Kerbusch Shiraley.Pdf (2.476Mb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BACHELOR’S THESIS The Barsnesfjord holistic science approach: Implications on the application of the EU Water Framework Directive Shiraley Kerbusch Programme Geology and geohazards Department Environmental sciences Supervisor Dr. Matthias Paetzel Submission Date 01.06.2020 Van Hall Larenstein, Velp, The Netherlands Dutch tudent number 000008965 Email [email protected] Education Forestry and Nature Management I confirm that the work is self-prepared and that references/source references to all sources used in the work are provided, cf. Regulation relating to academic studies and examinations at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL), § 12-1. BACHELOR’S THESIS The Barsnesfjord holistic science approach: Implications on the application of the EU Water Framework Directive Shiraley Kerbusch Programme Geology and geohazards Department Environmental sciences Supervisor Dr. Matthias Paetzel Submission Date 01.06.2020 Van Hall Larenstein, Velp, The Netherlands Dutch student number 000008965 Email [email protected] Education Forestry and Nature Management I confirm that the work is self-prepared and that references/source references to all sources used in the work are provided, cf. Regulation relating to academic studies and examinations at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL), § 12-1. Acknowledgements First, I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Matthias Paetzel. I really appreciate the time he took to help me with my questions and problems. This help has made it possible to complete this report successfully. I would also like to thank Dr. Marianne Nilsen from Høgeskulen på Vestlandet for explaining the formulas used in this report. I would also like to thank Torbjørn Dale for providing the historical data, and the students of “From Mountain to Fjord” 2019 for producing parts of the raw data. Finally, I would like to thank my boyfriend Roger Gjerde for sharing all my frustrations and successes, helping taking breaks, and providing great food while writing this thesis. 3 Abstract The current EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) classification of the Barsnesfjord is “Bad”. The final WFD classification includes within the biological quality elements only the Shannon Index (H’) of benthic macro-invertebrates. The chemical quality elements showed a “Very bad” WFD classification based solely on mercury (Hg) found in fish in the distant Aurlandsfjord and Sognefjord outside Balestrand. The analyses of this classification occured exclusively in space. The improved classification of this thesis increases the amount of quality elements and data. The parameters used for this new Barsnesfjord WFD classification are (a) Biological quality elements: Macro-algae (RSL/RSLA), benthic macro-invertebrates (ES100, H’, NQI 1, ISI2012, NSI), benthic foraminifera (ES100, H’); (b) Chemical quality elements: Inorganic pollutants (trace metals As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Zn) and organic pollutants (PAHs, PCBs, TBT); and (c) Physical quality elements: Oxygen and transparency. The analyses of the improved classification of this thesis occurs in space and, where possible, in time (i.e. benthic foraminifera, pollutants and oxygen). The improved classification of this thesis defines the Barsnesfjord at a “Bad” WFD environmental status with NSI and ISI2012 included, and at a "Very bad" WFD environmental status with NSI and ISI2012 excluded. A reason for excluding the NSI and the ISI2012 is that the classification of these two indexes is a result of few, and thus less reliable data. The improved classification of this thesis also includes a recommendation to define a WFD classification for “Naturally oxygen deficient fjords”, to help controlling the economic aspects involved in the WFD demand of converting the environmental status from “Bad” into “Good” in the Basnesfjord. Further, the Sogn og Fjordane County Municipality confirmed that the government only has limited knowledge of the current WFD status of the Barsnesfjord. During an interview, two points emerged to increase the awareness of the authorities involved in water management: • Producing more knowledge about sources and source areas of the parameters leading to the “Bad” environmental status of the Barsnesfjord. This would increase the pressure on politicians and managers to act. • Make people who work directly or indirectly with water in Norway more aware of the EU Water Framework Directive. This would allow the authorities to incorporate the WFD demands into their own management plans, and thus into their budget. Finally, this thesis points out beneficial values for the local society, as possible tools in a WFD based water management. The recommendations based on the results of this thesis are: • Including a classification for “Naturally oxygen deficient fjords” in the Barsnesfjord environmental investigation, thus lowering the costs involved in converting the environmental conditions in the Barsnesfjord from a “Bad” to a “Good” environmental status. • Starting a campaign on the recreational value of a clean fjord environment to increase the interest of local people in the environmental issues of the Barsnesfjord. • Focusing on those parameters that need improvement. • Setting their first priority on stopping further deterioration. 4 Table of contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... 10 List of appendixes ................................................................................................................................. 14 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 15 1.1 General introduction ................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Problem description and analyses .............................................................................................. 17 1.2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 17 1.2.2 Objective explanation .......................................................................................................... 18 1.3 Environmental setting ................................................................................................................. 19 1.3.1 Fjords .................................................................................................................................... 19 1.3.2 The Barsnesfjord .................................................................................................................. 21 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.1 Introducing WFD quality elements ............................................................................................. 23 2.2 Sampling of quality elements...................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Biological quality elements ......................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Biological quality element macro-algae ............................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Biological quality element soft bottom fauna – Benthic macro-invertebrates ................... 33 2.3.3 Biological quality element soft bottom fauna – Benthic foraminifera ................................ 38 2.4 Chemical quality elements .......................................................................................................... 41 2.4.1 Chemical quality elements – Inorganic pollutants and classification .................................. 41 2.5 Physical quality elements ............................................................................................................ 45 2.5.1 Physical quality elements – Oxygen and transparency ........................................................ 45 2.6 Interview ..................................................................................................................................... 48 3. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 50 3.1 Biological quality elements ......................................................................................................... 50 3.1.1 Macro-algae environmental condition ................................................................................ 50 3.1.2 Benthic macro-invertebrate environmental conditions ...................................................... 51 3.1.3 Benthic foraminifera environmental conditions .................................................................. 53 3.2 Chemical quality elements .........................................................................................................