Water Resource Management in Germany
Water Resource Management in Germany
Water Resource Management in Germany
Management
in Germany
Part 2: Water quality
Published by:
Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit
Postfach 12 06 29
53048 Bonn
Redaktion:
U. Irmer (Federal Environment Agency, Head of Department II 2); K. Blondzik (Federal Environment Agency, Section II 2.4)
Authors:
J. Arle, K. Blondzik, U. Claussen; A. Duffek, S. Grimm, F. Hilliges, A. Hoffmann, W. Leujak, V. Mohaupt, S. Naumann, U. Pirntke, S. Richter, P.
Schilling, C. Schroeter-Kermani, A. Ullrich, J. Wellmitz, S. Werner, R. Wolter (all Federal Environment Agency)
Layout:
KOMAG mbH, Berlin
Print:
2014
Umschlagfoto:
ecko/PIXELIO
Date:
November 2013
Contents
0
List of abbreviations................................ 4
1 Introduction............................................ 5
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3 Groundwater......................................... 11
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
5 Watercourses......................................... 37
5.1
Basis for assessment............................................ 37
5.1.1 Watercourse types................................................ 37
5.1.2 Biological quality elements.................................. 38
5.1.3 Hydromorphological quality elements................. 38
5.1.4 General physico-chemical quality elements........ 41
5.1.5 Other assessment methods.................................. 41
5.1.6 Network of monitoring points for reporting......... 41
5.2
Status monitoring................................................ 41
5.2.1 Hydromorphology................................................ 41
5.2.2 Nutrients.............................................................. 47
5.2.3 Heavy metals and metalloids............................... 50
5.2.4 ndustrial organic pollutants................................ 51
5.2.5 Pesticides............................................................. 53
5.2.6 Pharmaceuticals.................................................. 53
5.2.7 Ecological status.................................................. 53
5.2.8 Chemical status................................................... 56
6.1
Basis for assessment............................................ 59
6.1.1 Lake types............................................................ 59
6.1.2 Biological quality elements.................................. 59
6.1.3 Hydromorphological quality elements................. 60
6.1.4 General physico-chemical quality elements........ 61
6.1.5 Network of monitoring points for reporting......... 62
6.2
Status assessment................................................ 62
6.2.1 Hydromorphology................................................ 62
6.2.2 Nutrient and trophic status of lakes .................... 64
6.2.3 Ecological status.................................................. 70
6.2.4 Chemical status................................................... 71
7.1
7.1.1
9 Bibliography........................................ 107
0 List of abbreviations
EC Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
HELCOM:
LAWA:
OSPAR:
Habitats Directive:
1 Introduction
The EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) which entered into force on 22 December 2000 is the first ecologically driven Directive dedicated to the protection
of rivers and lakes, and calls for the extensive involvement of the general public. Inter alia, this was transposed into German law with the Ordinance on the Protection of Surface Waters (Oberflchengewsserverordnung OGewV). The operational objective of the EC
Water Framework Directive is to achieve good ecolog
ical and chemical status in surface waters, and good
ecological potential in heavily modified or artificial wa
ter bodies. Environmental quality standards for chemical parameters and biological status classes have been
introduced to facilitate monitoring of these objectives.
already used in water resource management. The Surface Waters Ordinance demands sufficiently reliable and accurate results from chemical and biological analyses. For this reason, quality assurance of
the data is now more important than ever before.
Every analytical result has a certain degree of measurement uncertainty (analytical result = measurement val
ue measurement uncertainty) and is therefore merely
an estimate of the true/correct value of a measurand in
the sample analysed. In other words, the measurement
uncertainty of a measured value is the range within
which the true value of the measurand is expected to
fall. Both the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty
in Measurement (GUM) of 2008 and the EURACHEM/
CITAC Guide based thereon provide the basis for
determining measurement uncertainty. International
standard ISO 11352 "Estimation of measurement uncertainty based on validation and quality control data"
was introduced in 2013 for the practical determination
of measurement uncertainty in the laboratory.
Notification entails the recognition/licensing and publication of laboratories which have been identified to
be competent to carry out analytical tasks in areas regulated by law (e.g. for drinking water and wastewater
analyses) by the relevant competent authority.
10
3 Groundwater
3.1.2Chemical status
3.1.1Quantitative status
11
Table 1: Groundwater quality standards and threshold values for the classification of chemical groundwater status
Name of substance
CAS no.
Threshold value
Derivation criterion
Nitrate
50mg/l
0.1g/l each;
0.5g/l in total
Arsenic
7440-38-2
10g/l
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.5g/l
Lead
7439-92-1
10g/l
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.2g/l
Ammonium
7664-41-7
0.5mg/l
Chloride
168876-00-6
250mg/l
Sulphate
14808-79-8
240mg/l
79-01-6;
127-18-4
10g/l
12
Figure 2 shows the quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Germany. Overall, there are only a few
groundwater bodies in Germany with quantitative
problems. Out of a total of around 1,000 groundwater
bodies, only 38 (i.e. 4%) failed to achieve "good quantitative status" in 2010.
Quantitative problems can arise, for example, in conjunction with mining activities, particularly open-cast
lignite mining. In these regions, the groundwater level
has often been lowered substantially over a number of
Land capital
Groundwater body
Federal capital
Good
River basin
Poor
Source: Federal Environment Agency; data supplied by LAWA, data source: Reporting tool WasserBLicK/BfG, as of 22 March 2010
13
Landcapital
capital
Land
Groundwater body
Federalcapital
capital
Federal
Good
River
Riverbasin
basin
Poor
Unclear
14
Nitrate in groundwater
Analysis results showing the nitrate levels in groundwater are available for 723 out of a total of around
800 measuring points in the EEA monitoring network
for the year 2010. Around 51% of all measuring
points indicate nitrate concentrations of between 0
and 10mg/l and are therefore not polluted at all, or
only minimally. In around 35% of measuring points,
the nitrate content is between 10 and 50mg/l. These
points are significantly to heavily polluted with nitrate.
The remaining 14% of monitoring points are so heav
ily polluted with nitrate that the water cannot be used
for drinking water abstraction without further treatment, because it exceeds the limit of 50mg/l set by the
Drinking Water Ordinance, in some cases significantly.
30
28.9
Proportion in %
25
20
18.1
17.0
15
10
8.6
5.4
5
0
<1
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.9
2.9
8.3
20.4
35.4
4.3
2.2
2.2
12.0
11.1
11.1
8.5
14.6
26.1
22.2
27.1
23.9
20
13.4
31.1
31.5
Forrest (206)
Grassland (92)
12.8
12,0
33.4
23.6
Settlement
area (45)
Farmland (328)
>90
<1
>1-10
>10-25
>25-50
>50-90
>90
15
76.0
24.3
,+"*$
,("'$
27.5
,!"&$
28.0
,%"'$ 26.0
29.0
,)"'$
25
,&$
,*"($ 24.3
,+"*$
,+"+$ 24.4
,+"+$ 23.6
,+"($ 24.4
24.9
,+")$ 24.6
20.1
,'"#$
,,"*$ 23.5
,*"&$
23.8
,*"%$ 22.3
74.0
80 %
60 %
29.0
,)"'$
*#"!$
31.7
,("($
28.1
,%"#$ 26.6
,)"+$
*'"'$ 29.4
*#",$ 32.6
*,"%$ 32.3
,)"!$
29.7
*,"($ 30.0
*,"*$ 31.2
28.6
,%"($ 32.8
28.8
,%"%$
28.6
,%"($
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
+#"+$
41.6
+#"($ 41.4
*("!$ 41.0
*&"+$ 36.7
+#"'$
*,"%$ 35.4
32.2
*,",$ 32.8
,)")$
39.9
*)")$
**")$ 29.9
*&"!$ 34.9
*+")$ 33.9
**"*$ 33.9
**")$ 33.3
*'",$ 35.7
33.9
**")$ 30.2
10 %
0%
7.1
!"#$
8.5
%"&$ 7.0
!"'$
(")$
6.9
(")$
6.9
7.3
!"*$
#'"'$
##"%$ 10.0
8.5
%"&$ 11.8
9.4
)"+$ 10.7
#'"!$
8.5
%"&$
7.9
!")$
6.0
("'$
!"%$
7.8
71.4
!'#(%
>10-25
>25-50
72.0
!&#*%
71.4
!'#(%
70.4
!*#(%
69.7
+)#!%
68.8
+$#$%
67.4
+!#(%
68.0
66.8
++#$%
64.0
9.9
)")$
62.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
>50-90
>90
16
73.2
!"#&%
70.1
!*#'% 69.8
69.7
+)#$%+)#!%
70.0
72.9
!&#)%
66.0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
<1
73.7
!"#!%
72.8
!&#$%
72.0
25.9
,&")$ 24.1
,+"#$
Nitrate in mg/l
70%
73.8
!"#$%
Figure 7 shows the development of average nitrate concentrations (arithmetic mean of all measurement data)
in the EU groundwater monitoring network between
1995 and 2010. In the period 1995 to 2005, average
nitrate concentrations decreased overall. Between
2005 and 2010, the averages strongly fluctuated from
year to year, with a rather rising trend.
Pesticides
Figure 8: Frequency distribution of pesticide findings at filtered superficial groundwater measuring points in Germany
over the periods 1990-1995, 1996-2000, 2001-2005 and
2006-2008
Arsenic
100
90
82.6
78.6
80
70
71.7 72.4
60
50
40
30
18.6 19.0
16.1
12.8
20
10
0
8.6 7.9
4.5 3.8
not detected
detected
< = 0.1g/l
detected
> 0.1g/l bis 1g/l
detected
> 1g/l
Maximum individual substance measurement of the most recent groundwater sample in the
period under review
19901995
19962000
20012005
20062008
Source: LAWA
Between 2006 and 2008, 4.7% of the 13,024 examined measuring points still exceeded the limit
of 0.1g/l in groundwater close to the surface.
Arsen in g /l
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
17
Figure 10: Distribution of arsenic concentrations at measuring points in the EEA groundwater monitoring network
(1999 to 2003)
80.0
77.0
N = 675 of which 481 (71.3 %)
partially < limit of quantification
70.0
60.0
Lead in g/l
Proportion in %
Figure 11: Distribution of natural background concentrations (90 percentile) of lead among the principal hydro-geological units in Germany
For comparison: Threshold value (Groundwater Ordinance)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
bis 1
9.5
8.7
>1-2
>2-5
2.4
>5-10
2.1
>10-100
0.3
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
>100
Arsenic in g/l
Source: Federal Environment Agency based on data supplied by LAWA
Lead
Figure 12: Distribution of lead concentrations among measuring points of the EEA groundwater monitoring network
(1999 to 2003)
70.0
69.4
n= 700 of which 567 ( 81 %) < limit of quantification
60.0
Proportion in %
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
11.4
10.0
18
0.0
16.9
1.4
bis 1
>1-2
>2-5
>5-10
0.9
>10-100
0.0
>100
Lead in g/l
In 2008, 78% of all measuring points indicated sulphate concentrations of between 0 and 110mg/l, i.e.
less than half of the threshold value. At a further 14%
of points, the average sulphate level was between 110
and 250mg/l, and only 8.3% of points exceeded the
threshold value of 240mg/l. Causes included salty
water in the vicinity of salt deposits or groundwater
from very deep groundwater aquifers, which often
showed very high salt concentrations, and specifically
sulphate concentrations. Here again, individual studies
are needed in order to clarify whether the elevated
sulphate levels had natural causes or are attributable
to anthropogenic emissions.
Figure 13: Distribution of natural background concentrations (90 percentile) of sulphate among the principal
hydro-geological units in Germany
For comparison: Threshold value (Groundwater Ordinance)
Sulphate
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
bis
20
-50
>20
-80
>50
-11
>80
0
0
50
00
50
50
-15 50-2 00-2
0-3 350>
>2
>1
>25
0
>11
>50
Sulphate in mg/l
Sulphate in mg/l
250
200
150
100
50
0
19
Fauna
Proportion of crustaceans
Proportion of oligochaeta
70%
Proportion of stygobionts
(crustaceans)
20%
BA [cells m/l]
30
0.350
1.5
BOD5 [mg/l]
E.coli [100ml]
500
CFUs [m/l]
Microbiology
>50%
GFI *)
South-Western Uplands
Northern Alps
Diversity characterised by
diverse fauna (27 species)
High diversity
(32 species)
Medium diversity
(15 species)
Characterised by ubiquitous
groundwater species and postglacial recolonisers
Reduced spectrum of
groundwater species
Absence of groundwater-alien
species
20
Due to the comparatively simple analysis work involved in phase 1, based on selected indicators and the
background levels ascertained by the project, it is possible to determine whether the respective analysis site
is in a "good status" or a "high status". In case of de
viations, experts are consulted and detailed analyses
carried out. Assessment according to phase 2 allows
the calculation of an index and thus an allocation to a
quality category, as known from the ecological status
assessment of surface waters (Table 4).
Phase 2
Qualitative interpretation
High or good
ecological status
Deviation
Ecological status
Comment
High
0.8<1
Good
0.60.8
Moderately impaired
0.40.6
Impaired
0.20.4
Heavily impaired
00.2
Bad
21
22
The EC Water Framework Directive adopts an integrative approach when assessing the ecological status of
surface waters, i.e. primarily according to the presence
of biotic communities typical of the natural area. Hydromorphological and physico-chemical features have
a supporting effect. Initially, the EC Water Framework
Directive calls for the assessment of specified quality
elements of ecological status (see Table 5).
23
tion. For heavily modified and artificial lakes, assessment methods are available for phytoplankton, phytobenthos and macrophytes. An assessment method for
macrozoobenthos is currently under preparation.
Watercourses
Lakes
Transitional
waters
Coastal
waters
Large algae/
angiosperms
Macrophytes/
phytobenthos
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Status
Potential *)
high
X
X1
Hydrology
Morphology
Tidal regime
good
moderate
moderate
poor
poor
bad
bad
River
basin-specific
pollutants
Key:
Assessment not required
X
1) There are various assessment methods for fish ladders. Assessment of downstream fish passes and sediment continuity is still
outstanding. There is a coordinated LAWA approach for reporting to
the EU Commission.
Source: Federal Environment Agency in accordance with the EC Water
Framework Directive and Annex 3 of the Surface Waters Ordinance
the reference state. For this reason, both the biological quality elements and the physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements
should represent virtually undisturbed conditions, and the environmental quality standard for
specific pollutants should be met.
a good ecological status, all biological quali For
ty elements should exhibit no more than slight
changes due to anthropogenic pressures compared to the not affected surface waterbody type.
The environmental quality standards for all specific pollutants must be met. Furthermore, the
values for general physico-chemical parameters
should lie within a range which ensures proper
functioning of the ecosystem.
a moderate ecological status, all biological
For
quality elements must at least be in a moderate
state.
or more of these biological quality elements
Ifis one
in a worse state, the waterbody must be classified as poor or bad.
24
Environmental quality standard for the ecological status of surface waters are defined on the basis of an EU
chemical assessment as prescribed in Annex V, 1.2.6
of the EC Water Framework Directive. Valid long-term
tests regarding the substances effects on the food
stages algae, amphipods and fish are compiled, and
the most sensitive of these values is selected. However,
as organisms in nature may be even more sensitive
than those used to perform the laboratory tests, this
smallest figure is divided by a compensating factor in
order to calculate the environmental quality standard.
If valid long-term toxicity tests are available for all
stages, this factor is generally 10. If data is missing, it
will be 100 or more.
25
Table 7: Environmental quality standards (EQS) for river basin-specific pollutants to determine ecological status
Substance
CAS no.
Metals, soluble concentration in g/l or materials in suspension/sediment in mg/kg (Chapters 5.2.3 and 7.2.3)
Arsenic (As) (materials in suspension/sediment)
7440-38-2
40
7440-47-3
640
7440-50-8
160
Selenium (Se)
7782-49-2
Silver (Ag)
7440-22-4
0.02
Thallium (Tl)
7440-28-0
0.2
7440-66-6
800
Industrial pollutants, concentration in total water samples in g/l or in materials in suspension/sediment in g/kg (Chapters 5.2.4 and 7.2.4)
26
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71-55-6
10
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
10
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
10
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane
76-13-1
10
1,1-Dichloroethane
75-34-3
10
75-35-4
10
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
1,2-Dibromoethane
106-93-4
1,2-Dichloro-3-nitrobenzene
3209-22-1
10
1,2-Dichloro-4-nitrobenzene
99-54-7
10
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
10
1,2-Dichloroethene
540-59-0
10
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
10
1,2-Dimethylbenzene
95-47-6
10
1.3-Dichloro-4-nitrobenzene
611-06-3
10
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
10
1,3-Dichloropropane-2-ol
96-23-1
10
1,3-Dichloropropene
542-75-6
10
1,3-Dimethylbenzene
108-38-3
10
1,4-Dichloro-2-nitrobenzene
89-61-2
10
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
10
1,4-Dimethylbenzene
106-42-3
10
1-Chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene
97-00-7
1-Chloro-2-nitrobenzene
88-73-3
10
1-Chloro-3-nitrobenzene
121-73-3
1-Chloro-4-nitrobenzene
100-00-5
10
1-Chloronaphthalene
90-13-1
2,3,4-Trichlorophenol
15950-66-0
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol
933-78-8
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
933-75-5
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
2,3-Dichloropropene
78-88-6
10
2,4-&2,5-Dichloraniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
95-95-4
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88-06-2
2,4-Dichloroaniline
554-00-7
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
10
2,5-Dichloroaniline
95-82-9
2,6-Dichloroaniline
608-31-1
2-Amino-4-chlorophenol
95-85-2
10
2-Chloro-4-nitrotoluene
121-86-8
Continuation of table 7
Substance
CAS no.
2-Chloro-6-nitrotoluene
83-42-1
2-Chloroaniline
95-51-2
2-Chloroethanol
107-07-3
10
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
10
2-Chloro-p-toluidine
615-65-6
10
2-Chlorotoluene
95-49-8
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
609-19-8
3,4-Dichloroaniline
95-76-1
0.5
3,5-Dichloroaniline
626-43-7
3-Chloro-4-nitrotoluene
38939-88-7
3-Chloroaniline
108-42-9
107-05-1
10
3-Chloro-o-toluidine
87-60-5
10
3-Chlorophenol
108-43-0
10
3-Chloro-p-toluidine
95-74-9
10
3-Chlorotoluene
108-41-8
10
4-Chloro-2-nitroaniline
89-63-4
4-Chloro-2-nitrotoluene
89-59-8
10
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
10
4-Chloro-3-nitrotoluene
89-60-1
4-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
0.05
4-Chlorophenol
106-48-9
10
4-Chlorotoluene
106-43-4
5-Chloro-2-nitrotoluene
5367-28-2
5-Chloro-o-toluidine
95-79-4
Aniline
62-53-3
Benzidine
92-87-5
100-44-7
10
98-87-3
10
Biphenyl
92-52-4
Chloral hydrate
302-17-0
10
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
Chloroacetic acid
79-11-8
10
1
10
0.8
0.1
Chloroprene (2-Chlorobuta-1,3-diene)
126-99-8
10
Cyanide
57-12-5
10
108-77-0
14488-53-0
14488-53-0
Dichlorobenzidines
91-94-1
10
Dichlorodiisopropylether
108-60-1
10
Diethylamine
109-89-7
10
Dimethylamine
124-40-3
10
Epichlorohydrine
106-89-8
10
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
10
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
10
Isopropylbenzene
98-82-8
10
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
7012-37-5
PCB-28 (alternatively)
7012-37-5
35693-99-3
PCB-52 (alternatively)
35693-99-3
0.01
0.1
100
0.01
0.1
20
0.0005
20
0.0005
27
Continuation of table 7
Substance
CAS no.
37680-73-2
PCB-101 (alternatively)
37680-73-2
31508-00-6
PCB-118 (alternatively)
31508-00-6
35065-28-2
PCB-138 (alternatively)
35065-28-2
35065-27-1
PCB-153 (alternatively)
35065-27-1
28655-71-2
PCB-180 (alternatively)
28655-71-2
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
1461-25-2
1461-25-2
Toluene
108-88-3
10
126-73-8
10
Vinylchloride (chloroethylene)
75-01-4
20
0.0005
20
0.0005
20
0.0005
20
0.0005
20
0.0005
0.5
40
0.001
Pesticides, concentrations in total water samples in g/l or in materials in suspension/sediment in g/kg (Chapters 5.2.5 and 7.2.4)
28
Fungicides
Epoxiconazole
133855-98-8
0.2
Propiconazole
60207-90-1
668-34-8
668-34-8
Herbicides
2,4,5-T
93-76-5
0.1
2,4-D
94-75-7
0.1
Ametryn
834-12-8
0.5
Bentazone
25057-89-0
0.1
Bromacil
314-40-9
0.6
Bromoxynil
1689-84-5
0.5
Chlortoluron
15545-48-9
0.4
Dichlorprop
120-36-5
0.1
Diflufenican
83164-33-4
0.009
Hexazinone
51235-04-2
0.07
Linuron
330-55-2
0.1
MCPA
94-74-6
0.1
Mecoprop
7085-19-0
0.1
Metazachlor
67129-08-2
0.4
Methabenzthiazuron
18691-97-9
Metolachlor
51218-45-2
0.2
Metribuzin
21087-64-9
0.2
Monolinuron
1746-81-2
0.1
Picolinafen
137641-05-5
0.007
Propanil
709-98-8
0.1
Pyrazone (chloridazone)
1698-60-8
0.1
Terbuthylazine
5915-41-3
0.5
Insecticides
Azinphos-ethyl
2642-71-9
0.01
Azinphos-methyl
86-50-0
0.01
57-74-9
0.003
Coumaphos
56-72-4
0.07
0.1
20
0.0005
Continuation of table 7
Substance
CAS no.
Demeton-o
298-03-3
0.1
Demeton-s
126-75-0
0.1
Demeton-s-methyl
919-86-8
0.1
Demeton-s-methyl-sulphone
17040-19-6
0.1
Diazinon
333-41-5
0.01
Dichlorvos
62-73-7
0.0006
Dimethoate
60-51-5
0.1
Disulfoton
298-04-4
0.004
Etrimphos
38260-54-7
0.004
Fenitrothion
122-14-5
0.009
Fenthion
55-38-9
0.004
Heptachlorine
76-44-8
0.1
Heptachloroepoxide
1024-57-3
0.1
Malathion
121-75-5
0.02
Methamidophos
10265-92-6
0.1
Mevinphos
7786-34-7
0.0002
Omethoate
1113-02-6
0.1
Oxydemeton-methyl
301-12-2
0.1
Parathion-ethyl
56-38-2
0.005
Parathion-methyl
298-00-0
0.02
Pirimicarb
23103-98-2
0.09
Prometryn
7287-19-6
0.5
Triazophos
24017-47-8
0.03
Trichlorfon
52-68-6
0.002
Veterinary pharmaceuticals
Phoxim
14816-18-3
0.008
Source: Federal Environment Agency in accordance with the Surface Waters Ordinance, 2011
29
30
Chemical status is determined from the defined EUwide environmental quality standards for the 33 priority substances currently listed in the EC Water Framework Directive and 8 other substances regulated on a
European-wide basis under the old Directive on water
pollution by discharges of certain dangerous substances (formerly: Directive 76/464, now: 2006/11/EC)
and the action value for nitrate under the EU Nitrates
Directive (Table 8). The provisions of the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) Directive 2008/105/EC and
the Nitrates Directive were adopted into Annex 7 of the
Surface Waters Ordinance in 2011. The environmental
quality standards Directive was updated on 12 August
2013 (2013/39/EU), and now regulates a total of 45
priority substances, which will be adopted by the
Surface Waters Ordinance. The environmental quality
standards for the 12 new priority substances will come
into force in 2018. If the action value of 50 mg nitrate/l
is exceeded, measures must be taken to reduce this
level. There are two classes of chemical status. If the
environmental quality standards is complied with,
the status is "good", otherwise it is "not good". "Good
chemical status" as an environmental objective applies
to both "natural" as well as "artificial" and "heavily
modified" waterbodies. These are labelled blue for
good chemical status and red for not good chemical
status.
Priority substances must be measured if there are any
emissions. The annual average is always monitored,
hence the abbreviation AA-EQS (annual average - en
vironmental quality standard). For selected pollutants
with acute high toxicity, a maximum allowable con
centration (MAC-EQS) is additionally specified, and
this must not be exceeded. A MAC-EQS is considered
necessary where the ratio of acute to chronic toxicity
is less than 12. For hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and mercury, which indicate high levels of
Table 8: Environmental quality standard (EQS) for priority substances and other substances relating to chemical status
Substance
CAS number
Priority
hazardous
substance
AA-EQS
in g/l
AA-EQS
in g/l
MAC-EQS
in g/l
MAC-EQS
in g/l
Biota EQS
in g/kg
wet weight
Watercourses
and lakes
Transitional
and coastal
waters
Watercourses
and lakes
Transitional
and coastal
waters
Surface
waters
50,000
7439-92-1
7.2
7440 43 9
7440-02-0
7439-97-6
N.a.
N.a.
0.08
(class 1)
0.45
(class 1)
0.45
(class1)
0.08
(class 2)
0.45
(class 2)
0.45
(class2)
0.6
(class 3)
0.6
(class3)
0.15
(class 4)
0.9
(class 4)
0.9
(class4)
0.25
(class 5)
1.5
(class 5)
1.5
(class5)
0.09
(class 3)
7.2
0.2
20
20
N.a.
N.a.
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
10
50
50
N.a.
N.a.
20
120-12-7
Benzene
71-43-2
32534-81-9
0.0005
0.0002
C10-13 chloro-alkanes
85535-84-8
12
0.4
0.4
1.4
1.4
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
10
10
N.a.
N.a.
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
20
20
N.a.
N.a.
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
(DEHP)
117-81-7
1.3
1.3
N.a.
N.a.
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.1
0.1
Hexachlorobenzene3
(HCB)
118-74-1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
104
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
555
Naphthalene
91-20-3
2.4
1.2
N.a.
N.a.
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.01
N.a.
N.a.
0.007
0.0007
N.a.
N.a.
0.4
0.4
Nonylphenol (4-Nonylphenol)
84852-15-3
Octylphenol ((4-(1,1',3,3'Tetramethylbutyl)-phenol))
140-66-9
Pentachlorobenzene3
608-93-5
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) 7, 3
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
Benzo[a]pyrene
50-32-8
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
205-99-2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
207-08-9
= 0.03
= 0.03
N.a.
N.a.
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
191-24-2
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
193-39-5
= 0.002
= 0.002
N.a.
N.a.
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18-4
10
10
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
12
12
Trichlorobenzenes 8
12002-48-1
0.4
0.4
Trichlorethylene
79-01-6
10
10
Trichloromethane
67-66-3
2.5
2.5
31
Continuation of table 8
Substance
CAS number
Priority
hazardous
substance
AA-EQS
in g/l
AA-EQS
in g/l
MAC-EQS
in g/l
MAC-EQS
in g/l
Biota EQS
in g/kg
wet weight
Watercourses
and lakes
Transitional
and coastal
waters
Watercourses
and lakes
Transitional
and coastal
waters
Surface
waters
0.7
15972-60-8
0.3
0.3
0.7
Atrazine
1912-24-9
0.6
0.6
Chlorfenvinphos
470-90-6
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
Chlorpyrifos (chlorpyrifos-ethyl)
2921-88-2
0.03
0.03
0.1
0.1
N.a.
0.025
0.025
4,4-DDT
50-29-3
0.01
0.01
Diuron
330-54-1
0.2
0.2
1.8
1.8
= 0.01
= 0.005
Cyclodiene pesticides
(total of aldrin,
dieldrin,
endrin,
isodrin)
309-00-2
60-57-1
72-20-8
465-73-6-6
Endosulfan 10
115-29-7
0.005
0.0005
0.01
0.004
Hexachloro-cyclohexane 11
(HCHs)
608-73-1
0.02
0.002
0.04
0.02
34123-59-6
0.3
0.3
122-34-9
0.0002
0.0002
0.0015
0.0015
0.03
0.03
N.a.
N.a.
Isoproturon
Simazine
Tributyl tin compounds
(tributyl tin cation) 3 (TBT)
36643-28-4
Trifluralin
1582-09-8
32
CAS number
Priority
hazardous
substance
AA-EQS
in g/l
AA-EQS
in g/l
MAC-EQS
in g/l
MAC-EQS
in g/l
Biota EQS
in g/kg
wet weight
Watercourses
and lakes
Transitional
and coastal
waters
Watercourses
and lakes
Transitional
and coastal
waters
Surface
waters
7439-92-1
1.2
1.3
14
14
7440-02-0
8.6
34
34
7439-97-6
0.07
0.07
0.1
0.1
0.14
0.014
20
120-12-7
32534-81-9
0.1
0.1
0.0065
g/kg TEQ 2)
Dioxins
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
X
HBCDD
0.0085
0.0063
0.0063
0.12
0.12
30
0.0016
0.0008
0.5
0.05
167
Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB)
118-74-1
0.05
0.05
10
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
0.6
0.6
55
130
130
1763-23-1
0.00065
0.00013
36
7.2
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
N.a.
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.00017
0.00017
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
0.017
0.017
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
0.00082
0.000082
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
193-39-5
N.a.
N.a.
Naphthalene
91-20-3
PFOS
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) 3)
0.27
0.27
0.017
0.017
9.1
74070-46-5
0.12
0.012
0.12
0.012
Bifenox
42576-02-3
0.012
0.0012
0.04
0.004
Cybutryne
28159-98-0
0.0025
0.0025
0.016
0.016
Cypermethrin
52315-07-8
0.00008
0.000008
0.0006
0.00006
0.0006
0.00006
0.0007
0.00007
0.0013
0.000032
N.a.
N.a.
33
0.0000002
0.00000001
0.0003
0.00003
0.0067
0.15
0.15
2.7
0.54
0.065
0.0065
0.34
0.034
Dichlorvos
62-73-7
Dicofol
115-32-2
Heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide
76-44-8/
1024-57-3
Quinoxyfen
124495-18-7
Terbutryn
886-50-0
33
Article 8 of the EC Water Framework Directive obligates the European Union Member States to prepare
programmes for monitoring the status of waterbodies
in order to obtain a cohesive and comprehensive
overview of the status of waterbodies in river basins.
The fundamental requirements governing the moni
toring of surface waters (rivers, lakes, transitional and
coastal waters) are set out in Annex V to the EC Water
Framework Directive. Key aspects here include the
monitoring types and objectives, the choice of monitoring sites, the quality elements to be monitored, and the
required monitoring frequencies (Annex V 1.3). LAWA
drew up the framework concept for the preparation of
monitoring programmes and for evaluating the status
of surface waters" (RAKON) to ensure the coherent
structuring of monitoring programmes in Germany.
The provisions of the EC Water Framework Directive
and several provisions from this framework concept
were incorporated into the 2011 Surface Waters Ordinance.
The EC Water Framework Directive monitoring network
should be designed in such a way as to facilitate Eu
ropean-wide comparability of the analysis results and
an overview of the ecological and chemical status of
surface waters in the river basins. Essentially, the monitoring programmes pursue the following objectives:
These objectives necessitate various forms of monitoring, which will differ in terms of the density of monitoring sites, the number of parameters to be analysed
and the required measurement frequency, depending
on their intended purpose. We distinguish between the
following forms of monitoring:
Surveillance monitoring
Operational monitoring
Investigative monitoring.
34
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional
waters
Coastal
waters
290
67
32
7,252
449
20
100
375
The effects of pressures on the existing organisms often only become apparent much later. For this reason,
status is generally reviewed at least every 3 years. For
macrozoobenthos, at least one sampling per year is
sufficient, and for fish and aquatic plants one to two
samplings per year. Due to its pronounced annual
cycle, phytoplankton must be sampled at least 6 times
per year. Monitoring frequencies are increased if considered necessary for a reliable and accurate statement
on status (see chapter 2.3). The quality elements listed
in Table 5 should be monitored depending on requirements. A quality element in a given type may be exempt from assessment if it proves impossible to define
reliable reference conditions due to the high degree of
natural variability.
35
36
5 Watercourses
5.1 Basis for assessment
5.1.1 Watercourse types
Ecoregion-independent types
37
Intercalibration results
Table 12: Biological quality elements for assessing the ecological status of watercourses and brief description of the assessment method
Biological
quality element
Indicated pressures
Reference literature
Phytoplankton*
(algae species and cyanobacteria
suspended freely in the water)
PHYTOFLUSS
Parameter: Species composition, biomass;
(algae biomass, relative proportion of selected algae groups and type-specific index
value for potamoplankton (TIP index))
Eutrophication
Mischke, U. &
H. Behrendt (2007)
Macrophytes
(aquatic plant visible to the naked
eye)
and phytobenthos (algae species
growing on substrate)
PHYLIB
Parameter: Species composition, species
frequency;
(reference species, disturbance indicators,
acidification indicators, trophic, saprobic
and halobic index)
Eutropication, structural
degradation, acidification
(especially phytobenthos),
salification (especially
phytobenthos)
Macrozoobenthos
(invertebrates, visible to the naked
eye, that live in or on the waterbed)
PERLODES
Parameter: Species composition, species
frequency, disturbance-sensitive species,
diversity; (multimetric assessment method
with the following modules:
"Saprobic condition" (saprobic index),
"general degradation" (stream type-specific
multimetric index), "acidification" (acidification index)
Fish
FiBS
Parameter: Species composition, species
frequency, age structure; multimetric assessment method
Verband Deutscher
Fischereiverwaltungsbeamter und Fischerei
wissenschaftler e.V (2009)
Aquatic flora
Aquatic fauna
38
Intercalibrated national
waterbody type
1.086
0.592
PERLODES (macrozoobenthos)
2, 3, 5, 5.1, 14, 15
0.80
0.60
PHYLIB
(macrophytes and phytobenthos - macrophytes module)
14
0.745
0.495
5, 5.1
0.80
0.55
15, 17
0.575
0.395
0.735
0.540
5, 5.1, 14
0.67
0.43
15, 17 (D 12.2)*
0.61
0.43
15,17 (D 13.1)**
0.73
0.55
10, 20
0.725
0.545
PHYLIB
(macrophytes and phytobenthos - diatom module)
Limit
good / moderate status
*= Watercourses of diatom type D 12.2 (=calcareous or alkaline-rich, organic substrate-dominated small and mid-sized rivers of the north
German lowlands with catchment area < 1,000km)
**= Watercourses of diatom type D 13.1 (=calcareous or alkaline-rich, organic substrate-dominated large rivers of the north German lowlands)
Source: Federal Environment Agency in accordance with Resolution 2013/480/EU
Degree of change
Brief description
unchanged
slightly changed
moderately changed
distinctly changed
The water body structure is significantly influenced by various interventions e.g. in the
bed, bank, by backflow and/or uses in the flood plain
obviously changed
The water body structure is impaired by a combination of interventions e.g. into its
routing, as a result of bank obstruction, transverse structures, dam regulation, flood alleviation installations and/or use in the flood plain.
strongly changed
completely changed
The water body structure has been completely transformed as a result of various
interventions into its routing, bank obstruction, transverse structures, dam regulation,
flood alleviation installations and/or use in the flood plain.
Source: LAWA
39
On small to medium-sized watercourses, the morphological structure is assessed using either the "overview
method" or the "on-site method", whereby both methods are currently being revised and will be merged in
future. Whereas the overview procedure assessment is
based primarily on aerial pictures and thematic maps,
the on-site method, is based on collecting data from
the site. Both methods are based on the recording of
certain parameters. These parameters represent those
structural elements of a watercourse with particular
relevance to assessment and which have certain in
dicator properties that characterise the water bodys
ecological functional capacity. For example, most
lowland waterbodies develop a meandering course
which entails cutting off meanders and oxbows. The
structural quality of a lowland river can therefore be
described in terms of how much its course meanders.
If this is inadequately developed or has been altered by
Table 15: Individual parameters and aggregation levels under the on-site procedure for small and medium-sized water
courses. Individual parameters highlighted in bold are used for reporting under the Water Framework Directive.
Area
Main parameter
Functional unit
Individual parameter
Meandering
Meandering
longitudinal banks
special run structures
Course development
Meandering erosion
Mobility
profile depth
bank obstruction
Transverse banks
flow diversity
depth variance
riverbed
Longitudinal profile
Transverse structures
Anthropogenic barriers
piping
openings
backflow
Substrate type
Bed structure
Cross-section
Bank
Bank structure
Land
Surrounding area
substrate diversity
specialised structures
Bed obstruction
Bed obstruction
Profile depth
Profile depth
Width development
Width erosion
width variance
Profile shape
Profile shape
Bank growth
Bank obstruction
Bank obstruction
Foothills
Source: LAWA
40
Total P
in mg/l
NO3-N
in mg/l
NH4-N
in mg/l
Total N
in mg/l
0.05
1.0
0.04
1.0
I-II
0.08
1.5
0.10
1.5
II
0.15
2.5
0.30
3.0
II-III
0.30
5.0
0.60
6.0
III
0.60
10
1.20
12
III-IV
1.20
20
2.40
24
IV
> 1.20
> 20
> 2.40
> 24
Source: LAWA
Quality
class
41
The interactions between gradient, transport processes, soils and bedrock, together with discharge dynamics, leads to the creation of typical large-scale structures such as meander zones in the lowlands. These
macro-structures are characterised by a mosaic of typical surface forms such as gravel banks and sandbanks,
pools, steep slopes, bayous and side arms, flood channels etc. which are subject to a high level of dynamic.
The diversity of current conditions, including extreme
water levels, and the morphological structures of the
river bed and riparian zones are a pre-requisite for the
occurrence of site-typical flora and fauna communities
which are linked to one another via complex food webs
and flow of matter. Under natural conditions, rivers
and their flood plains are therefore ecosystems with
the greatest richness of species in Central Europe. They
are known as hotspots of biodiversity.
42
Maintenance
Intensivication
Protection
requirement
Protection of
the utilisation
Increasing pressure
Hydromorphological status
Impact on
biological elements
Impact
on utilisation
Feedback
Developing waterbodies for certain uses, and structuring them to allow more effective and reliable usage,
i.e. as independent as possible from natural processes,
opposes the dynamics in the river and floodplain
landscapes. Interventions into watercourses designed
to facilitate human use are essentially aimed at the
following, consistently similar purposes:
for natural fluctuations in water
Toflow,compensate
both at minimum and maximum levels
make a defined volume of water or a defined
Towater
level available, largely independently of
Figure 21: Left-hand diagram: Assessment of the hydromorphological status of various watercourse types (excluding artificial waterbodies); right-hand diagram: Classification into natural and heavily modified waterbodies (reference: proportion
of watercourse length)
Source: Federal Environment Agency; data supplied by LAWA, data source: Reporting tool WasserBLicK/BfG, as of 22 March 2010
61.6
32.7
5.7
NWB
HMWB
AWB
43
44
Influences on the hydrological regime and morphodynamic continuity of watercourses, in addition to direct
river engineering intervention, also have a decisive
effect on the characteristics of the river morphology
(i.e. structure). Watercourse structure refers collectively to all spatial and material differentiations in the riverbed, riparian area and surrounding land which affect
hydraulics, morphology and hydrobiology and which
are significant to the ecological functioning of the river
and its floodplain. The structure of the riverbed and
its riparian environment is also directly modified by
various hydraulic engineering intervention measures
such as dyke construction, straightening, damming or
embankment.
Figure 26: Distribution of floodplain status assessments (rivers with a catchment area > 1,000 km), the structural quality
of watercourses (33,000 km as at 2001), and the structural quality of Federal waterways
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
very slightly changed
moderately changed
distinctly changed
obviously changed
strongly changed
unchangedslightly changed
moderately changed
distinctly changed
obviously changed
stronglycompletely changed
class 1
class 2
class 3
class 4
class 5
Source: Compiled by the Federal Environment Agency using figures supplied by LAWA and the BfN
45
46
Figure 28: Woody debris (left) and bed material from the
terminal and ground moraine (right) as key structural
elements in the lowland rivers (example: Warnow).
5.2.2 Nutrients
1030 kt/a
884 kt/a
708 kt/a
665 kt/a
565 kt/a
594 kt/a
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
point sources
groundwater
drainage
urban areas
erosion
surface runoff
atmospheric deposition
0%
81 kt/a
55 kt/a
32 kt/a
28 kt/a
23 kt/a
26 kt/a
point sources
groundwater
urban areas
erosion
drainage
surface runoff
atmospheric deposition
47
Figure 31: Change in concentration levels of total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen, 2001 2010
versus 19912000 (basis: LAWA network of monitoring
points; mean 90-percentile for the years)
Total
phosphorus
Ammonia
nitrogen
Nitrate
nitrogen
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
II
II-III
III
III-IV
IV
I-II
II
II-III
III
III-IV
IV
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
48
I-II
I-II
II
II-III
III
III-IV
IV
49
50
274 t/a
8.7 t/a
297 t/a
523 t/a
557 t/a
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lead
Erosion
Nickel
Mercury
Zinc
Drainage
Surface runoff
Athmospheric deposition
200
150
100
50
EQS exceeded
nc
Zi
ol
ve
d
ol
ve
d
is s
Th
a
lli
u
,d
is s
ol
ve
d
,d
lve
r
Si
ol
ve
d
EQS met
is s
is s
y,
d
le
n,
d
Se
M
er
cu
r
ol
ve
d
is s
pe
Ni
ck
el
,d
iu
Co
p
om
ol
ve
d
Ch
r
is s
m
iu
m
Ca
d
Le
a
d,
,d
di
ss
Ar
s
en
ic
ol
ve
d
EPA-PAH16 [kg/a]
Atmospheric deposition
2,076
Erosion
1,497
Groundwater inflow
Direct industrial dischargers
385
180
Inland shipping
1,346
Surface run-off
4,505
Drainage
Urban systems
Municipal wastewater treatment plants
Total
28
5,612
1,082
16,711
51
Figure 38: Comparison of annual means in 2009-2011 with the environmental quality standard (EQS) for selected industrial
pollutants (LAWA monitoring points)
Tetrabutyl tin
PCB-180
PCB-153
PCB-138
PCB-118
PCB-101
PCB-52
PCB-28
Octylphenol
Nonylphenol (4-Nonylphenol)
Hexachlorobenzene (Biota)
Dibutyl tin cation
Benzo[g,h,i]-perylene+Indeno[1,2,3-cd]-pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene+Benzo[k]fluoranthene
0
50
100
150
EQS met
EQS exceeded
Figure 39: Comparison of annual means in 2009-2011 with the environmental quality standard (EQS) for selected pesticides
(LAWA monitoring points)
Tributyl tin cation (TBT)
Parathion-ethyl
Monolinuron
Mecoprop
MCPA
Isoproturon
Diuron
Dimethoate
Diflufenican
Dichlorprop
Bentazone
4,4-DDT
2,4-D
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
EQS met
EQS exceeded
52
5.2.5 Pesticides
ty standard proposals with the annual means for 20092011 at LAWA monitoring points reveals isolated incidences where these levels were exceeded in the
case of the human pharmaceuticals carbamazepine
(environmental quality standard proposal = 0.5g/l),
ibuprofen (environmental quality standard proposal =
0.01g/l) and sulfamethoxazole (environmental qual
ity standard proposal = 0.1g/l). The environmental
quality standard are exceeded more frequently in the
case of diclofenac (environmental quality standard
proposal = 0.1g/l). For the veterinary medicine phoxim, there are problems with the limit of quantification.
Figure 40 shows an analysis of these parmaceuticals.
5.2.6 Pharmaceuticals
100
150
50
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Carbamazepine
Diclofenac
EQS exceeded
Ibuprofen
EQS met
Phoxim
Sulfamethoxazole
natural
high
heavily modified
good
moderate
articifial
poor
bad
53
h
Sc
Ei
d
le
Kiel
"
er
v
Tra
Peen
e
w
no
ar
W
Schwerin
Hamburg
"
"
Bremen
Elb
e
"
Ems
Potsdam
Hannover
Od
er
"
"
W
es
"
BERLIN
Magdeburg
er
"
Elbe
Dsseldorf
"
Dresden
"
Erfurt
"
Rh
ein
Wiesbaden Mainz
"
"
Saarbrcken
Rh
ein
"
Stuttgart
"
Donau
Mnchen
"
54
Source: Federal Environmental Agency, Working Group of Federal States on Water Issues (LAWA)
Data source: Portal WasserBLIcK/BfG; last updated 23 March 2010
80,000
90%
60,000
70,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10,000
0
80%
0%
phytoplankton makrophytes / makrozoobenthos
phytobenthos
fish
high
good
moderate
poor
bad
fish
high
good
moderate
poor
bad
55
Figure 46: Percentage distribution of ecological status classes in natural watercourses per watercourse type.
Very large rivers
Baltic Sea tributaries and
Marshland streams (Type 22, 23)
Lake outflows
(Type 21)
Mid-sized and large lowland
rivers (Type 12, 15, 17)
Small lowland rivers
(Type 11, 14, 16, 18, 19)
Mid-sized and large highland
rivers (Type 9, 9.1, 9.2)
Small highland rivers
(Type 5, 5.1, 6, 7)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
100%
90%
high
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
0%
phytoplankton
high
makrophytes / makrozoobenthos
phytobenthos
Biological quality elements
good
moderate
poor
fish
bad
56
moderate
poor
bad
70%
10%
good
80%
maximum allowable concentration is exceeded in isolated cases for cadmium, nonylphenol, benzo[a]pyrene, fluoranthene, isoproturon, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorocyclohexanes and mercury in the period
2009 to 2011, and more frequently for tributyl tin cation.
If the amendments and additions to the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (cf. chapter 4.2.3)
are applied, the environmental quality standard
are exceeded occasionally for lead, cybutryne and
terbutryn, and more frequently for benzo[a]pyrene,
fluoranthene, nickel and PFOS (cf. Figure 48). The
environmental quality standard for the maximum
allowable concentration are exceeded for benzo[a]
pyrene, bifenox, cybutryne, cypermethrin, dichlorvos,
fluoranthene, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide and
PFOS. For hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), dioxins
(environmental quality standard for biota) and brominated diphenyl ether (environmental quality standard
for biota), compliance with the environmental quality
standard cannot be assessed at present.
Figure 47: Assessment of the environmental quality standard (EQS) of the water phase (LAWA monitoring points,
2009-2011)
Trifluralin
Trichloromethane
Trichlorethylene
Trichlobenzene
tributyl tin cation (TBT)
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Simazine
Mercury, dissolved *)
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorobenzene
Octylphenol
Nickel, dissolved
Naphthalene
Isoproturon
Hexachlorobutadiene (Biota)
Hexachlorobenzene (Biota)
HCHs
Fluoranthene
Endosulfan
Drines
Diuron
Dichlormethan
DEHP
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorfenvinphos
Cadmium, dissolved
C10-C13
Lead, dissolved
BDEs
Benzene
Benzo[g,h,i]-perylene+Indeno[1,2,3-cd]-pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene+Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Atrazin
Anthracene
Alachlor
Nonylphenol
DDT overall
4,4-DDT
1,2-Dichlorethane
0
50
100
150
200
EQS met
EQS exceeded
57
Table 18: Reported emissions into water for substances listed in Annex 7 to the Surface Waters Ordinance, reporting
year 2011
Substance
Emissions
into water
Benzene
Lead and compounds
100
kg/a
kg/a
7291.40
kg Pb/a
410.26
kg Cd/a
Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
736.34
kg/a
Dichloromethane
126.90
kg/a
1.38
kg/a
Endosulfan
3.00
kg/a
Fluoranthene
1.80
kg/a
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
1.50
kg/a
5.82
kg/a
12.10
kg/a
EQS exceeded
EQS met
Hexachlorocyclohexane
58
97.10
209.00
li n
ofe
n
Bif
en
Cy ox
bu
Cy tryn
e
pe
rm
eth
rin
Di
ch
lor
vo
s
Di
co
f
He Hep ol
ta
p
cis tach chlo
l
-H
r
ep or ep
tac
o
hlo xide
re
po
xi d
e
P
Qu FOS
ino
xy
fe
Te n
Be rbu
try
nz
o[a
n
]py
Flu ren
ora e
nt
Na hen
e
ph
th
Le
ad alen
,d
i ss e
Ni
olv
ck
el,
e
di s d
so
lve
d
50
Ac
1,2-dichloroethane
150
Unit
Isoproturon
0.002582
27829.20
kg TEQ/a
kg Ni/a
201.40
kg/a
Ocytlphenols and
octylphenol ethoxylates
33.93
kg/a
PAH
34.80
kg/a
166.31
1079.30
kg Hg/a
kg/a
Ecoregion
Geology
Size of lake
Influence of the catchment area and
Stratification properties (cf. Table 19).
Research work is currently ongoing to identify the specific reference biocoenoses (see chapter 6.1.2). When
determining the reference trophic level, for many lake
types, it is expedient to distinguish sub-types based
on the phytoplankton assessment (see phytoplankton
sub-types in Table 24).
The biological quality elements for assessing the ecological status of lakes are invertebrate fauna, fish fauna and aquatic flora. Macrophytes and phytobenthos
have been combined into one assessment element.
Phytoplankton represents the second floristic element.
In order to describe the status of organism groups,
the identified species occurring and the individuals
of each species are counted. In the case of fish fauna,
the age structure of the population is additionally
determined, and in the case of phytoplankton, the biomass of the algae. The various organism groups with
their specific habitat requirements can detect a broad
spectrum of different pressure factors such as eutrophication or structural depletion (cf. Table 20).
59
Table 20: Biological quality elements to assess the ecological status of lakes
Biological quality element
Indicated pressures
Reference literature
Phytoplankton
(algae freely suspended in
water)
Phyto-See-Index (PSI)
Parameter: Biomass and algae classes;
Phytoplankton-Taxa-See-Index (PTSI) and
Profundal-Diatom-Index (DIPROF)
Eutrophication
Macrophytes
(aquatic plant visible to the
naked eye) and phytobenthos
(algae species growing on
substrate)
PHYLIB
Parameter: Species composition, species
frequency of macrophytes and phytobenthos
via reference species, disturbance indicators,
trophic index (in lakes only analysis of diatoms)
Eutrophication,
structural degradation
Macrozoobenthos
(invertebrates, visible to
the naked eye, that live in
or on the lake bottom)
Structural degradation
Fish
Eutrophication,
structural degradation
Aquatic flora
Aquatic fauna
Intercalibration results
Table 21: Ecological quality quotients for intercalibrated national assessment methods
Intercalibrated national classification systems
(biological quality element or
sub-element in brackets)
Intercalibrated national
waterbody type
Limit good/
moderate status
2, 3, 4
0.85
0.69
2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13
0.80
0.60
2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13
0.80
0.60
2, 3, 4
0.76
0.51
10, 11, 13
0.80
0.60
2, 3
0.74
0.47
10, 11, 13
0.80
0.55
60
iting factor for the primary production of phytoplankton. The first quantification of the effects of increased
nutrient discharges was carried out by Vollenweider in
1975, and was tested on various water types within the
context of a 1982 OECD study (cf. Figure 49).
Figure 49: Probability distribution of the trophic classes of a
lake depending on total phosphorus levels (annual means),
after Vollenweider.
Table 22: Total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentration, limit of visibility and trophic levels according to LAWA
(1999) using stratified lakes as an example
Total phosphorus concentration
in spring in g P/l
Total phosphorus
concentration in summer
in g P/l
Chlorophyll a ing/l
in epilimnion
Limit of visibility
[m]
Trophic level
11
3.0
5.88
Oligotrophic
> 11 58
> 8 45
Mesotrophic
> 58 132
> 45 107
> 9.7 17
Weakly eutrophic
> 17 31
Highly eutrophic
> 295
> 250
> 31 56
Weakly polytrophic
> 500
> 500
> 56 100
Highly polytrophic
> 100
< 0.40
Hypertrophic
61
Trophic class
Abbreviation
0.5 1.5
oligotrophic
mesotrophic 1*
m1
mesotrophic 2*
m2
eutrophic 1
e1
eutrophic 2
e2
polytrophic 1
p1
polytrophic 2
p2
> 4.5
hypertrophic
* Sub-dividing the trophic level "mesotrophic" deviates from the original LAWA system
(1999), but can probably be differentiated and justified by biological findings.
62
Table 24: Class limits of the high (reference) and good ecological status for the parameter "total phosphorus" (mean of the
vegetation period); some of the figures given are provisional and will be validated during the course of ongoing research
projects.
Ecoregion
Phytoplankton
lake subtypes or
type groups
Upper limit of
good status
Pre-Alpine
mesotrophic 1 (1,75)
(10-15)
(20-26)
Pre-Alpine
2, 3
2+3
mesotrophic 1 (1,75)
10-15
20-26
Alps
6-8
9-12
Central German
Highlands
5, 7, 8, 9
7+9***
mesotrophic 1 (1,5)
8-12
14-20
Central German
Highlands
6.1
mesotrophic 2 (2,25)
18-25
30-45
Central German
Highlands
6.2
mesotrophic 2 (2,5)
25-35
35-50
Central German
Highlands
6.3
eutrophic 1 (2,75)
30-40
45-70
Central German
Highlands
5, 7, 8, 9
5+8***
oligotrophic (1,75)
9-14
18-25
Lowlands
10
10.1
mesotrophic 1 (2,0)
17-25
25-40
Lowlands
10
10.2
mesotrophic 2 (2,25)
20-30
30-45
Lowlands
11
11.1
mesotrophic 2 (2,5)
25-35
35-45
Lowlands
11
11.2*
eutrophic 1 (2,75)
28-35
35-55
Lowlands
12
12**
eutrophic 1 (3,50)
40-50
60-90
Lowlands
13
13
mesotrophic 1 (1,75)
15-22
25-35
Lowlands
14
14
mesotrophic 2 (2,25)
20-30
30-45
In the very shallow lake type 11.2 (IC type LCB 2), in the reference status and in largely unpolluted lakes, phosphorus re-dissolution processes may lead to significantly higher
concentrations.
** Lakes in river-lake systems with a high retention capacity (e.g. lakes at the start of a chain of lakes) may indicate very high trophic levels in the reference status, in some cases
extending far into the eutrophic class. In such lakes, total phosphorus (TP) concentrations may range between 40 and around 100g/l as a seasonal average.
*** In lakes heavily influenced by humic substances, higher TP levels may occur, particularly as a result of degraded peatlands in the catchment area. Light limitation caused by the
brown discoloration and elevated levels of degradable organic carbon (DOC) may significantly promote heterotrophic phytoplankton species. Under such conditions, the P limits of
the phytoplankton will be undermined, and cases of elevated phytoplankton biomass may occur, despite lower TP concentration levels.
There is currently no uniform mapping and classification method for structural quality that is applicable to
all lake types in Germany. Consequently, unlike watercourses, there is no nationwide mapping of hydromorphological variables in lakes. It is hoped that current
research projects will rectify this deficit. In an initial
stage, a uniform nationwide method will be developed
63
g/l
0.315
45
0.28
40
0.245
35
0.21
30
0.175
25
0.14
20
0.105
15
0.07
10
0.035
Chlorophyll-a (g/l)
Total-P (g/l)
Chiemsee indicates a similar development to Starnberger See (Figure 52). Although this is Germany's
third-largest lake, unlike Starnberger See it has only
a relatively short retention period of one year. Thanks
to good water mixing and a shallow depth, the nutrient situation improved quickly. Wastewater was
discharged into the lake until the late 1980s. Thanks
to improved wastewater treatment technology and the
construction of a perimeter sewage system, the lake
status became weakly eutrophic. At present, the lake is
in the process of transition to a mesotrophic status. As
in Starnberger See, phosphorus is the limiting factor.
2010
2009
2007
* 2008
2005
2006
2003
2004
2001
* 2002
1999
* 2000
1997
1998
10
1995
20
0.07
* 1996
30
0.14
1994
40
0.21
* 1993
50
0.28
* 1991
60
0.35
* 1992
70
0.42
* 1990
80
0.49
1988
90
0.56
1989
0.63
1986
100
* 1987
g/l
0.7
* 1985
mg/l
1983
Year
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
1984
Year
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
64
land were discharged into this water body. Nitrate concentration levels remain unchanged at a high average
level of 2.2mg/l.
40
20
0.21
30
0.14
20
0.07
10
70
60
0.42
50
0.35
2011
2010
*2 2009
2008
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Year
Chlorophyll-a (g/l)
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
Year
2007
* 2006
* 2005
* 2004
* 2003
2002
2000
* 2001
0.28
2011
0.49
2010
40
0.14
80
2009
60
0.28
0.56
2008
80
0.42
90
2007
100
0.56
0.63
2006
120
0.7
g/l
2005
140
0.84
mg/l
2004
160
0.98
2003
1.12
2002
180
2001
g/l
1.26
2000
mg/l
Total-P (g/l)
g/l
mg/l
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
20
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.50
0.43
mean P-concentration
Chlorophyll-a (g/l)
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Year
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
The Edersee Reservoir, a reservoir lake in Hesse, supplies water to the Mittelland Canal and the Oberweser,
and is also used as a local recreation facility and to
generate hydropower. Once again, for many years,
wastewater and emissions from adjacent agricultural
0.36
0.29
0.22
0.14
2011
2009
2008
** 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
0.00
* 2010
0.07
1997
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2002
2.38
2.24
2.1
1.96
1.82
1.68
1.54
1.4
1.26
1.12
0.98
0.84
0.7
0.56
0.42
0.28
0.14
0
2001
g/l
2000
mg/l
Year
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
65
1.6
60
1.4
50
1.2
1
40
0.8
30
0.6
20
0.4
10
0.2
0
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
2000
2004
2011
Year
Chlorophyll-a (g/l)
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
mg/l
40
0.14
20
2011
60
0.28
2010
80
0.42
2009
100
0.56
2008
120
0.7
2007
140
0.84
2006
160
0.98
2005
180
1.12
2004
200
1.26
2003
220
1.4
2002
240
1.54
2001
260
1.68
2000
280
1.82
1999
1.96
1998
300
1997
2.1
1996
g/l
70
1995
80
1994
2
mg/l
1.8
1993
1992
Year
Chlorophyll-a (g/l)
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
0.45
mg/l
0.4
25
0.35
20
0.3
0.25
15
0.2
0.15
10
0.1
5
0.05
0
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
* 2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Chlorophyll-a (g/l)
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
Source: Federal Environment Agency based on data supplied by the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Agency for Environment, Nature Conservation and
Geology
66
Germany's second-largest lake, the Mritz in the Mecklenburg Lakes region, is likewise nitrogen-limited. The
high phosphorus levels associated with the discharge
of wastewater and intensive agricultural activity in
the past have improved since the 1980s, and continue
to do so. Today, the Mritz is classed as mesotrophic
to weakly eutrophic, although the bays still indicate
elevated nutrient concentrations. It can be assumed
that large quantities of phosphorus are still fixed in the
lake sediment, and could be re-released as the oxygen
concentrations decrease.
However, the list also shows that the trophic assessment based on one year's data only partially reflects
the biological water status. For example, in the Mritz
and Plauer See, the strong fluctuations in most pa
rameters and the very different phytoplankton and
zooplankton successions from year to year indicate
that the status of these lake ecosystems changes from
one year to the next.
g/l
** 2011
** 2010
** 2009
2008
10
2007
20
0.07
2006
30
0.14
2005
40
0.21
2004
50
0.28
2003
60
0.35
2001
70
0.42
2002
80
0.49
*2 2000
90
0.56
*2 1999
100
0.63
1998
110
0.7
1997
0.77
Year
Nitrate-N (mg/l)
Total-P (g/l)
Source: Federal Environment Agency based on data supplied by the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Agency for Environment, Nature Conservation
and Geology
The following table (Table 25) lists the trophic assessment for selected lakes since 1990. The graduation of
actual status to reference status is colour-coded as per
the key. Assessment indicates that in almost all lakes,
the actual status is at least one trophic class higher
than the reference status.
67
Lake
Reference
1990
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Ammersee
oligotrophic
Arendsee
oligotrophic
e1
e1
e1
e1
Bodensee
oligotrophic
Brombachsee
oligotrophic
Chiemsee
oligotrophic
e1
Dobersdorfer See
mesotrophic
e2
p1
Edersee Reservoir
oligotrophic
Goitzschesee
oligotrophic
Groer Mggelsee
mesotrophic
p1
e1
e1
e1
e2
e2
oligotrophic
e1
e1
Kochelsee
oligotrophic
Knigssee
oligotrophic
Kummerower See
mesotrophic
e1
e2
Laacher See
oligotrophic
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
Langbrgner See
oligotrophic
Muldestausee
mesotrophic
mesotrophic
e1
mesotrophic
e1
Upper Havel
weakly eutrophic
Ostersee
oligotrophic
Plauer See
mesotrophic
e1
Rappbode Reservoir
oligotrophic
Sacrower See
mesotrophic
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
Scharmtzelsee
mesotrophic
e2
e2
e2
e2
e1
mesotrophic
e1
e1
mesotrophic
e1
e1
Staffelsee
oligotrophic
Starnberger See
oligotrophic
Stechlinsee
oligotrophic
Steinhuder Meer
weakly eutrophic
p2
p2
p2
p2
p2
e2
Tegernsee
oligotrophic
Unterbacher See
mesotrophic
e1
e1
e1
Walchensee
oligotrophic
Wrthsee
oligotrophic
Zeuthener See
weakly eutrophic
reference status1)
oligotrophic
(o)
mesotrophic
(m)
weakly
eutrophic (e1)
highly
eutrophic (e2)
weakly
polytrophic (p1)
highly
polytrophic (p2)
hypertrophic
(h)
oligotrophic
mesotrophic
weakly eutrophic
highly eutrophic
weakly polytrophic
1)
Highly polytrophic and hypertrophic conditions result from human pressures and thus cannot be used as a reference status.
68
Trophic
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
e1
e1
e1
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e1
e2
e1
e1
e2
e2
p1
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e1
e1
e1
e1
e2
e1
e2
e1
e2
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e2
e1
p1
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e1
e2
e1
e1
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e1
e1
e2
e1
e1
e2
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e2
p1
e1
e2
e2
e2
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e2
e2
e2
e1
e1
e1
e1
e2
e1
e1
p2
p1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e1
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
e2
69
6.2.3Ecological status
Among lakes in Germany with an area of more than
0.1 km (of which there are almost 2,000), 871 are assessed under the mapping provisions of the EC Water
Framework Directive (lakes with an area of more than
0.5 km). As a result, to date 553 lake water bodies
(75.9%) have been assessed as natural, 89 (12.2%)
as heavily modified waterbodies and 87 (11.9%) as
artificial waterbodies (cf. Figure 61).
The ecological status of lakes was generally determined on the basis of phytoplankton and macrophytes
or phytobenthos (cf. chapter 6.1.2).
Figure 62: Ecological status of natural lakes, divided according to lake types in Germany (number of water bodies not
assessed: 82)
Total distribution of status classes (ecological status) of lake types
Lowland not layered Specialtype
600
400
Lake type
300
88
14
12
11
13
10
200
100
Alps
Amount waterbodies
500
Lowland
layered
natural lakes
artficial lakes
heavily
modified lakes
2
1
high
good
poor
bad
70
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
moderate
high
good
80
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Amount (n=551)
moderate
poor
bad
Amount waterbodies
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Macrophytes
Phytoplankton
high
good
poor
bad
moderate
71
72
Source: LAWA
73
Phytoplankton
(microalgae)
Area
Bibliography
North Sea
NEA GIG
Parameters: Biomass (Chl a), Phaeocystis
Baltic Sea
Baltic GIG
Phytoplankton indicators for the ecological
classification of Germanys Baltic Sea coastal waters
Parameters: Biomass (Chl a)
Transitional waters
STILLER (2005)
STILLER (2007)
ARENS (2006)
Parameters:
Species diversity, abundance, expansion, zoning
Emerse vegetation
Brackish and salt meadows
Opport. algae
North Sea
Macrophytes
(large algae and
angiosperms)
Helgoland
Parameters:
Species diversity, expansion, depth limit
Baltic Sea,
outer waters
BALCOSIS
Baltic Sea,
inner waters
ELBO
Transitional waters
Parameters:
Depth limit, seagrass & Fucus, opport. algae
Parameters:
Depth limit, characeae and spermatophytes,
loss of plant communities
KRIEG (2005)
Parameters:
Abundance, sensitive taxa, tolerant taxa
North Sea
Macrozoobenthos
(Benthic
invertebrates)
M-AMBI
Parameters:
AMBI index, species diversity, diversity
Helgoland
Parameters:
Species diversity, sensitive taxa, tolerant taxa
Baltic Sea
Parameters:
Species diversity, abundance, sensitive taxa, tolerant taxa
Transitional waters
Fish
FAT-TW
Bioconsult (2006)
Parameters:
Species spectrum, abundance, indicator species
Source: Federal Environment Agency based on the German Marine Monitoring Programme BLMP, 2010
74
Intercalibration results
Table 27 provides an overview of the results of intercalibration following completion of the second (20082011) intercalibration phase for assessment methods
used for transitional and coastal waters of the North
and Baltic Seas. The table includes all successfully
and conclusively intercalibrated assessment methods
(assessment methods from Annex I of the new Intercalibration Decision). According to the latest Intercalibration Decision, all pending intercalibrations must be
completed by 2016.
Table 27: Ecological quality quotients of the intercalibrated national assessment methods
Intercalibrated national classification systems
(biological quality element or
sub-element in brackets)
Intercalibrated national
waterbody type
Limit
Good/moderate status
0.67
0.44
0.80
0.60
0.84
0.62
0.80
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.80
0.60
0.90
0.74
75
Table 28: Overview of descriptors of good environmental status (EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
Qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status
1. Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.
2. Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.
3. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution
that is indicative of a healthy stock.
4. All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.
5. Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.
6. Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in
particular, are not adversely affected
7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.
8. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.
9. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant
standards.
10. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.
11. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.
Source: EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Annex I, 2008
76
2010 saw the publication of the first ever holistic assessment of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea
(HELCOM HOLAS), evaluating data from 2003-2007.
The assessment is based on the ecosystem approach
and considers a number of relevant pressures and their
impacts on marine organisms, and includes the current status of the ecosystem as well as trends. Like the
Water Framework Directive, it uses a five-point evaluation scale. However, the results of this assessment differ from the Water Framework Directive because it uses
different assessment methods, among other things.
77
tors, used, for example, in the Baltic Sea to implement both the Baltic Sea Action Plan and the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive.
Figure 65: German stations for monitoring of biota, sediments and water in the North and Baltic Seas (2008-2011)
78
79
In coastal waters, tidal events are relatively uninfluenced by direct anthropogenic impacts. However,
there are small-scale influences as in the tips of islands
secured by groins, since they divert the flows in their
immediate environment.
80
Considerably stronger impacts are created by the structural measures in the estuaries of the rivers Ems, Weser
and Elbe, where tidal conditions have changed significantly over the past 150 years. The river Weser is a
good example. In the municipality of Bremen, the tidal
range was just under 20 cm before construction work
began on the Lower and Outer Weser at the end of the
7.2.2Eutrophication
7.2.2.1 Inputs
The calculated nutrient loads at the mouths of the rivers Ems, Weser, Elbe and Eider are based on data series
since 1980. Of these, the river Elbe accounts for the
largest portion of nutrient inputs into the North Sea.
The current trend is characterised by a constant reduction in nutrient loads (cf. Figures 66 and 67).
Figure 66: Total nitrogen inputs via Germanys inlets into the
North Sea, 1980-2010
300,000
12,000
10,000
200,000
P-load in t/a
N-load in t/a
250,000
150,000
100,000
6,000
4,000
50,000
0
8,000
2,000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Elbe
Year
Weser
Ems
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Elbe
Year
Weser
Ems
81
2006-2008
2006-2008
2003-2005
2003-2005
1998-2002
1998-2002
1993-1997
1993-1997
1988-1992
1988-1992
1983-1987
1983-1987
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
total nitrogen emission in kt/a
atmospheric deposition
drainage
urban areas
erosion
groundwater
700
800
900
surface runoff
20
30
40
50
total phosphorus emission in kt/a
atmospheric deposition
point sources
drainage
urban areas
erosion
groundwater
60
surface runoff
Total-P
Total-N
Flow rate in million. m3/a
7,000
6,000
35,000
5,000
30,000
Load in t/a
70
point sources
25,000
4,000
20,000
3,000
15,000
2,000
10,000
1,000
5,000
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
phosphorus reductions of 72% (phosphorus) respectively in 2006-2008 compared with the period 19831987 (cf. Figures 71 and 72).
82
10
2006-2008
2003-2005
2003-2005
1998-2002
1998-2002
1993-1997
1993-1997
1988-1992
1988-1992
1983-1987
1983-1987
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
total nitrogen emissions in kt/a
50
60
0.5
70
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
total phosphorus emission in kt/a
atmospheric deposition
atmospheric deposition
drainage
urban areas
erosion
groundwater
surface runoff
urban areas
erosion
groundwater
4.0
surface runoff
point sources
point sources
drainage
3.5
of eutrophication by 2020 at the latest. Despite a significant reduction in nutrient inputs via the rivers that
flow into the North Sea, this ambitious target remains a
challenge.
The first application of the harmonised OSPAR eutrophication assessment was published in 2003. This
report classified the inner German Bight, including
the Wadden Sea, as a problem area. This is connected
offshore to a transitional zone classified as a potential
problem area. The results of the assessment for the
remainder of the North Sea indicate that the southern
North Sea is particularly affected by eutrophication,
together with some large areas along the Norwegian
and Swedish coasts and a number of British estuaries.
The results of the second application of the COMP
procedure were presented in June 2008. The OSPAR
report revealed that the strategic objective of a healthy
marine environment devoid of eutrophication has only
been partially met to date. Of the 204 areas assessed,
OSPAR classified 106 waters, usually close to the
coast, as problem areas, including all coastal waters
of the North Sea (cf. Figure 73). Compared with the
status report of 2003, there was no significant change
83
Table 29: Criteria for assessing the physico-chemical and biological parameters of eutrophication
Category
I
Assessment parameter
Degree of nutrient enrichment
1 Riverine inputs and direct discharges (area-specific)
Elevated inputs and/or increased trends of total N and total P (compared with previous years)
2 Nutrient concentrations
Elevated levels (defined as concentration > 50% above salinity-related and/or region-specific background concentrations)
of winter DIN and/or DIP and total nitrogen and phosphorus
3 Winter N/P ratio (Redfield N/P = 16)
Elevated in relation to natural Redfield ratio (> 50% deviation: > 25)
II
III
IV
84
40
30
20
12 mol/l
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1978
10
1.5
1
0.6 mol/l
0.5
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
50
2.5
1978
60
1936
70
1936
Figure 75: Time series of the concentrations of both dissolved inorganisc nitrogen, DIN (left figure) and phosphate concentrations (right figure) as well as standard errors in winter in the waters of the German Bight in comparison to OSPAR benchmarks
Long-term studies of nutrients and plankton in the German Bight indicate that phosphate induced eutrophication of the German Bight began as early as the 1960s,
partly as a result of the large-scale use of detergents
containing phosphates. Average winter phosphate
concentrations near Helgoland increased sharply until
the mid-1970s. They remained at this level for around
a decade and then fell again (Figure 75) as a result of
measures to reduce phosphate, such as the introduction of phosphate-free detergents and the installation of
phosphate elimination systems in industrial and public
wastewater treatment plants. Winter nitrate concen
trations started to increase sharply in the 1980s, and
85
86
The increase in seagrass meadows in the SchleswigHolstein Wadden Sea is seen as an indication of
decreasing eutrophication, as a constant spread has
been observed since 1994 (>20% coverage) (Figure
79). In August 2011, seagrass beds in the North Friesian Wadden Sea achieved their greatest extension to
date (150km or 16% of the Wadden area). Overall,
seagrass beds in the tidal zone of the Lower Saxony
coast had decreased significantly by 2000-2002. The
most recent mapping in summer 2008 indicates that
stocks have spread by now, but this does not affect all
Figure 78: Wadden area (km2) with > 20% green algae coverage following aerial surveillance of the Schleswig-Holstein
Wadden Sea in sommer time between 1995 and 2012. The
figures given are seasonal maximums
100
90
Wadden area (km2) with
> 20% green algae coverage
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
87
88
Because of the direct inflows from rivers, the Mecklenburg coastal waters and inner bays are far more heavily
polluted with nutrient inputs than the Baltic Sea off
the 1 nautical mile zone. Whereas phosphate levels are
generally two to three times higher than on the outer
coast, nitrate concentrations can exceed the levels of
the offshore Baltic Sea by a multiple. This is particu
larly the case in the rivers Innere Schlei and Unterwarnow, in the lagoon Kleines Haff and in the Pomeranian
Bight. Nutrient concentrations in the inner coastal
Bodden waters have decreased substantially, whereas
in outer coastal waters there has been no significant
decrease since 1997. This is thought to be due to the
remobilisation of large quantities of phosphate from
the oxygen-deficient sediment. For Saaler Bodden, for
example, an external phosphorus input of 17 t contrasts with an internal load of 88 to 212 t. For the open
Baltic Sea, longer data series indicate a rise in nitrate
concentrations up until the late 1980s, followed by a
continuous decrease. Phosphate concentrations follow
this trend but have shown pronounced fluctuations in
recent years.
One well-known effect of eutrophication is increased
algal growth and the associated, aforementioned
potential adverse impacts on the ecosystem. Trend
analyses since 1979 indicate a significant increase in
dinoflagellates and a decrease in diatoms (gravel algae) for the Baltic Sea. Severe blue-green algal bloom
occurs periodically, and huge carpets of algae drift
onto the beaches of Mecklenburg-West Pomeraia and
Schleswig-Holstein (Figure 81). The algal bloom reduces water transparency (secchi depth), e.g. to less than
0.5 m in the estuaries of the rivers Oder and Warnow.
Oxygen deficiency is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the Baltic Sea. However, the frequency, strength
and spread of low-oxygen and oxygen-free zones
(dead zones) caused by excessive nutrient inputs have
increased substantially as a result of human activity. In
the coastal waters of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, as off the Danish coast, ox
ygen deficits in bottom water occur every year during
summer and autumn. Oxygen deficiency in summer
stratified waters has been identified in Mecklenburg
Bight, Lbeck Bight, Kiel Bight and neighbouring
bights and inlets. A recent survey of oxygen levels
in the western Baltic Sea indicates that 68% of all
measured values from stations with more than 15 m
water depth are to be attributed to the categories bad
or unsatisfactory, which means that the water contains
less than 1-2 mg oxygen per litre. Bottom-dwelling
organisms are heavily impaired by the lack of oxygen.
It can take macrozoobenthos up to 4 years to recover from oxygen deficiency events. The underwater
vegetation responds very sensitively to high nutrient
inputs. The associated increased turbidity of the water
column leads to a deterioration in the underwater light
conditions and hence to a reduction in habitats suitable for colonisation. Large algae and flowering plants
are displaced from the deeper sections to the shallow
Source: W. Leujak
7.2.3.1 Inputs
Inputs into the North Sea
Figure 83: Heavy metal inputs via German inflows into the
North Sea between 1990 and 2010
Schwermetallfrachten deutscher Flsse in die Nordsee
(Elbe, Weser, Ems und Eider)
180
Trend in % (1990=100)
130
80
30
-20
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-70
-120
Year
Cd
Hg
Cu
Pb
Zn
systems and residents not connected to the sewer system), erosion and groundwater.
89
Table 30: Inputs of mercury, nickel, cadmium, lead, zinc, copper and chromium from point and diffuse sources in the German catchment area
of the North Sea int/a
atmospheric
deposition
[t/a]
historical
mining
activities
[t/a]
erosion
[t/a]
groundwater
[t/a]
direct industrial
dischargers
[t/a]
surface runoff
[t/a]
drainage
[t/a]
urban areas
[t/a]
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plants
(WWTP)
[t/a]
Total
[t/a]
29
1983-1987
0.64
0.010
0.24
0.28
0.78
0.30
2.3
2.5
1998-2002
0.063
0.010
0.25
0.29
0.13
0.13
0.31
0.53
1.2
2.9
2006-2008
0.067
0.013
0.25
0.29
0.084
0.11
0.30
0.17
0.012
1.3
9.7
17
98
192
179
38
71
125
740
1998-2002
2.9
17
97
197
18
8.0
39
19
68
466
2006-2008
2.7
18
101
193
16
6.0
38
13
39
428
21
11
6.2
53
1983-1987
7.4
2.0
0.91
1.1
3.1
0.59
1998-2002
0.21
2.0
0.94
1.2
0.42
0.73
0.62
1.4
1.9
9.4
2006-2008
0.21
1.5
0.99
1.1
0.54
0.51
0.60
0.57
1.1
7.1
108
6.2
125
157
1.2
253
51
763
1998-2002
8.5
9.0
108
6.4
14
16
1.2
70
25
258
2006-2008
7.0
7.8
114
6.3
15
1.2
43
11
211
1983-1987
54
6.4
210
371
222
170
2814
344
80
1268
822
6300
1998-2002
63
371
228
174
99
194
84
980
419
2612
2006-2008
47
365
240
171
120
122
81
741
405
2292
55
58
398
41
17
156
135
911
1998-2002
8.2
14
57
60
32
41
18
133
101
463
2006-2008
8.0
13
59
59
27
24
17
132
83
421
10
19
38
1983-1987
36
2.7
0.26
126
15
442
106
759
1998-2002
0.82
0.26
127
15
16
3.3
20
9.1
31
222
2006-2008
2.3
0.32
134
15
18
3.9
20
8.4
22
223
90
Table 31: Inputs of mercury, nickel, cadmium, lead, zinc, copper and chromium from point and diffuse sources in the German catchment area
of the Baltic Sea
atmospheric
deposition
[t/a]
erosion
[t/a]
historical
mining
activities
[t/a]
groundwater
[t/a]
direct industrial
dischargers
[t/a]
surface runoff
[t/a]
drainage
[t/a]
urban areas
[t/a]
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plants
(WWTP)
[t/a]
Total
[t/a]
0.34
0.005
0.026
0.001
0.077
0.050
0.13
0.041
0.66
1998-2002
0.022
0.005
0.018
0.001
0.009
0.052
0.030
0.012
0.15
2006-2008
0.019
0.005
0.018
0.001
0.009
0.053
0.007
0.11
6.1
1.0
17
1.2
6.3
4.1
4.1
40
1998-2002
1.2
1.0
12
0.32
0.56
6.6
1.1
1.0
24
2006-2008
1.1
1.1
12
0.21
0.42
6.7
0.80
0.85
23
5.9
0.014
0.10
0.31
0.10
1.0
0.41
7.9
1998-2002
0.077
0.016
0.071
0.022
0.052
0.10
0.084
0.027
0.45
2006-2008
0.068
0.017
0.072
0.018
0.040
0.11
0.033
0.011
0.36
1.9
0.56
0.18
2.0
58
2.5
2.0
0.39
0.89
1.0
0.21
4.4
0.32
12
1.8
2.1
0.39
0.11
1.1
0.21
2.7
0.10
24
1998-2002
2006-2008
16
0.20
14
8.5
111
3.6
15
35
14
71
9.9
259
1998-2002
25
3.9
11
9.5
13
14
61
5.5
143
17
4.3
11
4.2
14
47
5.5
113
44
2006-2008
9.4
1.1
5.3
4.3
2.8
6.9
3.3
1998-2002
1983-1987
20
3.3
1.2
3.6
0.22
2.7
3.0
7.8
2.3
24
2006-2008
3.3
1.3
3.7
0.26
1.8
3.0
8.0
2.0
23
32
1.24
1.7
1.3
1.4
3.3
1.9
3.1
1998-2002
0.32
1.8
0.92
18
0.11
0.29
3.4
0.55
0.28
7.6
2006-2008
0.93
1.9
0.93
0.01
0.30
3.5
0.53
0.28
8.3
Figure 84 a-b: Inputs of selected heavy metals via German rivers into the Baltic Sea int/a, between 1994 and 2010
250
18,000
1200
16,000
14,000
200
12,000
150
10,000
8,000
100
6,000
50
4,000
2,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Hg-load
Cd-load
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2010
Cu-load
Pb-load
Ni-load
Source: Federal Environment Agency using data supplied by the Lnder for reporting under HELCOM, as of 2011
91
North Sea
Figure 85: Mean cadmium levels in sediments in the German North and Baltic Sea areas (2008-2011)
Sampling sites are represented by circles. Only sampling sites with at least 5 samples available from the analysis period
were assessed. The colour indicates the measured concentration range.
92
Figure 86: Mean lead levels in sediments in the German North and Baltic Sea areas (2008-2011)
Sampling sites are represented by circles. Only sampling sites with at least 5 samples available from the analysis period
were assessed. The colour indicates the measured concentration range.
Figure 87: Mean mercury levels in sediments in the German North and Baltic Sea areas (2008-2011)
Sampling sites are represented by circles. Only sampling sites with at least 5 samples available from the analysis period
were assessed. The colour indicates the measured concentration range .
Mercury contamination in seabird eggs generally reflects local-level pollution, as during the formation of
eggs, mercury is ingested by the females via food found
in the immediate vicinity of the breeding ground. The
fact that the mercury levels in silver gull eggs from the
island of Trischen (Wadden Sea in Schleswig-Holstein)
are 2 to 3 times higher than in eggs from the island of
93
Polychlorinated biphenyls
In contrast to the German North Sea region, contamination with organic pollutants in the German Baltic
Sea region tends to be characterised by diffuse emissions from agriculture and point source emissions from
contaminated industrial sites, rather than inputs via
large rivers. Common mussels and eelpout from the
sampling area near Darer Ort are significantly less
contaminated with PCB than samples from the North
Sea.
Baltic Sea
94
Hexachlorobenzene
25
Jadebusen
20
Meldorfer Bucht
ecotoxicological
threshold range
110 g/kg ww
15
10
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
PCB 180
PCB 153
PCB 138
PCB 118
PCB 101
PCB 52
2.0
1.0
0.0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
p,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDT
o,p'-DDT
However, the measured concentrations fluctuated considerably from year to year, and since 2006, concentration levels have tended to rise again (Figure 89).
Jadebusen
3.0
p,p'-DDE
Meldorfer Bucht
4.0
PCB 28
5.0
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1994
1995
1996
1998
p,p'-DDE
1999
2000
2001
2002
p,p'-DDD
2003
2004
2005
p,p'-DDT
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
2012
o,p'-DDT
95
Figure 91: HCH concentrations in the musculature of eelpout in the North Sea (Jade Estuary and Meldorfer Bucht)
Figure 92: HCH concentrations in the musculature of eelpout in the Baltic Sea (Darer Ort)
3.0
3.0
Jadebusen
Meldorfer Bucht
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1994
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
1995
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)
96
4.0
The musculature of eelpout from Meldorfer Bucht indicated a rising trend for -HCH, leading to the highest
measured concentrations ever in 2006 (Figure91).
As -HCH likewise demonstrated a rising trend for
this limited period, increased input via the river Elbe
is assumed to be responsible. Large quantities of contaminated river sediment were released due to flooding
in the Bitterfeld region (Saxony-Anhalt), which may
have reached the German Bight via the rivers Mulde
and Elbe. By contrast, in Jadebusen, the pronounced
downward trend for -, - and -HCH (lindane) in eelpout continued during the monitoring period 1996 to
2012. Meldorfer Bucht likewise recorded a significant
decrease in concentration levels over the same period.
2008
2010
2011
2012
Tributyl tin
The organic tin compound tributyl tin was used predominantly as a biocide (active agent for killing living
organisms) in the manufacture of underwater ship's
paints. These so-called antifouling paints prevent the
growth of mussels, barnacles and algae on the ship's
hull, which are killed upon contact with the toxic
paint. The toxic, poorly degradable tributyl tin released from the paints today contaminates many rivers
and seas, partly as a result of its unintentional effect as
an environmental hormone on mussels and molluscs.
The extensive damage caused to marine organisms by
organic tin compounds became evident in the early
1980s, and was manifested primarily in the fact that
the reproductive capabilities of molluscs and oysters
were reduced or eliminated entirely.
Analyses by the environmental specimen bank revealed relatively constant concentrations of tributyl tin
in common mussels and eelpout from the mid-1980s
to the end of the 1990s, followed by a significant increase towards the turn of the millennium, and a sharp
drop in tributyl tin concentrations since 2004.
g/kg dw
g/kg dw
450
350
400
300
350
250
300
200
250
ecotoxicologially
tolerable
range:
1-10 g/kg
150
200
150
100
The term marine litter refers to all long-lasting, manufactured or processed durable materials that enter the
marine environment because they are discarded or as
ownerless commodities, where they pose a potential
threat to fauna and habitats, and impair the leisure
value of our coastlines. At present, there is no adequate
system for assessing the ecological impacts of marine
litter. Descriptor 10 of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive states that a good environmental status
has been achieved if the properties and quantities of
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
2004
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
year of sampling
year of sampling
1993
1992
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
2004
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1993
1994
1992
1990
0
1988
1986
50
1994
100
50
97
98
Underwater noise emissions may be divided into impulsive and continuous signals. Whereas continuous
emissions permanently increase the natural ambient
noise level, impulsive signals cause a temporary
increase in a marine region's noise level. Relevant
sources of impulsive underwater noise emissions in
the German North Sea include the use of various types
of sonar, noise-intensive construction work associated
with offshore wind farms, seismic activities, explosions
(e.g. from dumped munitions) and the use of acoustic
deterrent devices e.g. in fishing. Shipping, sand and
gravel extraction and the operation of offshore wind
farms are the principal sources of continuous noise
emissions.
Navigation
Seismic studies
Sediment extraction
Explosions
Deterrent devices
The use of acoustic deterrent devices has been mandatory since 2004 (EU Regulation 812/2004) for certain
Table 33: Classification of the ecological status / ecological potential of German surface waterbodies of transitional and coastal waters
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
Ecological Status
Uncertain
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
Uncertain
Benthic invertebrates
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
High
Uncertain
Macrophytes
Good
Moderate
Number
of water
bodies
Poor
Area
Phytoplankton
Bad
Quality element
North
Sea
28
13
11 1
19
18
Baltic
Sea
44
19
16
16
16
20
22
14
99
Poor
32 %
Moderate
64 %
Good
2%
Moderate
32 %
Poor
50%
Figure 95: Assessment of the ecological status oftransitional and coastal waters of the North and Baltic Seas
Source: H.C. Reimers, State Agency for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas (Landesamt fr Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und lndliche Rume)
100
The second National Report (reporting period 20012006) was the first comprehensive report on the conservation status of the habitat types and species listed
in the Habitats Directive. In this report, the conservation status of habitat types as well as of fauna and flora
species were assessed based on the best available information. In view of the very deficient data situation,
a number of species and habitat types were classified
as unknown. Among those that were assessed, the conservation status was predominantly classified as bad
(Table 34). Only the tide area and the seal populations
of the German North Sea are in a favourable conservation status.
North Sea
Baltic Sea
Unknown
Unknown
Estuaries
Unfavourable-bad
Unfavourable-bad
Favourable
Unfavourableinadequate
Coastal lagoons
Unfavourable-bad
Unfavourable-bad
Unknown
Unfavourableinadequate
Reefs
Unfavourableinadequate
Unknown
Grey seal
Unfavourableinadequate
Unfavourable-bad
Harbour porpoise
Unfavourableinadequate
Unfavourable-bad
Common seal
Favourable
Unfavourable-bad
Habitat types/species
101
Figure 97: Summarising overview of the 2012 initial assessment under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive for Germany's marine waters. Green = good environmental status met, Red = good environmental status not met
Features, pressures and impacts
North Sea
Baltic Sea
Biotope types
Not good
Not good
Phytoplankton
Not good
Not good
Zooplankton
Not assessed
Not assessed
Macrophytes
Not good
Not good
Macrozoobenthos
Not good
Not good
Fish
Not good
Not good
Marine mammals
Not good
Not good
Seabirds
Not good
Not good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Sealing
Not assessed
Not assessed
Changes in siltation
Not assessed
Not assessed
Abrasion
Not assessed
Not assessed
Selective abstraction
Not good
Not assessed
Underwater noise
Not assessed
Not assessed
Marine litter
Not good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
EC Water
Framework
Directive
gut
OSPAR
EC Water
Framework
Directive
HELCOM
gut
Contaminants in food
Not good
gut
EC Water
Framework
Directive
EC Water
Framework
Directive
OSPAR
Not good
Not good
Good
Good
Not assessed
Not assessed
By-catch
Not good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not good
Not good
HELCOM
Source: Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety, 2012
102
In June 2009, the German and Dutch part of the Wadden Sea was declared a UNESCO world heritage site,
highlighting the uniqueness of this ecosystem and
acknowledging efforts to date to protect it. Although
Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have been en
deavouring to protect this exceptional landscape since
1982 as part of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Convention,
the 2009 Quality Status Report indicates that the
ecosystem is still exposed to a diverse range of human
pressures, primarily eutrophication, contaminants,
marine litter and fishing. Efforts to reduce nutrient
103
104
nance can help to improve ecological status with a diverse range of small-scale measures. It is advantageous
to "let the water run its course, provided no disad
vantageous impacts on usage are anticipated. In the
longer term, only those hydromorphological changes
which are necessary in order to maintain ecologically
compatible uses should be retained.
Particular attention must be devoted to the contamination of waterbodies with pesticides. In some cases, the
105
106
The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive is a marine conservation Directive with an ecological focus.
The status of the marine ecosystems and the decisive
pressures from invasive species, commercial fishing,
eutrophication, pollutants, marine litter and energy
inputs (such as cooling water and noise) must be assessed. The overarching objective of this Directive is to
achieve or maintain a good environmental status of Eu
ropean marine waters by 2020. An initial assessment
of national marine waters was undertaken in 2012.
The monitoring programmes must be in place by mid2014 at the latest. As with the EC Water Framework
Directive, the description and assessment of marine
ecosystems compared with the type-specific biota occurring in a good status is based on an integrative ecological classification of marine waters. Identification of
the relevant pressures will allow targeted programmes
of measures to be drafted by mid-2016. The results of
the next status assessment of marine waters must then
be presented by 2018. The Federal Government and
coastal Lnder are deploying a joint Secretariat on Marine Protection to coordinate national implementation
of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Essentially, the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive pursues identical objectives to the EC Water Frame
work Directive. Consequently, assessments under both
Directives should complement one another. In coastal
areas, no waterbodies are in a good status. Ambitious
objectives call for ambitious measures, which have
already been taken with the first Management Plan
under the EC Water Framework Directive. However,
there still remains much to do. One thing is clear: far
from all waterbodies will be in a good status by 2015.
Consequently, the next two management cycles under
the EC Water Framework Directive, lasting 12 years in
total, will be crucial in determining the extent to which
a good waterbody quality can be achieved throughout
Europes seas and inland waters.
9 Bibliography
Bibliography for chapter 2
(Basis for the assessment of groundwater
and surface waters)
23.Oktober 2000 zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens fr Manahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich
der Wasserpolitik. Nr. L 327/1, vom 22.12.2000.
107
Mischke, U.; Behrendt, H.: Handbuch zum Bewertungsverfahren von Fliegewssern mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland. WeienseeVerlag. Berlin pp. 1-88.,
2007.
PRTR: http://thru.de/
Schaumburg et al.: Verfahrensanleitung fr die kologische Bewertung von Fliegewssern zur Umsetzung
der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und
Phytobenthos: Stand Januar 2006 im Auftrag der Lnderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser LAWA. Projekt-Nr.
O 2.04., 2006.
108
OECD: Eutrophications of waters. Monitoring, Assessment and Control. OECD report, OECD Paris: 154 pp.,
1982.
Ritterbusch, D. & Brmick, U.: Praxistest Seenbewertung sowie Interkalibrierung Seenbewertung fr Fische
Endbericht im Auftrag der Lnderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (Projekt-Nr. O 2.09.), 1-9 + Anhnge,
2010.
Ostendorp, W., Ostendorp, J., Dienst, M.: Hydromorphologische bersichtserfassung, Klassifikation und
Bewertung von Seeufern. Zeitschrift fr Wasserwirtschaft und Umwelt, 1/2, 8-12, 2008.
109
MSRL TSG Noise. Van der Graaf AJ, Ainslie MA, Andr
M, Brensing K, Dalen J, Dekeling RPA, Robinson S,
Tasker ML, Thomsen F, Werner S: European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive - Good Environmental
Status (MSFD GES): Report of the Technical Subgroup
on Underwater noise and other forms of energy. 2012.
OSPAR (2003): Integrated report 2003 on the eutrophication status of the OSPAR Maritime Area based upon
the first application of the Comprehensive Procedure.
Ospar Commission 2003.
OSPAR (2009): Agreement on CEMP Assessment Criteria for the QSR 2010. Agreement number: 2009-2.
UNEP 2007: Marine litter in the Baltic Sea region. Assessment of the marine litter problem in the Baltic region and priority for response. Helsinki Commission.
21 pages.
110
Wasmund, N., Schppe, C., Gbel, J., von Weber, M.: Chlorophyll-a in den deutschen Ostseegewssern. Meeresumwelt aktuell Nord- und Ostsee
2011/2. Bund-Lnder Messprogramm, 2011.
http://www.blmp-online.de/Seiten/Berichte.html
111
Water Resource
Management
in Germany
Part 2: Water quality
www.facebook.com/umweltbundesamt.de
www.twitter.com/umweltbundesamt