Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive

Ulrich Claussen & Jens Arle

(Federal Environment Agency, Section of the Marine Environment, Germany)

Introduction

Background:

• European Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000)▫Fundamental change from pollution control to

ensuring ecosystem integrity• Physico-chemical quality elements are used as

supporting quality elements in the assessment of ecological status (compare WFD, Annex V, 1.2. Normative definitions of ecological status classifications)

Introduction

Aim:

•Evaluation and comparison of limit values of supporting physical and chemical quality elements for the G/M boundary set by EU MS

Data & Methods

•Use of data from HTML Factsheets of 18Member States▫Provided during official WISE reporting

(March 2010)▫http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/

•Analysis and visual comparison using MS Excel

Supportive physical and chemical elements for different surface water types

Supportive physical and chemical variablesRivers and Streams(20 MS)

Lakes(16 MS)

Transitional Waters(11 MS)

Coastal Waters(12 MS)

Sum

Total Phosphorus or Total Dissolved Phosphorous or

Soluble Reactive Phosphorous (mg l-1) 19 17 5 6 47

Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg l-1) 13 7 7 6 33

Total Nitrogen (mg l-1) 9 9 5 7 30

Total Ammonium (mg l-1) 16 5 3 2 26

pH or delta pH 14 7 3 2 26

Secchi Depth (m) & Transparency (m) 2 9 6 9 26

Nitrate (mg l-1) 13 3 4 4 24

Orthophosphate (mg l-1) 8 2 7 7 24

Oxygen Saturation Percentage (%) 7 5 4 5 21

BOD5 (mg l-1) 12 2 3 2 19

Water temperature (°C) or delta temperature 9 3 1 2 15

Nitrite (mg l-1) 7 2 2 2 13

Chloride (mg l-1) 8 4 12

Supportive physical and chemical elements for different surface water types

Result:

Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen and

Total Nitrogen were the most common

parameters used by MS

Number of supportive physical and chemical elements used in streams and rivers

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg

l-1

)

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European streams and rivers

EEFI LV UK LT CZ NL FR DE SK PL RO BGES

mean or none (mg l-1)

median (mg l-1)

90 percentile (mg l-1)

IT CYP

Value as EQR

BELU SE

Total Phosphorus in Streams and Rivers (mg l-1)

FI EE LV IT UK LT CZ CYP NL LU FR DE SK PL BE RO ES BG SE

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Tota

l Am

mo

niu

m (

mg

l-1

)

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European streams and rivers

EE LULV UKLT CZ ROCYP FRDE SK PLBG ES

mean (mg l-1)

90 percentile (mg l-1)

IT

No Values

BE

75 percentile (mg l-1)

Total Ammonium in Streams and Rivers (mg l-1)

CYP IT LT CZ LV DE EE FR LU UK BG ES BE SK RO PL others

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

BG ES CZ PL NL SE UK Cyp AT FR EE LV RO IT LT FI DE

Num

ber o

f sup

porti

ng v

aria

bles

MS

Number of supportive physical and chemical Elements in Lakes

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

To

tal P

ho

sp

ho

rus (

mg

l-1)

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European lakes

EEFI LV UKLT CZ NLFR DE PL ROBGES

mean or none (mg l-1)

median (mg l-1)

AT SEIT CYP

Total Phosphorus in Lakes (mg l-1)

IT FR FI CYP LV EE LT UK DE AT ES BG PL CZ NL RO SE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

To

tal N

itro

gen

(m

g l-1)

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European lakes

EEFI LV LT CZNLPL BG ES

mean or none (mg l-1)

Total Nitrogen in Lakes (mg l-1)

FI LV LT EE PL BG NL ES CZ

Number of supportive physical and chemical Elements in Transitional Waters

0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,06

0,07

0,08

0,09

0,1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ort

ho

ph

osp

hate

(m

g l-1 )

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European transitional waters

IT PLDE

mean (mg l-1)

BG

median (mg l-1)

RO ESSE

Orthophosphate in Transitional Waters (mg l-1)

DE IT RO BG PL SE ES

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dis

so

lved

Oxyg

en

Co

ncen

trati

on

(m

g l

-1 )

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European transitional waters

ITPLFR

mean (mg l-1)

BG

median (mg l-1)

RO ESSE

10 percentile (mg l-1)

Dissolved Oxygen in Transitional Waters (mg l-1)

FR PL BG RO IT SE ES

Number of supportive physical and chemical Elements in Coastal Waters

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Secch

i D

ep

th &

Tra

nsp

are

ncy (

m)

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European coastal waters

FILVSE

mean (mg l-1)

median (mg l-1)

EE ROPLDE NL ES

Secchi Depth in Coastal Waters (m)

SE DE EE LV FI PL RO NL ES

0

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

0,03

0,035

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ort

ho

ph

osp

hate

(m

g l-1 )

MS

Values of the Good/Moderate Boundary of Ecological status in European coastal waters

IT PLDE

mean (mg l-1)

FR

median (mg l-1)

RO ESSE

Orthophosphate in Coastal Waters (mg l-1 )

DE IT PL RO FR SE ES

Summary

•Significant numbers of variables were used for the description of good/moderate boundaries of ecological status of water bodies

•For some supporting physical and chemical elements it can be included that:▫without additional information (e.g.

typology) the available data are not sufficient to achieve a good comparison

Resulting Questions

•What are the reasons for large differences of Good-Moderate Boundaries for supporting quality elements between MS? 

•What methodologies have been used by MS to derive respective standards, thresholds or limits?

Conclusions

•The analysis emphasises the need for a comparison of typologies across the EU which is essential for any comparative analysis of Good-Moderate Boundaries of supporting physical and chemical elements among MS

Water Directors are invited to:

•take note of the progress of this ad hoc activity on nutrient standards and standards of physical and chemical factors in the Working Group A ECOSTAT

•ask MS to take the result of this analysis and report into account when reviewing values and ranges of general physico-chemical elements

Thank you for your attention!