HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and
aboundance / Benthic community
Contributions by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
NOTE that part e (the monitoring concept table) has not been filled in.
Contents
HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and aboundance / Benthic community ............ 1
ESTONIA: HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and aboundance / Benthic
community......................................................................................................................................................... 2
a.
General information on programme topic and sub-programmes ........................................................ 2
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species ........................................................................................................... 4
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements............................................................................................ 4
f.
Gaps in monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 5
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna ............................................................................................................... 6
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements............................................................................................ 6
f.
Gaps in monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 7
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora ................................................................................................................. 8
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements............................................................................................ 8
f.
Gaps in monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 9
LATVIA : HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and aboundance / Benthic community
......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
a.
General information on programme topic and sub-programmes ...................................................... 11
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species ......................................................................................................... 12
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.......................................................................................... 12
f.
Gaps in monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 13
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna ............................................................................................................. 14
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.......................................................................................... 14
f.
Gaps in monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 15
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora ............................................................................................................... 16
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.......................................................................................... 16
f.
Gaps in monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 17
LITHUANIA: HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and aboundance / Benthic
community....................................................................................................................................................... 18
a.
General information on programme topic and sub-programmes ...................................................... 19
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species ......................................................................................................... 20
1
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.......................................................................................... 20
f.
Gaps in monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 21
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna ............................................................................................................. 22
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.......................................................................................... 22
f.
Gaps in monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 23
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora ............................................................................................................... 24
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.......................................................................................... 24
f.
Gaps in monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 25
ESTONIA: HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species
distribution and aboundance / Benthic community
a. General information on programme topic
and sub-programmes
Describe briefly in full sentences the monitoring programme topic and the associated Sub-programmes. E.g.
indicate the purpose of monitoring and whether the programme topic and sub-programmes:

cover physical/chemical/biological parameters

concerns mobile species/water-column-habitats/seabed habitats/pressures/human activities

specify the ecosystem components and the parameters that are addressed by the sub-programmes

specify HELCOM core and pre-core indicators that are based on parameters measured in the subprogrammes.
Programme topic: Species distribution and abundance / Benthic community
The monitoring purpose is to gather information on species composition, abundance and biomass.
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species
In Estonia hardbottom species are monitored in the framework of phytobenthos monitoring programme
designed primeraly to cover needs of reporting for WFD. So three transects in each coastal waterbody are
sampled along the depth gradient from surface to deepest distribution limit of vegetation. Quantitative and
qualitative parameters of species and communiteis are sampled and measured. Bottom substrate quality,
presence of and amount of loose sediment are recorded from abiotic factors. Sampling frequency depends
on the characted of the waterbody. Sampling is carried out once a year every year for waterbodies
belonging to operational monitoring programme (4 waterbodies, 12 transects altogether) + 4 additional
transects to follow longterm dataseries (starting from 1994). Sampling is carried out once a year during at
minimum of one year per assessment period (6 years assessment cycle) for waterbodies belonging to
2
surveillance monitoring programme (12 waterbodies, 36 transects altogether). Sampling and observation
methods include SCUBA diving and UW “drop” video recording. From collected data following indicators are
calculated: maximum depth distribution of vegetation, maximum depth distribution of Fucus vesiculosus,
share of perennial species in the communities, multimetric indexes as FDI, KPI are calculated. Monitoring
programme for harbottom outside the coastal waters is not developed at the moment, monitoring method
for following the distribution and quality of HD Annex I habitat types (including hard substrate) is under
development.
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna
Monitoring programme of softbottom fauna is in operation following the methodological requirements of
HELCOM COMBINE manual. Monitoring activities are divided between two programmes – Open sea
monitoring, covering sea areas outside of the coastal waters (1 nm zone seawards from baseline) – in 2014
totally 20 stations, and operational and surveillance monitoring covering coastal waterbodies (3 stations per
waterbody, in total 48 stations). Sampling frequency depends on the type of monitoring – operational
monitoring and open sea monitoring programme sampling is carried out every year once a year. In
surveillance monitoring sampling is carried out at minimum once per assessment period (6 year cycle).
Sampled parameters include species abundance and dry weight biomass. From abiotic parameters
granulometry of sediment and presence absence of H2S is recorded. From processed data multimetric
idexes as ZKI are calculated.
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora
There is no softbottom flora monitoring programme in place yet. Monitoring programme and methods to
cover distribution and quality of HD Annex I habitat types (including soft and mobile substrate) is under
development.
3
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
Analysis is not yet done. Elaboration of national programme is scheduled to the second quarter of
the year 2014. Currently tender on the performing of this analysis is announced (contracts not yet
signed).
4
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
As analysis is not yet done, the indentification of gaps is not possible in full extent. Main gaps
include geographical coverage of sampling (hardbottom outside of coastal waters is not covered by
monitoring programme). Gaps are also in used indicators.
5
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
Analysis is not yet done. Elaboration of national programme is scheduled to the second quarter of
the year 2014. Currently tender on the performing of this analysis is announced (contracts not yet
signed).
6
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
As analysis is not yet done, the indentification of gaps is not possible in full extent. Main gaps
include geographical coverage of sampling.
7
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
Analysis is not yet done. Elaboration of national programme is scheduled to the second quarter of
the year 2014. Currently tender on the performing of this analysis is announced (contracts not yet
signed).
8
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Currently main gap is absence of this kind of data collection.
9
LATVIA : HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species
distribution and aboundance / Benthic community
Contents
HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and aboundance / Benthic community ..... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
a.
General information on programme topic and sub-programmes .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
e.
Gaps in monitoring (do not fill in questions marked in grey yet) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
e.
Gaps in monitoring (do not fill in questions marked in grey yet) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
10
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
e.
Gaps in monitoring (do not fill in questions marked in grey yet) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a. General information on programme topic
and sub-programmes
Describe briefly in full sentences the monitoring programme topic and the associated Sub-programmes. E.g.
indicate the purpose of monitoring and whether the programme topic and sub-programmes:

cover physical/chemical/biological parameters

concerns mobile species/water-column-habitats/seabed habitats/pressures/human activities

specify the ecosystem components and the parameters that are addressed by the sub-programmes

specify HELCOM core and pre-core indicators that are based on parameters measured in the subprogrammes.
Programme topic: Species distribution and abundance / Benthic community
The monitoring purpose is to gather information on species composition, abundance and biomass.
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species
In Latvia there is no monitoring of hardbottom species. Only small-scale mapping/survey activities are
performed irregularly.
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna
The monitoring program is conducted every year. Around 43 stations are sampled once per year, in May.
From each station 3 replicate samples are taken by Van Veen grab sampler (sampling area 0.1 m^2). Species
composition, abundance and biomass is analyzed by microscope.
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora
Not relevant since in Latvia’s coastal waters natural physical forcing precludes forming of soft bottom flora
community.
11
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
12
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Main gap is that there is no monitoring
13
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
This analysis is not done
14
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Can not be filled in since analysis in section “d” is not done
15
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
Not relevant
16
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Not relevant
17
LITHUANIA: HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species
distribution and aboundance / Benthic community
Contents
HELCOM Monitoring Programme topic: Species distribution and aboundance / Benthic community ..... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
a.
General information on programme topic and sub-programmes .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
e.
Gaps in monitoring (do not fill in questions marked in grey yet) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
e.
Gaps in monitoring (do not fill in questions marked in grey yet) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
18
d.
Monitoring and assessment requirements.............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
e.
Gaps in monitoring (do not fill in questions marked in grey yet) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
a. General information on programme topic
and sub-programmes
Describe briefly in full sentences the monitoring programme topic and the associated Sub-programmes. E.g.
indicate the purpose of monitoring and whether the programme topic and sub-programmes:

cover physical/chemical/biological parameters

concerns mobile species/water-column-habitats/seabed habitats/pressures/human activities

specify the ecosystem components and the parameters that are addressed by the sub-programmes

specify HELCOM core and pre-core indicators that are based on parameters measured in the subprogrammes.
Programme topic: Species distribution and abundance / Benthic community
The monitoring purpose is to gather information on species composition, abundance and biomass.
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species
Hard bottom monitoring is performed in accordance to WFD in one coastal type (down to 15 m
depth) since 2007 every 3 years. Diving protocol is harmonized with HELCOM COMBINE as well
as Lithuanian standard methodology LST EN ISO 19493:2007 and used to estimate single
parameter - maximum depth of perennial red algae Furcellaria lumbricalis in one transect.
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna
The monitoring program is conducted at 14 stations, 12 stations are being sampled every year and 2
stations at least once per three years in May. From each station 3 replicate samples are taken by Van
Veen grab sampler (sampling area 0.1 m^2). Species composition, abundance and biomass is
analyzed by microscope.
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora
Not relevant due to absence of soft bottom flora in the Baltic Sea Lithuanian waters.
19
Sub-programme 1: Hardbottom Species
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Analysis was partly done during the first phase of MSFD implementation. Increase of spatial
resolution to 7 sites at least (down to 20 m depth) is suggested with annual sampling frequency.
Maximum distribution depth of F. lumbricalis is assigned as state indicator to Eutrophication
descriptor. Its effectiveness has been estimated by expert judgment in terms of causal relationships
with the pressure (medium), overlay with other indicators (medium) and sensitivity to reflect the
pressure (low).
20
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Gaps to hard bottom species monitoring: no hard bottom macrofauna monitoring. Hard bottom
macrofauna sampling based on Kautsky frame sampling was suggested for development (in
phytobenthos sampling sites), however deadline for this has not been defined yet.
Gaps to existing monitoring of maximum distribution depth of F. lumbricalis: limited number of
transects, low temporal resolution, methodology.
21
Sub-programme 2: Softbottom fauna
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
So far elaborated WFD indicator based on macrofauna species richness does not fulfill all the
requirements set by Directive guidelines. Benthic quality index (BQI) is partly elaborated for
coastal waters and should be completed by June 2014. It is seen as the main soft bottom macrofauna
based indicator relevant to Eutrophication and Seafloor integrity MSFD descriptors, however
unclear index behavior in a context of different factors has been noticed. Furthermore, index
development is lacking data from regional eutrophication gradient, therefore limited index
sensitivity can be expected.
22
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Gaps have not been analysed yet, but should be defined as soon as benthic quality index will be
completed (June 2014).
23
Sub-programme 3: Softbottom flora
d. Monitoring and assessment requirements
Outline the monitoring that is required (number of stations, frequency sampling, and replication) to fulfill
the assessment of, depending on purpose of sub-programme:

State/impacts: the environmental state and its distance from, and progress towards, good status
under BSAP and MSFD (Q5b), OR

Pressures: the progress towards achieving environmental targets (MSFD Art. 10) and objectives of
the BSAP (Q6a), OR

Follow-up of measures: suitability and effectiveness of measures (Q7c).
In the analysis, take into consideration:

Core indicators and pre-core indicators that are based on the parameters monitored as part of the
sub-programme, taking into account also the assessment units where the indicator is applicable
(see HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Attachment 4)

MSFD Descriptors and criteria

HELCOM assessment tools and their requirements (e.g. aggregation rules),

the appropriate spatial scale of monitoring considering the natural spatial variability of the
parameter(s) included in the sub-programme,

the appropriate time scale of monitoring considering the natural temporal variability of the
parameter(s) and the expected response time of indicators that build on the parameters.
Click here to enter text.
Not relevant
24
f. Gaps in monitoring
Based on the required monitoring for assessment outlined in section d) and existing or planned monitoring
described in section e), give an indication of gaps or needs to revise the current monitoring. Consider if the
sub-programme reliably supports an assessment of the state of the relevant indicator(s) at the HELCOM
assessment unit level selected in the previous question of the template.
Clearly indicate if identified gaps refer to the existing coordinated monitoring or whether it refers to the
need to plan new coordinated HELCOM monitoring programmes (i.e. monitoring not yet included in
COMBINE, MORS or PLC).
Click here to enter text.
Not relevant
25