Benthic break-out group background information and issues for - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Benthic break-out group background information and issues for discussion

Lena Avellan, Project Manager (CORESET II) CORESET II thematic meeting for benthic- and pelagic indicators 10-12 February 2015 Gdynia, Poland

Benthic indicators

• Core indicators:

– State of the soft-bottom macrofauna communities – Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species – (Red-listed benthic biotopes)

• Pre-core indicators:

– Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes – Cumulative impact on benthic biotopes – Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species

• Candidate core indicators:

– Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae

2/10/2015 2

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

2/10/2015 3

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Data arrangements Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional) A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level? A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

B – indices

(sensitivity, use of terms) not commonly agreed

B – method to

better include different types

• f substrate

A A A A B A/B – in place, but indices (sensitivity) not commonly agreed B – method to

better include different types

• f substrate ?

A B – several

• ptions, not

yet decided upon B -can be derived from data, but has not been done B - not tailored to current study yet (so far: based on regional diversity by Villnäs & Norkko) A Sensitivity list for species should be made available online via HELOCM

Start of coreset II CORESET II 2- 2014

2/10/2015 4

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue Validation of species sensitivity scores and BQI assessment Should be done by all countries Definition of GES

• based on regional diversity so far (Villnäs & Norkko 2011)
• No new reference values from this study

Assessments Units

• WFD / MSFD assessment borders ?

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community

• Proposed to use HELCOM

Assessment Unit Level 4 to harmonize with WFD assessments

• Focus could be placed on the
• pen-sea areas at this stage and

consider if national WFD assessments could be directly applied in the Level 4 units Distribution of BQI values a) upper 50 % of values (50 % - 100 %) b) lower 50 % (0 % - 49 %)

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

2/10/2015 5

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Data arrangements Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional) A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level? A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

B - more direct linkages between anthropogenic pressures and indicator response to be detailed, - task manager B - monitoring programmes not always measuring size frequencies of benthic

• rganism, if species occur at

adequate densities traditional monitoring samples could be used for further analyzes to acquire needed data - national authorities/HELCOM B - needs detailing based on available monitoring data, e.g. Summation of annual data measurements over >5 year periods C - development of how many sampling stations are needed for a region is needed and assessment units to be defined - task manager C - theoretical natural population structures generally not known and method for comparison of results needs strengthening for each species- task manager B - qualitative comparison to be developed into quantitative boundaries - task manager C - data handling from sampling to analyzing, flow and storage needs development - task manager, HELCOM

At the beginning

• f CORESET II

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species Points presented at CORESET II 2-2014

• Regional development in MARMONI-project > indicator available for FI and LV
• selected species: Macoma balthica
• Finnish approach: linking mean size with oxygen conditions
• Automatic software for size determination
• Latvian approach: linking median size with BSII
• reference condition: historical data (1960th)
• Target value by deviation from historical mean
• German approach: linking size distribution of Arctica islandica to oxygen

depletion and fishery effort

• almost no progress due to lack of man power (just started to digitalize

historical data)

• Polish approach: Sandy bottoms Mytilus edulis measurements (dredge

samples); measurements on bivalves in 1960s and 1980s (VV) 150-200samples; same locations in 2004 but still to be digitalized and no man-power available

2/10/2015 6

2/10/2015 7

a common baltic-wide approach will not be possible as available/suitable target species will vary between the countries and historical data are most likely not available in most countries to estimate reference conditions

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species Conclusion by TML presented at CORESET II 2-2014

2/10/2015 8

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Data arrangements Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional) A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level? A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

B - interpretation

• f red list results

needs elaboration

• task manager

C - spatial and temporal frequency of biodiversity monitoring needs to be improved in order to strictly apply the red list criteria, monitoring method

• f benthic biotopes needs

elaboration so that information on both abiotic and biotic parameters are sampled - task manager B - guidelines for biodiversity sampling of some benthic biotopes may need further elaboration - task manager A C - to be elaborated in the indicator - task manager B - suggested GES to be verified, needs to be better linked to MSFD GES criteria and the EU Habitats Directive assessments - task manager A - with the reservation that the Red List assessment is based on a limited amount of data

At the beginning

• f CORESET II

Red-listed benthic biotopes

Red-listed benthic biotopes

proposed at CORESET II 2-2014 to be developed as a supporting parameter

2/10/2015 9

Core indicator that will not be developed as an indicator but as supporting parameters in CORESET II

TML proposes not to develop forward as an indicator but instead as one or two supporting parameters. TML available to do this work. One supporting parameter suggested to be developed for biotopes, and possibly a separate one for biotope complexes that would clarify the link reporting on HD Art17. The supporting parameter on biotopes could highlight the causes of declining biotope biodiversity as SE and FI have already taken up messages from the Red List to their measures, and this could be relevant for the future and other CPs. Reasoning for suggesting this change: the HELCOM red-listing is strongly based on expert judgement, and the suggested index-concept is very different from other suggested indicators, setting a GES-boundary is problematic, biotope-monitoring is lacking, making any assessment for any unit smaller than the entire Baltic Sea would be very difficult. Furthermore SE has attempted a national index (similar to the original concept for the indicator) based on consecutive Red Lists, as new knowledge has been found to be the most common reason for changing the threat category, not a change in state of the environment.

2/10/2015 10

Concept/ design Coordinated monitoring Assessment Data arrangements

Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters

Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional)

A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs

• action level?

A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

C - connectivity indicators for biotopes have been developed for terrestrial systems and may provide support for developing the concept, needs to be clarified what Descriptor 1- Biodiversity question should be answered by the indicator

• TM

C - benthic biotopes monitoring is inadequate , re- evaluating the indicator every 6 years by mapping/monitoring will be a major undertaking, possibly

• nly seagrass meadows will

be possible in the beginning- TM C - seasonal timing of monitoring efforts are important for the connectivity aspect and need to be defined, connectivity barriers due to e.g. Construction may be a more feasible factor to monitor than functional loss of connectivity - TM B - applicable in entire BS, current lack of monitoring data prevents assessment - task manager C - to be developed, foreseen that a connectivity-index needs to be developed - TM C - to be developed - TM C - data pooling and collecting needs to be

• utlined - TM,

HELCOM C - to be defined what "extent" alone is an indicator for, needs to be clarified what Descriptor 1-Biodiversity question should be answered by the indicator - TM C - benthic biotopes monitoring is inadequate, satellite imaginng (SE: Spot5) could be used for 10x10m resolution mapping - TM C - existing guidelines of monitoring benthic biotopes require specification - TM C - applicable in entire Baltic Sea, current lack of monitoring data prevents assessment and it may be needed to only monitor specific areas and specific biotopes which needs to be defined- TM C - to be developed - TM C - to be developed - TM C - data pooling and collecting needs to be

• utlined - TM,

HELCOM B – very early stages of agreeing on the general concept, still no agreement

• n which biotopes to include

B/C – benthic biotope monitoring has been tested with some different methods, however still unclear which methods are most suited for the indicator and if CPs will be applying them C – to be put in place once there is agreement on which biotopes to include B – most likely to be Level 3, but specific units not identified C – as the concept is till under development, this section has net been initiated yet B – concept has been proposed but needs testing, boundaries have not been proposed C – no change

Beginning of CORESET II current situation

Distribution and pattern Extent

Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes

2/10/2015 11

Research needs for operationalization Data is needed to develop maps and to select most appropriate biotopes to monitor. More information is needed on the response of biotopes to pressures and how best to monitor this List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue

Main aim/question the indicator should answer is still under discussion The exact demands related to benthic biotopes from a biodiverstiy perspective in BSAP and MSFD are not completely clear. TMs and CPs need to consider what aspect of benthic biotopes is most relevant for their national needs to monitor. Currently different approachesunder discussion, where the diversity of habitats in themselves of the ”hjealt” of selected habitats as an indication for general biodiversity are being discussed. Selection of the most appropriate biotopes to include is a slow process that needs to take several aspects into consideration The aim is to select biotopes that are important from a biodiversity aspect and also have some level of known response to specific pressures. It is unlikely that

• ne biotope could be used, and a couple of different ones should be identified.

GES boundaries need to be suggested First steps have been taken to set down the concept for the indicators GES- boundary, however before it is clear exactly which biotopes will be included it is not possible to set a target levels. In the different assessment units, different targets will most likely be needed. At least separate values fo r each biotope.

Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes

Cumulative impacts on benthic biotopes

2/10/2015 12

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Data arrangements Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional) A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level? A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

B – Korpinen et al. 2013 C – only data from BSPI and HOLAS C C (A) C (A) B – removing inconsistenci es and trying to get agreement among experts - TM C – mapping rather than monitoring

• needed. Monitoring only for the biotic

components of the biotopes -TM C – need to be written when concept is

• perational – TM

C – not clear yet, depends on the available scale of the pressure data

• TM

C – available as soon as the concept is

• perational - TM

C – further research needed on basis of the concept - TM B – VMS data in progress, other data to be collected - TM, ICES

At the beginning

• f CORESET II

CORESET II 2-2014

2/10/2015 13

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue Finalization of concept Inconsistencies and contradictions in the underlying EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EU) --> therefore also expert disagreement about the precise scope and extent of the indicator

• Use marine landscapes instead of biotopes? (biotope complexes)
• role of pressure ”oxygen deficiency”
• type of accumulation (addition only?)
• Radical idea: ”cumulative pressure” instead of ”cumulative impact”

Pressure data availability and useability Can only be satisfactorily solved when indicator concept/design is fully in place

Research needed: Gather and evaluate pressure data, test outcome of indicator and determine GES boundaries/environmental targets HELCOM Assessment Unit Level 3 selected Data available: VMS whole BS, BSPI other data

Cumulative impacts on benthic biotopes

Lower depth limit of macrophyte species

2/10/2015 14

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Data arrangements Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional) A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level? A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A A – for some species and countries B – quality assurance is needed – TM, MONAS B (A) – identified but not clear if applicable to all units A – if identical to WFD assessment A – for some species in some units C – data submission arrangements to be incorporated into the indicator TM, HELCOM B – for some species and countries B – for some species in some units C – for some species in some countries, financial issues, CP C – for some species in some units – TM, CP B –

CORESET II 2-2014

Lower depth limit of macrophyte species

2/10/2015 15

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue

Pressure-relationship Does the end value need to have a significant pressure-relationship or is it sufficient to prove that for some species or groups Identifying assessment units, where the indicator is not applicable Data on distribution and usable monitoring areas (sufficient natural depth range of substrate) for different species (especially for countries not regularly part of the group). Combination rule for different species species sensitivity to light reduction, siltation  enough data to develop a combination rule based on that topic GES value some countries with operational depth limits (good/moderate boundary), some countries are developing boundaries, some countries change “fixed” boundaries  what happens if national GES differs from HELCOM GES? Quality assurance Monitoring methods are similar between countries but slight changes can cause relevant variations in the depth limit value (water level corrections, cover degree as depth limit, towed or drop down video, diver experience and training)

Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae

2/10/2015 16

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Data arrangements Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional) A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs

• action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level? HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level? A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level? A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

B - Biomass ratio of

• pportunistic

and perennial macroalgae B – monitoring in place in most countries, coordination in data handling needed B - needed to be harmonised B - units to be clarified Level 3 coastal units proposed B – need to be harmonised B – avaialable nationally in some countries, need to be harmonised C - data submission arrangements to be agreed among experts

CORESET II 2-2014

Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae

2/10/2015 17

List of issues that still need to be solved for the indicator Describe what is hindering solving the issue

Data needed covering different marine areas Proper project team should be established with participants from different countries Participation of experts in developing work Funding?/lack of interest Intercallibration of existing assessment schemes Intercallibration datasets to be established Data-flow Coordination of data reporting needed

The indicator is in use in Estonia, Poland (Latvia) GES-boundary values (WFD) available from these CPs

Candidate macrophyte indicators

Biomass ratio of opportunistic species + WFD metric in some countries (monitoring in place) + applicable also in assessment units with low visibility + based on “hard” data: a “real” sample with species richness, composition and biomass

• time and cost intensive (laboratory

work)

• method not harmonized between

countries (term opportunistic is handled differently) Cumulated cover of macrophyte species + cover estimates part of many monitoring programmes + highly significant pressure- relationship for DK and SE data + less time and cost intensive (no laboratory work)

• method not applicable in areas with

low visibility and difficult in areas with high species richness

• no hard data, no sample
• method not harmonized between

countries

Macrophyte indicators

• Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species

– Finding common monitoring methodology is difficult

• Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae

– Candidate, building on work done in MARMONI, harmonization of methods and targets done in for the eastern part of the Baltic

• Cumulative coverage of macrophytes

– Candidate indicator currently on hold, no TML – Parameters indicate complexity of the macrophyte community

CORESET II Lena Avellan 2/10/2015 19

Difficult for experts to agree on which indicator is most relevant for HELCOM due to differing national monitoring practices and link to WFD indicators in use nationally. Experts ask for some strategic guidance related to WFD and how to tackle differences in monitoring.

helcom.fi web-sites and workspaces Available tools for long-term up-dating

CORESET II Lena Avellan 2/10/2015 20

To Do

• GES-boundaries

– Discuss how to strengthen GES concepts – GES-boundary values needed for most indicators

• Assessment units

– Very important to document if some units are to be grouped in assessments and if some of the units will have separate GES-boundaries

• ”monitoring” B/C in all indicators

– How to move towards operationalization without fully supportive national monitoring as source of data? There is a need to define what type of data should be used in the indicators while national monitoring is being developed

• Data-arrangements: B/C, developing simultaneously as monitoring

– Proposals for how to manage data in the intermediate and long-term needed – If issues with data-flow are already known it is helpful as support for future work to describe concrete issues and propose improvements

2/10/2015 21

To Do

• Consider the Monitoring Manual and how to

refer to the content in the indicator reports

– Any general level information lacking that you know should be included? – Consider relevant guidelines for benthic monitoring; e.g. COMBINE guidelines (http://helcom.fi/action- areas/monitoring-and-assessment/manuals-and- guidelines/combine-manual) sufficient/applicable for the indicators, if not then propose relevant guidelines and describe briefly in the indicator reports under the sub-heading Monitoring Method

2/10/2015 22