, biomimetic adsorbents PAF Potentially affected fraction Combine to multi- substance PAF Gives toxic impact as % species that could be present in unaffected reference that is at risk

9. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 9 How does it work 0 100 % species at risk Log NOEC environmental concentration (dissolved) PAF Calculating Potentially Affected Fraction of species (PAF) for each compound measured in environment

10. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 10 MACROALGAE INDICATORS FOR WATER QUALITY National Environmental Research Institute and Joint Research Centre Dorte Krause-Jensen, Karsten Dahl, Anne Lise Middelboe and Jacob Carstensen

11. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 11 Objective Investigate macroalge indicators Relate these indicators to abiotic factors while taking into account variations due to - gradients in estuaries - diver-specific effects - substrate-specific effects - physical exposure - other potential sources of variation

12. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 12 Physical exposure Light regulationExposure regulation Algal cover (%) Water depth (m) High exposure Mod - Low -

13. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 13 Relationships for different macroalgae indicators – station means Signs indicate the direction of the relationship and borderline significance is marked by parentheses.

14. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 14 Multiple regression results– ex. cumulative algal cover + salinity as explanatory variable for describing site-specific cumulative means

15. Finnish Environment Institute Seppo Rekolainen Intercalibration and beyond How REBECCA can contribute to information needs of the WFD implementation beyond 2006?

16. Characterisation and risk assessment (Annex II) 2004 Water bodies at risk Type specific reference conditions First River Basin Management Plan (Annex VII) 2009 Ecological classification of all surface water bodies Poor and bad status defined by Member States Reference conditions and class boundaries are essential for WFD implementation Intercalibration (Annex V, 1.4.1) 2006 Setting class boundaries

17. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 17 Intercalibration 2005-6 Classification boundaries for good quality status Key process: Boundary setting process –Framework to establish boundary EQR values consistent with WFD normative definitions –REBECCA can provide help for establishing data set illustrating degradation of biological quality element for GIGs compare and establish type-specific reference conditions for common types agree how to interpret WFD normative definitions as applied to real data validation of boundary setting protocols with independent data validation of EQRs validating the GIG indicators and developing new

18. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 18 REBECCA deliverables useful for intercalibration & setting class boundaries D3Status report on knowledge gapsDec. 2004 D6Report on existing methods and relationships linking pressures, chemistry and biology in rivers Dec. 2004 D7Report on reference conditions for lakesDec. 2004 D4Review report on current methods and knowledgeJune 2005 D8Report on integrated and multimetric ecological quality indicators for different biological elements in lakes August 2005 D9Report on empirical relations between phytoplankton and nutrients and on integrated modelling systems for phytoplankton for coastal waters Dec. 2005 D10Report on approaches for setting EQRsDec. 2005 Requires early dissimination of intermediate / preliminary results as REBECCA WP-leaders presentations in GIG meetings, preparation of technical notes of critical results prior to final deliverables, etc.

19. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 19 Ecological classification 2008 Criteria for class boundaries below moderate –REBECCA: validated functional relationships between (selected) biological QE & chemical quality and supporting hydrochemical & morphological parameters (Lakes: D12, Rivers: D13, Coastal: D9, D15, D16) One out – all out principle –REBECCA: precision of selected biological parameters, natural variability –REBECCA: uncertainty in classifications (Bayesian network modelling) –REBECCA: multimetric & integrate indices for biological quality elements

20. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 20 Programme of measures 2008 WFD: Practical steps and procedures to be carried out to obtain Environmental objectives in the river basin districts; draft RBM plan finished in 2008, final 2009 REBECCA: –validated functional relationships between biological, chemical status & pressures, tools to assess target loads (rivers: D14, D20; Lakes: D11; coastal: D9, D15-16, validation: D18) –river basin managers toolbox (D21) –Report describing how project methodologies can be used in practice (D19)

21. Finnish Environment Institute Seppo Rekolainen Uncertainties ahead Example: classify lakes using one-out-all-out principle

22. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 22 Bayesian model structure

23. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 23 Likelihoods: by Bayesian submodels Ass. ”Truth” Fish Macroph. Benthos Phytopl OK OK 0.92 0.93 0.75 0.91 Restore OK 0.08 0.07 0.25 0.09 Restore Restore 0.77 0.69 0.65 0.79 OK Restore 0.23 0.31 0.35 0.21

24. Finnish Environment InstituteSeppo Rekolainen 24 Results: one out all out Applying one out, all out: If lake IS restore, P(assesm=restore)=0.98 If lake IS OK, P(assesm=restore) = 0.52 (without benthos = 0.38 without macrophytes= 0.44) = A lot of misreactions!