CHASE development in BalticBOOST WP 2.1

Transcription

1 CHASE development in BalticBOOST WP 2.1 Lena Avellan, HELCOM Secretariat Jesper Andersen, NIVA Denmark Water Research State and Conservation Schwerin, Germany 1

2 This presentation: Provides background to the CHASE tool Presents guidance to the tool development provided by the HELCOM BalticBOOST workshop on the HOLAS II hazardous substance assessment Presents the timeline for further work Refers to meeting document 4J-8 2

3 In HOLAS I All three thematic assessments were tool-based HEAT: The HELCOM eutrophication Assessment Tool Andersen, J.H., P. Axe, H. Backer, J. Carstensen, U. Claussen, V. Fleming-Lehtinen, M. Järvinen, H. Kaartokallio, S. Knuuttila, S. Korpinen, M. Laamanen, E. Lysiak-Pastuszak, G. Martin, F. Møhlenberg, C. Murray, G. Nausch, A. Norkko, & A. Villnäs (2011): Getting the measure of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: towards improved assessment principles and methods. Biogeochemistry 106: Fleming-Lehtinen, V., J.H. Andersen, J. Carstensen, E. Lysiak-Pastuszak, C. Murray, M. Pyhälä & M. Laamanen (2015): Recent developments in assessment methodology reveal an expanding eutrophication problem area in the Baltic Sea. Ecological Indicators 48: BEAT: The HELCOM Biodiversity Assessment Tool Andersen, J.H., K. Dahl, C. Göke, M. Hartvig, S. Korpinen, C. Murray, A. Rindorf, H. Skov & M. Vinther (2014): Integrated assessment of marine biodiversity status using a prototype indicator-based assessment tool. Frontiers in Marine Science 1:55. DOI: /fmars CHASE: The HELCOM Chemical Status Assessment Tool Andersen, J.H., C. Murray, M.M. Larsen, N. Green, T. Høgåsen, K. Gustavson, E. Boalt, E. Garnaga, M. Haarich, E. Kallenbach, J. Manio, J. Strand & S. Korpinen (2016): Development and testing of a prototype tool for integrated assessment of chemical status in marine environments. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment. DOI: /s x HELCOM BalticBOOST HAZAS workshop M: jha@niva-danmark.dk 3

4 Thematic assessment principles for HEAT/BEAT and CHASE: 4

5 CHASE 1.0 results HELCOM BalticBOOST HAZAS workshop M: 5

6 Methodology and application CHASE 1.0 (the HELCOM Chemical Status Assessment Tool) was used for a integrated classification of chemical status in the Baltic Sea CHASE 2.0 was developed by the HARMONY project (focusing on the North Sea) and is WFD/MSFD-specific CHASE 2.0 is a matric- and substance/indicator-specific tool for classification of chemical status CHASE runs on indicators (substances; monitoring data) and agreed target values i.e. GES boundaries (based on EQSs, EACs, etc.) The classifications are done in 4 steps 6

7 CHASE: A step-wise classification Substances/indicators are initially nested in 4 compartments(ci: water; CII: sediments; CIII: biota and CIV: biological effects) Step 1 For each substance/indicator, a Chemical Ratio (CR = C MON /C TRESHOLD ) is calculated Step 2 - For each compartment (I-IV), a Chemical Score (CS) is calculated (C1: CS W ; CII: CS S ; CIII: CS B and CIV: CS BE ): Step 3 Each compartment (I-IV) is classified in five classes (High, Good, Moderate, Poor and Bad) Step 4 Compartment-classifications are combined (using the lowest ranging compartment cf. the OO-AO principle) into a final classification of chemical status (in 5 classes) 7

8 CHASE 2.0: Conceptual model Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 8

9 HELCOM BalticBOOST workshop on the HOLAS II hazardous substance assessment 2-4 February 2016 Workshop aim: Guide development of the assessment tool, WP 2.1 Guide development of data-arrangements, WP 2.2 9

10 General guidance from the workshop Recommends using CHASE 2.0 as a the basis, as considered to have been helpful in HOLAS I and the best currently available option Full transparency from final result-maps to the data and assessment confidence is important (incl. number of indicators used per assessment unit) Interpolation maps not to be prepared, results per assessment unit If full compatibility with WFD assessment approach is needed for reporting purposes, then the CHASE nested assessment approach should not be applied in coastal waters but a simple OOAO between substances WFD between substances OOAO-approach provides very little information on the overall status and no areal differences can be displayed to indicate if several substances are above the threshold in some areas > integration using the CHASE approach is supported as this is seen to provide additional important information on the overall distance to target 10

11 General issues not concluded on to be explored during testing phase WS recommends for the testing phase that the tool calculates in steps; 1. central value (median)/station/year 2. average /assessment unit one value per year in the assessment period Not concluded on final aggregation method, to be concluded after initial tests bearing in mind i.a. Dilution effect due to different aggregation methods Mix in assessment units of reference stations sampled several times per year and pollution sites sampled less frequently Applying the HELCOM assessment unit scale 4 is challenging as stations are not available for all units, how to extrapolate/group was not yet concluded How to take naturally varying chemical conditions in the Baltic Sea into consideration in the assessment 11

12 CHASE specific guidance Recommends using the CHASE 2.0 compartments and the OOAO between compartments in the testing and development phase of the tool The biota compartment is generally considered to be best suited to depict the status of the environment on the time scale of the HOLAS II assessment period, whereas the sediment- and water compartments describe the indirect pollutant risk to the living environment on this time scale Bio-effect compartment calculation to be tested by applying the methods used for biodiversity indicators in BEAT for the classification and calculating both averages and weighted averages (not contaminant ratio) Results to be visualize using the same categories as for the eutrophication assessment: two classes (GES/sub-GES) distance to GES visualized as three sub-ges class and two GES class in different shades of red and green Visualizing confidence is considered important and requires further consideration, provisionally recommending not to display confidence for test approach 1 and 2, for CHASE integration results to build on CHASE 2.0 system 12

13 Workshop proposal to develop five test approaches in BalticBOOST WP Coastal WFD assessment 2. Open sea MSFD Art 9 D8 compliance-check (GES/sub-GES) 3. CHASE integrated status assessment coastal and open sea 4. CHASE core indicator coasta/open sea 5. CHASE integration D9 13

14 Workshop proposal to develop five test approaches in BalticBOOST WP Coastal WFD assessment Contracting Parties to deliver assessment shape files and raw data to the HELCOM Secretariat accompanied by information on the list of substances assessed and if used rules for grouping and/or extrapolation. This compilation will enable comparison with use of CHASE in the coastal assessment units, pending that data used in the WFD on hazardous substance is made available by Contracting Parties. 2. Open sea MSFD Art 9 D8 compliance-check (GES/sub-GES) To be based on core indicators (incl. radioactive substances) with agreed GES boundaries. The compliance check does not require a tool, only conditional rules outlined in an excel format and implemented in the assessment system by the following steps; list of substances with thresholds > evaluate with monitoring data if GES/sub-GES > OOAO between substances per assessment unit 14

15 Workshop proposal to develop five test approaches in BalticBOOST WP CHASE integrated status assessment coastal and open sea To be based on; core indicators evaluated against agreed GES boundaries additional substances evaluated against alternative thresholds (for example additional substances from directive 2013/39/EU, e.g. DDE (degraded product of DDT), HCH, HCB) and core indicator substance measurements from matrices not compatible with the GES boundary. Alternative standards and matrices to the EQS will be needed especially for those additional substances that are not priority substances according to directive 2013/39/EU, and/or are not monitored in water but the EQS is expressed only for water (HARMONY catalogue as a starting point). bio-effect compartment assessed using pre-core indicators (data harvesting needed as Contracting Parties do not yet report regularly, to be clarified if the ICES simplified reporting format could be used) 15

16 Workshop proposal to develop five test approaches in BalticBOOST WP CHASE core indicator coastal/open sea To be based on; core indicators evaluated against agreed GES boundaries. To be carried out by switching-off all non-core indicator substance from the above approach 3 test. This test will enable an evaluation of whether current monitoring of core indicators only can deliver an assessment of adequate confidence and will explore the different outcome of the assessment of core indicators based on the OOAO between substances required in the MSFD compliance and the CHASE nested assessment. 16

17 Workshop proposal to develop five test approaches in BalticBOOST WP CHASE integrated D9 To be based on the biota compartment only, and substances selected to be evaluated against food safety thresholds. To be carried out by evaluating the environmental monitoring biota data also used in the above mentioned tests (conversion factors needed to convert to values comparable for edible parts of the matrix) and in addition by including data from monitoring carried out by food safety authorities (data harvesting needed by Contracting Parties). 17

18 Timeline for further work May 2016: tool prototype made available CHASE R-code in the pipeline June 2016: intitial testing of the tool September 2016: synthesis of test results October-November 2016: writing of CHASE report 18

19 Currently available HELCOM indicators in the assessment segments C-GES: core indicator with agreed GES-boundary C: core indicator PC: pre-core indicator Note D9 not yet linked to core indicators D2 Non indigenous species NIS ARRIVAL (C-GES) D3 Commercial fish Expected: COMM FISH 3.1 (ICES-GES) D5 Eutrophication D1 Biodiversity, D3 Commercial fish, D4 Food web, D6 Seafloor integrity Birds Mammals Fish BIRDS ABUND BREED (C-GES) BIRDS ABUND WINTER (C-GES) SEALS DISTR (C-GES) SEALS POP (C-GES) MAMMALS NUTRITION (C-GES) MAMMALS REPR (C-GES) Benthic habitats Pelagic habitats Food webs BENTHOS BQI (C) BENTHIC DISTR BIOTOPES (PC) PELA ZOOPLANKTON (C-GES) PELA SEASON SUCC (PC) FISH COAST FUNCT (C-GES) FISH COAST KEY SP (C-GES) FISH SALMON REPR (C-GES) FISH SEATROUT REPR (C-GES) FISH LFI (C) Expected: COMM FISH 3.2 (ICES- GES) PELA PHYTO COMM (Cand) D8 Contaminants HAZ HBCDD (C-GES) HAZ METALS (C-GES) HAZ PBDE (C-GES) HAZ PFOS (C-GES) HAZ RAD (C-GES) HAZ EAGLE REPR (C-GES) HAZ PCB (C)* HAZ PAH (C)* HAZ TBT IMPO (C)* HAZ EFF LMS (PC) HAZ EFF AMP EELP REPR (PC) *GES proposed to State and Conservation EUTRO DIN (C-GES) EUTRO DIP (C-GES) EUTRO CHLA (C-GES) EUTRO CLARITY (C-GES) EUTRO OX DEBT (C-GES) D6 Seafloor integrity - If indicator with GES is not available for HOLAS II, the BSII can provide information on impact and loss of extent. D10 Marine litter - If indicator with GES is not available for HOLAS II, existing data on beach litter can be presented as a minimum. D11 Energy and noise NOISE CONTINUOUS (Cand) NOISE IMPULSTIVE (Cand) Annex III pressure EUTRO MAI (C-GES) INCIDENTAL CATCH (C) OIL SPILLS (C-GES) Ref. Document 4J-15 19

20 20

21 Currently available HELCOM indicators HELCOM indicators per MSFD criteria 8.1. Concentration of contaminants Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) Metals (Hg) Polybrominated biphenylethers (PBDE) Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxin and furan TBT and imposex Radioactive substances: Cesium-137 in fish and seawater D8 Contaminants 8.2 Effects of contaminants White-tailed eagle productivity TBT and imposex Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites Lysosomal membrane stability (PC) Reproductive disorders: eelpout and amphipod embryos (PC) 21

22 Currently available HELCOM indicators grouping accodring to MSFD criteria in draft ComDec D8C1 Within 12 nm a) Priority substances with EQS WFD assessments to be included b) RBSP WFD assessments to be included c) Additional contaminants WFD assessments to be included D8C1 Beyond 12 nm a) Priority substances with EQS Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) Metals Polybrominated biphenylethers (PBDE) Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) Polyaromatichydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxin and furan TBT and imposex b) RBSP WFD assessments to be included c) Additional contaminants Radioactive substances: Cesium-137 in fish and seawater D8 Contaminants D8C2 Contaminants as relevant assessed in species White-tailed eagle productivity TBT and imposex Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites Lysosomal membrane stability (PC) Reproductive disorders: eelpout and amphipod embryos (PC) D8C3 Polluting substances Oilspills affecting the marine environment 22