Assessment of Eutrophication inEstuaries and Coastal Waters
S.B. Bricker1, B. Buddemeier6, J.G. Ferreira2, D. Lipton5, A. Mason1,B. Maxwell4, A. Nobre2, P. Pacheco1, T. Simas2, S. Smith3
NJ Water Monitoring Coordinating CouncilDelaware River Basin Commission, W. Trenton, New Jersey
February 2, 2005
Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina, USA Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, Portugal
1 2 34
5Swarthmore College 6
The Problem – The Model
High algal productionLoss of water clarity Epiphyte problems
Macroalgal problems
Fish killsLoss of habitat
Human health risksLoss of Tourism
Closed fishing grounds
Loss of SAVLow D.O
Nuisance/Toxic Blooms
IncreasedN and Pconcentration
Symptoms and Consequences of Nutrient Enrichment
Nutrient Inputs Primary Secondary Consequencesand Processing Impacts Impacts of Symptoms
The ContextUS Clean Water Act of 1972, and US HarmfulAlgal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and ControlAct of 1998, EU Water Framework Directive(2000/60/EC), EU UWWTD and NitratesDirectives – Definition of Sensitive Areas andVulnerable Zones
Eutrophication is a process rather than a state
Elevated nutrient concentrations may or maynot be associated to human loading
Eutrophication may or may not be associated tohigh nutrient loads or concentrations (e.g.Cloern, Howarth et al, Tett et al)
Eutrophication is a significant problemworldwide (US, EU, Baltic, Mediterranean,Japan, Australia and elsewhere)
Key Aspects of the NEEA/ASSETS approach
The NEEA/ASSETS approach may bedivided into three parts:
Division of estuaries into homogeneous areas
Evaluation of data completenessand reliabilityApplication of indices
Tidal freshwater (<0.5 Tidal freshwater (<0.5 psupsu)) Mixing zone (0.5-25 Mixing zone (0.5-25 psupsu)) Seawater zone (>25 Seawater zone (>25 psupsu))
Spatial and temporal quality Spatial and temporal qualityof datasets (completeness)of datasets (completeness) Confidence in results Confidence in results(sampling and analytical(sampling and analyticalreliability)reliability)
Overall Human Influence (OHI) indexOverall Human Influence (OHI) indexOverall Eutrophic Condition (OEC) indexOverall Eutrophic Condition (OEC) indexDetermination of Future Outlook (DFO) indexDetermination of Future Outlook (DFO) index
PressurePressure StateState
ResponseResponse
S.B. Bricker, J.G. Ferreira, T. Simas, 2003. An integrated methodology for assessmentof estuarine trophic status. Ecological Modelling, 169: 39-60.
Overall Human Influence (OHI) - Pressure
Susceptibility Nutrient Inputs* (as %) Region H M L >50% NPS 1o from Ag
North Atlantic 0 6 12 78 0Mid Atlantic 15 7 0 91 60South Atlantic 8 9 4 100 81Gulf of Mexico12 23 2 100 85Pacific 14 18 7 89 50US Total 49 63 25 92 56Portugal 0 5 5 89 67
(Barnegat Bay – High susceptibility: low dilution and moderate flushing potentials,Nutrient inputs: ~100% nonpoint, 40% atmosp., 24% ag, 35% urban)
*as percentage of 130 US, 9 PT systems ; US:SPARROW model estimates, PT: Ferreira et al 2003
Susceptibility + Nutrient Inputs = Overall Human Influence dilution & flushing land based or oceanic
Overall Eutrophic Conditions (OEC) - State
?
??
?
?
?
?
??????????
TagusSado
Mira
MinhoMinhoLimaLima
DouroDouro
Ria de AveiroRia de Aveiro
MondegoMondego
RiaFormosa
Guadiana
Spa
inS
pain
??
?
?
OEC US PTHigh 12 0Mod. High 10 0Moderate 28 10Mod. Low 23 30Low 5 20Unknown 12 40as percent of 139 US and 10 PT systems
? UnknownHighModerate High
Moderate LowLow
Moderate
TagusSado
Mira
MinhoLima
Douro
Ria de Aveiro
Mondego
RiaFormosa
Guadiana
Spa
inS
pain
?
?
? UnknownNo ChangeWorsenImprove
DFO US PTImprove 6 40No Change 32 40Worsen 62 0Unknown 0 20as percent of 139 US and 10 PT systems
Determination of Future Outlook (DFO) - Response
Calculate mh, the expected nutrientconcentration due to land based sources(i.e. no ocean sources);
Calculate mb, the expected backgroundnutrient concentration due to the ocean(i.e. no land-based sources);
Calculate OHI as the ratio of mh/(mh+mb);
Equations are based on a simple Vollenweider approach, modified toaccount for dispersive exchange:
o
eseab s
smm =
Anthropogenic inputs Ocean inputs
Estuary
Class Thresholds
Low 0 to <0.2Moderate low 0.2 to <0.4Moderate 0.4 to < 0.6Moderate high 0.6 to < 0.8High >0.8
( )o
eoinh s
ssmm −=
Bricker et al. 2003 and Ferreira, Bricker and Simas. Application and sensitivity testing ofan eutrophication assessment method on US and EU coastal systems. Submitted L&O.
Overall Human Influence (OHI) - Pressure
Overall Eutrophic Condition (OEC) - State
1) Determine level of expression for Chl a, macroalgae,epiphytes, D.O., SAV loss and HABs for each zone(combines concentration/observance, spatialcoverage, frequency of occurrence) by logic tree
2) Determine and overall estuary expression for primary(average symptom values) and secondary (highestsymptom value) symptoms
3) Combine overall primary and secondary for overallestuary by matrix
NEEA Methodology
ASSETS Adaptations to OECExpert knowledge replaced by:• Data: Level of expression is based on data, cumulative frequency (Chl a = 90th percentile; DO = 10th percentile)
• Spatial area : determined by GIS or Grid
∑
=
n
le
zl E
AAS
1
Where:Az: Surface area of zoneAe: Total estuarine surface areaEl: Expression value at each zonen: Number of estuarine zones
Seawater zone
050
100150200250300350400450
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
FrequencyCumulative %
Freq
uenc
y
5 10 15 20 25 3530 40 45 5550 more
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
enta
ge
Chlorophyll a concentration (µg l-1)
Seawater zone
050
100150200250300350400450
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
FrequencyCumulative %
Freq
uenc
y
5 10 15 20 25 3530 40 45 5550 more
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
enta
ge
Seawater zone
050
100150200250300350400450
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
FrequencyCumulative %
Freq
uenc
y
5 10 15 20 25 3530 40 45 5550 more5 10 15 20 25 3530 40 45 5550 more
Cum
ulat
ive
perc
enta
ge
Chlorophyll a concentration (µg l-1)
IF AND THENANDConcentration Spatial Coverage Expression ValueFrequency
Hypereutrophic
or
High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
High
Moderate
Low/Very Low
Any Spatial Coverage
Unknown
Periodic
Periodic
Periodic
Periodic
Episodic
Episodic
Episodic
Unknown
Any Frequency
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Flag A
Flag A
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
Flags are used to identify impacts for which not enough data was available for the components. In these cases, assumptions were made based on conservative estimates that unknown spatial coverage is at least 10 percent of the zone, unknown duration is at least days, and unknown frequency is at least episodic.
Decision/Logic Example for Chl a
Matrix for Determining Overall Eutrophic ConditionOverall level of expression of eutrophic conditions
MODERATEPrimary symptoms high but problems with more
serious secondarysymptoms still not being
expressed
MODERATE HIGHPrimary symptoms high
and substantial secondary symptoms
becoming more expressed, indicating
potentially serious problems
levels indicate serious
MODERATELevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
substantial
conditionsin causing the conditions
LOWLevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
minimal
Low secondary symptoms
Moderate secondary symptoms
High secondary symptoms
0 0.3 0.6 1
Low
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sM
oder
ate
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sH
igh
prim
ary
sym
ptom
s
0.3
0.6
1
MODERATEPrimary symptoms high but problems with more
serious secondarysymptoms still not being
expressed
MODERATE HIGHPrimary symptoms high
and substantial secondary symptoms
becoming more expressed, indicating
potentially serious problems
levels indicate serious
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
MODERATELevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
substantial
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
conditionsin causing the conditions
LOWLevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
minimal
Low secondary symptoms
Moderate secondary symptoms
High secondary symptoms
0 0.3 0.6 1
Low
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sM
oder
ate
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sH
igh
prim
ary
sym
ptom
s
0.3
0.6
1
factors may be involved factors may be involved
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWPrimary symptoms
beginning to indicate possible problems but still very few
secondary symptoms expressed
MODERATE LOWPrimary symptoms
beginning to indicate possible problems but still very few
secondary symptoms expressed
Overall level of expression of eutrophic conditions
MODERATEPrimary symptoms high but problems with more
serious secondarysymptoms still not being
expressed
MODERATE HIGHPrimary symptoms high
and substantial secondary symptoms
becoming more expressed, indicating
potentially serious problems
levels indicate serious
MODERATELevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
substantial
conditionsin causing the conditions
LOWLevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
minimal
Low secondary symptoms
Moderate secondary symptoms
High secondary symptoms
0 0.3 0.6 1
Low
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sM
oder
ate
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sH
igh
prim
ary
sym
ptom
s
0.3
0.6
1
MODERATEPrimary symptoms high but problems with more
serious secondarysymptoms still not being
expressed
MODERATE HIGHPrimary symptoms high
and substantial secondary symptoms
becoming more expressed, indicating
potentially serious problems
levels indicate serious
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
MODERATELevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
substantial
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
conditionsin causing the conditions
LOWLevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
minimal
Low secondary symptoms
Moderate secondary symptoms
High secondary symptoms
0 0.3 0.6 1
Low
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sM
oder
ate
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sH
igh
prim
ary
sym
ptom
s
0.3
0.6
1
factors may be involved factors may be involved
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWPrimary symptoms
beginning to indicate possible problems but still very few
secondary symptoms expressed
MODERATE LOWPrimary symptoms
beginning to indicate possible problems but still very few
secondary symptoms expressed
MODERATEPrimary symptoms high but problems with more
serious secondarysymptoms still not being
expressed
MODERATE HIGHPrimary symptoms high
and substantial secondary symptoms
becoming more expressed, indicating
potentially serious problems
levels indicate serious
MODERATELevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
substantial
conditionsin causing the conditions
LOWLevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
minimal
Low secondary symptoms
Moderate secondary symptoms
High secondary symptoms
0 0.3 0.6 1
Low
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sM
oder
ate
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sH
igh
prim
ary
sym
ptom
s
0.3
0.6
1
MODERATEPrimary symptoms high but problems with more
serious secondarysymptoms still not being
expressed
MODERATE HIGHPrimary symptoms high
and substantial secondary symptoms
becoming more expressed, indicating
potentially serious problems
levels indicate serious
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
HIGHHigh primary and
secondary symptom
eutrophication problems
MODERATELevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
substantial
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
HIGHSubstantial levels of eutrophic conditions
occuring with secondary symptoms indicating
serious problems
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
conditions
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
MODERATE HIGHHigh secondary
symptoms indicate serious problems, but low primary indicates other factors may also be involved in causing
conditionsin causing the conditions
LOWLevel of expression of eutrophic conditions is
minimal
Low secondary symptoms
Moderate secondary symptoms
High secondary symptoms
0 0.3 0.6 1
Low
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sM
oder
ate
prim
ary
sym
ptom
sH
igh
prim
ary
sym
ptom
s
0.3
0.6
1
factors may be involved factors may be involved
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other factors may be involved factors may be involved
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWModerate secondary symptoms indicate
substantial eutrophic conditions, but low
primary indicates other
MODERATE LOWPrimary symptoms
beginning to indicate possible problems but still very few
secondary symptoms expressed
MODERATE LOWPrimary symptoms
beginning to indicate possible problems but still very few
secondary symptoms expressed
Determination of Future Outlook (DFO) - Response
Future outlook is based on susceptibility and projected changes innutrient pressures:
Susceptibility is thecapacity of a system todilute or flush nutrients
Nutrient pressurechanges are based onexpected populationchanges, future treatmentand remediation plansand changes inwatershed use(particularly agricultural)
Improve High
ImproveLow
ImproveLow
NoChange
NoChange
NoChange
WorsenLow
WorsenHigh
Worsen High
Future Outlook For Eutrophic Conditions
Future Nutrient PressuresDecrease No Change Increase
Hig
hM
oder
ate
Low
Susc
eptib
ility
Grade 5 4 3 2 1OHI Low Moderate
lowModerate Moderate
highHigh
OEC Low Moderatelow
Moderate Moderatehigh
High
DFO Improve high Improvelow
No change Worsen low Worsen high
Metric Combination matrix Class
P
S
R
5 5 5 4 4 45 5 5 5 5 55 4 3 5 4 3
High (5%)
P
S
R
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 35 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 42 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3
Good (19%)
P
SR
5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 32 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 5 5 4
Moderate(32%)
P
S
R
4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 12 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 25 4 3 2 1 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4
Poor (24%)
P
S
R
3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 15 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Bad (19%)
Grades for OHI, OECand DFO arecombined into agrade of High, Good,Moderate, Poor andBad with color codingto match the EU WFDconvention.
Combinations weredistributedheuristically andimpossible orimprobablecombinations wereexcluded.
Additional Adaptation: Synthesis of OHI - OEC - DFO
Barnegat Bay – NEEA/ASSETS ApplicationIndices
Overall HumanInfluence (OHI)
ASSETS: 1
OverallEutrophicCondition (OEC)
ASSETS: 1
Determination ofFuture Outlook(DFO)ASSETS: 4
Methods
Susceptibility
Nutrient inputs
Primary
Secondary
Future nutrientpressures
Parameters Rating Level ofexpression
Dilution potential Low Highsusceptibility
Flushing potential Moderate
High nutrient input
Chlorophyll a HighEpiphytes No Data High Macroalgae Moderate
Dissolved Oxygen No Problem Submerged Aquatic Moderate HighVegetationNuisance and Toxic HighBlooms
Future nutrient pressures decrease
Index
HIGH
HIGH
IMPROVELOW
ASSETS: BAD
Chlorophyll aHABs
Macroalgae
Population (X 103) 588- 800Nutrient loading (tN y-1) 720Mean depth (m) 1.4Mean tidal range (m) 0.9Water residence time (d) 27-71
Main impacts:Estuary Characteristics:
Ria Formosa – NEEA/ASSETS ApplicationIndices
Overall HumanInfluence (OHI)
ASSETS: 3
OverallEutrophicCondition (OEC)
ASSETS: 4
Determination ofFuture Outlook(DFO)ASSETS: 4
Methods
Susceptibility
Nutrient inputs
Primary
Secondary
Future nutrientpressures
Parameters Rating Level ofexpression
Dilution potential High Moderatesusceptibility
Flushing potential Low
Moderate nutrient input
Chlorophyll a LowEpiphytes Moderate ModerateMacroalgae High
Dissolved Oxygen No ProblemSubmerged Aquatic LowVegetation LowNuisance and Toxic No ProblemBlooms
Future nutrient pressures decrease
Index
MODERATE
MODERATELOW
IMPROVELOW
ASSETS: GOOD
MacroalgaeIntertidal O2
Bivalve mortality
Population (X 103) 124-211Nutrient loading (tN y-1) 1028Mean depth (m) 1.9Mean tidal range (m) 2Water residence time (d) 0.5-2
Estuary Characteristics: Main impacts:
Classification based on physical andhydrologic characteristics – nutrients will beprocessed differently in systems that flush wellor flush poorly and management strategies willbe different
A top-down classification resulted in 7 types.DISCO gives 6 types but semi-enclosedlagoons were not included
TagusSado
Mira
MinhoLima
Douro
Ria de Aveiro
Mondego
RiaFormosa
Guadiana
Spa
inS
pain
A top-down classification resulted in 14 types.DISCO gives 10 types (120 of 138 within 6 types).Characteristics: Mean depth; % open mouth; Tide height;log (freshwater flow/area); Mean air temperature.
Typology: DISCO Cluster Results
Typology: Ecosystem Reality
Symptom level
Freq
uenc
y(s
patia
l/tem
pora
l var
iabi
lity)
Naturalconditions
Stressors(pressure)
Threshold A
A
B
C
Threshold C
A
B
C
Typology: Reference Conditions
14 small tidally flushed embayments in Maine arecategorized and normalized for residence time.
Thresholds for nutrient loading (TN) and referenceconditions for D.O. are different for different systems
depending upon residence time.
Similarly, Chl a ranges for classification ofstatus vary by type
Chlorophyll a (ug/l) Sensitive NEEA SystemsHypereutrophicHypereutrophic >60 >5High 20 - 60 2 - 5Medium 5 - 20 1 - 2Low 0 - 5 0 - 1
NEEA/ASSETS applied Chl a ranges universally, however, for sensitive systems, e.g. Florida Bay,5 ug/l indicates severe problems.
From: Latimer and Kelly. 2003. Proposed classification for predictingsensitivity of coastal receiving waters to effects of nutrients. US EPA.
Socioeconomic Pilot: Fish Catch & Water Quality
This indicator will provide insight to the consequences of eutrophication andprovide justification for management action
Premise: Fish catch will decrease as water quality declines, economic losses resultStudy: Compares fish catch among 13 sites (9 in Gulf of Maine, Narragansett, LongIsland Sound, Patuxent and Potomac Rivers) with different water quality (D.O.)
Nitrogen Loading to LIS
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Tota
l Nitr
ogen
(Kg/
day)
90,248
65,852
~30% reduction
Long Island Sound DO (Corrected Oxygen) 10th %
3
4
5
6
7
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
YEAR
DO (C
orre
cted
O
xyge
n)
DO (Corrected Oxygen) 10th %
3.8
6.4~40% increase
~30% Reduction in Nitrogen Loading~40% Increase of DO 10th PercentileSignificant Increase in Striped Bass Catch Rate
Long Island Sound Mean Striped Bass Catch Rate
y = 0.112x + 0.7776 R2 = 0.6451
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YEARM
ean
Cat
ch (f
ish
catc
h pe
r fis
herm
an p
er tr
ip) Mean Striped Bass Catch
No
Dat
a
From A. Mason ASLO 2004 presentation: Improving indicatorsof water quality degradation impacts for management ofestuaries and coastal
Modelgreenscenari
o
Ria Formosa –ASSETS validation & model scenariosIndex
OverallEutrophicCondition (OEC)
ASSETS OEC: 4
OverallEutrophicCondition (OEC)
ASSETS OEC: 4
OverallEutrophicCondition (OEC)
ASSETS OEC:
Methods
PSM
SSM
PSM
SSM
PSM
SSM
Parameters Value Level ofexpressionChlorophyll a 0.25Epiphytes 0.50 0.57Macroalgae 0.96 Moderate
Dissolved Oxygen 0Submerged Aquatic 0.25 0.25Vegetation LowNuisance and Toxic 0Blooms
Chlorophyll a 0.25Epiphytes 0.50 0.58Macroalgae 1.00 Moderate
Dissolved Oxygen 0Submerged Aquatic 0.25 0.25Vegetation LowNuisance and Toxic 0Blooms
Chlorophyll a 0.25Epiphytes 0.50 0.42Macroalgae 0.50 Moderate
Dissolved Oxygen 0Submerged Aquatic 0.25 0.25Vegetation LowNuisance and Toxic 0Blooms
Field data
Researchmodel
Index
MODERATELOW
MODERATELOW
MODERATELOW
28% lower
4(5)
Nobre, Ferreira, Newton, Simas, Icely, Neves. Managing eutrophication: Integration of field data,ecosystem-scale simulations and screening models. Submitted L&O. (www.eutro.org)
TagusSado
Mira
MinhoLima
Douro
Ria de Aveiro
Mondego
RiaFormosa
Guadiana
Spa
inS
pain
?
?
? UnknownNo ChangeWorsenImprove
DFO US PTImprove 6 40No Change 32 40Worsen 62 0Unknown 0 20as percent of 139 US and 10 PT systems
Determination of Future Outlook (DFO) - Pressure
Response: Management, Monitoring & Research
• NEEA/ ASSETS is a transferable methodology to evaluate eutrophicationstatus, influencing factors, and future outlook for guidance and prioritizationof management resources
• Improvements have been made to the original method, however, additionalmodifications are necessary and are in progress
•Application of the method shows Barnegat Bay to be highly eutrophic (Bad)
• Additional improvements will improve accuracy: -- development of typology, -- re-evaluation of thresholds for indicator variables and inputs for
different types of estuaries, -- re-evaluation of variables, use core for all systems, additional
variables as appropriate by type, -- addition of socio-economic indicator, -- development of models/tools to predict the impact of different management scenarios
Concluding Remarks
Concluding Remarks
Assessment method improvements are the focus ofNOAA’s National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update Program
which includes national and international partners
http://www.eutro.org