MEETING MINUTES 1 (8)
Datum Diarienummer 2014-03-28 1590-2014
Meeting about harmonizing status classification of border water bodies (lakes, rivers, groundwater, coastal water) in International Torne River Basin District
January 22-23, 2014 at Sve-Fi Folkhögskolan, Haparanda
Participants: Pekka Räinä, Petri Liljaniemi, Annukka Puro-Tahvanainen, Eira Luokkanen (ELY-centre in Rovaniemi) Malin Kronholm, Emma Palmgren, Henrik Larsson (County Administration of Norrbotten/Water Authority of the BB district) Virve Sallisalmi, Camilla Ahlstrand (Finnish-Swedish River Border Commission)
The purpose of the meeting was to harmonize classification of border water bodies in Torne RBD including coastal areas. An international River Basin Management Plan was also discussed. After the meeting a common agreement shall be produced which summarize the harmonized classification.
Personnel
Eira Luokkanen from ELY-centre will work with the common products for Torne river.
Norrbotten has finally got a verbal decision from HaV to save money from 2013 to hire a person. An announcement will soon be published, a person can start work in April the earliest.
Common management plan
Finland raised a question from last meeting if one or two common products will be produced? Finland want that only one common “International River Basin Management Plan” (IRBMP) will be produced including a summary of classification and measures. Malin takes the question further to Lisa Lundstedt. Comment 2013-02-04: Sweden accept to produce one common IRBMP. The document has to include concrete measures and not be too general when comes to meausures. The target is to have the document ready for the hearing period (Oct/Nov 1st 2014), if possible. There will be no national confirmation but FSFRC shall adopt/reject (tillstyrka/avstyrka, vahvistaa/hylätä) the document according to the Frontier River Agreement which came into force October 1st, 2010 (see FSFRCs tasks, Art. 10 in Gränsälvsöverenskommelsen/Rajajokisopimus or in English). In opposite to the national c:\internet\vesienhoito\minutes_from_2nd meeting_fi_swe_irbd.docx POSTADRESS BESÖKSADRESS TELEFON TELEFAX E-POST INTERNET 971 86 LULEÅ Stationsgatan 5 010-225 50 00 0920-22 84 11 [email protected] www.lansstyrelsen.se/norrbotten 2 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
RBMPs the common document is not legally binding in Finland nor Sweden. The common document will be produced in Finnish and Swedish. Working language would be English.
Translations
Translations of at least the summary of the common international RBMP into saami and Meänkieli? Also into English? Funding for translations is still unclear.
Translations of the summary in the national RBMPs (Torne river district in FI/Bothnian Bay district in SW) has to be done. Finland translate into Swedish and Saami. Sweden check up into which languages the translations has to be done, into Finnish, Saami and even Meänkieli?
Timetable
A draft of common management plan should be ready by the beginning of November and ready by the end of the year 2014.
Water bodies
Rivers and lakes
Sweden use the same criteria for water bodies as 2009 – for Torne river this means lakes >0,5 km2 and rivers with a catchment area > 10 km2.
Finland has changed the criteria for water bodies since 2009, when rivers >200 km2 and lakes >5 km2 were defined as water bodies and classified. The criteria is now for rivers >100 km2 and for lakes 0,5 km2.
The delineation of the border water bodies were harmonized by a common agreement in 2008. Anyhow, as a result of the new criteria in Finland, there are three small lakes in the upper parts of Muonioälven - Taatsajärvi, Kiellijärvi and Ainavarppijärvi, that are defined as water bodies in Finland but not in Sweden. Taatsajärvi and Kellijärvi can be found as “other water bodies” in Sweden, though not classified. The meeting decided to not change the delineation of water bodies. These lakes doesn´t impact the delineation of the river water bodies in Finland. At this stage Finland will keep the small lakes as water bodies, but if needed, changes can be made. They are all classified as high status.
Groundwater
There are some small groundwater bodies which looks to be common between the countries, but none of the WBs are at risk and all are in good status. There is a difference in the method of delineating groundwater bodies. Finland has three classes of WBs: 1: used for water supply, 2: suitable for water supply, 3: needs further investigations. Only 1 and 2 are classified. Sweden has not strictly delineated according to drinking water supply. Perhaps this has to be explained in the common management plan. Each country consult experts and come back with some comments. 3 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
Coastal water
No changes, the water bodies are the same as last cycle.
Ecological status
Rivers and lakes
Compared to last classification 2009, when status in Sweden was based on an impact analysis, the Swedish classification is now based on data and evaluation according to quality criteria. Water chemistry, phytoplankton, benthic fauna, hydro-morphological quality elements (partly modelled) and occurrence of hazardous substances (not priority substances) have been evaluated for water bodies where monitoring data has been available. Water bodies modelled into moderate status in 2009 have been prioritized to verify with additional data. New quality criteria for hydro-morphological quality elements have been used (HVMFS 2013:19). Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten has also presented preliminary limit values for specific pollutants which are not priority substances (Hav Dnr 3383-13).
The Finnish classification is based on data and evaluation in accordance to quality criteria; water chemistry, phytoplankton, periphyton, benthic fauna and fish, for water bodies where monitoring data is available. The mean value for the different parameters decided the combined classification of ecological status together with expert judgement and data on pressure. All guides for the WFD work in Finland can be found on the Internet (in finnish). There are differences in the overall ecological status in the Torne river basin that mainly originate from the different approach of hydro-morphological classification. In Sweden the hydro-morphological status is based on connectivity, hydrological regime and morphology. The hydro-morphology is allowed to affect ecological status (by expert judgement) with the motive that biological elements are affected by the physical changes in the water body although there’s no available biological data approving this. The method is basically the same in Finland but without biological data hydro- morphological alterations have not automatically led to lower ecological status. The border water bodies can be harmonized, but in the catchment area in general harmonization of these differences is not possible at this phase, due to national guidelines and differences in data. The differences have to be explained in the common management plan.
There is also a difference in the border river due to measured Uranium concentrations in Sweden (mandatory control in Muonioälven), where the concentrations are higher than suggested limit values, see table 1. There’s not enough data for background values available at the moment, so Uranium will at this phase be taken away from the classification. The meeting agreed that available data will be collected and checked through and more data gathered if needed to figure out the background values and the Uranium subject will be dealt with later on.
Table 1 and 2 show the border water bodies (lakes, rivers) and agreed status with motives/comments. 4 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
Table 1. Border rivers.
SW code SW name FI code FI name SW Ecol. State FI Ecol. State Common Motive agreement SE764611-171769 Muonioälven 67.600_003 Könkämäeno Yläosa High High High OK, same as 2009., SE762231-174295 Muonioälven 67.600_002 Könkämäeno Keskiosa High High High OK, same as 2009. SE761107-175959 Muonioälven 67.600_001 Könkämäeno Alaosa High High High OK, same as 2009. SE755505-182645 Muonioälven 67.300_001 Muonionjoki Moderate High High? Status was high in 2009. SW status now moderate because of exceeding suggested limit value of Uranium (0,07 µg/l, water, HaV Dnr 3383-13). Because of no knowledge about background levels SW so far take away the classification of uranium and won’t let the overall ecological status be affected.
When disregarding uranium, ecological status turns into good status in SW based on HYMO.
Status was 2009 good in SW and High in FI (although it was decided to classify as high = mistake from SW).
Relevant to classify as high status? At least not lower status than Torne river. Emma and Petri discuss further and agree on harmonized classification. SE739989-185170 Torneälven 67.100_001 Tornionjoki High High Good Status 2009 was good. Now high status in SW is wrong, shall be good according to HYMO. FI has raised the status to high since last time due to more data, FI does not classify HYMO the same way as in SW.
Agreed on good status. Is more relevant than high status, because of more Impact on this part of the border than in the upper Muonioälven. This is in will accordance with data.
Table 2. Border lakes SW code SW name FI code FI name SW Ecol. State FI Ecol. State Common Notes agreement SE765824- Kilpisjärvi 67.640.1.001 Kilpisjärvi High High High Ok, high status 2009. 170238 67.630.1.036 Taatsajärvi High High High In SW included in Muonioälven (Muonioälven) SE764611-171769 67.630.1.034 Kiellijärvi High High High ” (Muonioälven) 67.622.1.003 Ainavarppijärvi High High High ” (Muonioälven) SE763031- Naimakkajärvi Naimakkajärvi Good High High High status in 2009. Now Good 173609 67.622.1.001 5 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
status in SW due to HYMO, in fact a bridge of Kilpisjärvi-road crossing the lake. The bridge has no impact on the lake, high status is therefor relevant. SE761321- Kelottijärvi Kelottijärvi High High High Ok, highs status in 2009. 175397 67.610.1.014
Groundwater All water bodies are in good status and not at risk.
Coastal water
The inner parts outside Torne river are classified as moderate in both countries, due to impact from eutrophication (data of nutrients and chlorophyll, in Finland also zoobenthos). Sweden has only modelled data from this area, but the results from the models are in well accordance to sampled data from the Finnish side. Annukka sends the data from Outokumpu, which can be used as reference also in Sweden.
There are differences in the classification of the outer coastal water, which have to be further investigated. The outer parts of northern Bothnian Bay is classified as high in Sweden and moderate in Finland. By the time of the meeting, zoobenthos hadn’t been classified in Sweden for the water body “Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten”. Anyhow, results of zoobenthos show with good reliability on good status and the status will therefore be revised after the meeting on the Swedish side. In Finland both zoobenthos and phytoplankton data show moderate status in the outer coastal water body. However, the physico-chemical status based on total nutrients and secchi depth is good. Ecological status being moderate doesn’t seem realistic; maybe the Finnish classification doesn’t take enough into account the special characteristics of Northern Bothnian Bay. This has to be investigated further and data as well as the background of the quality criteria has to be exchanged. A background document will be written to be used for information exchange and negotiations with the responsible parties on national level, in order to harmonize the classification.
The results from the common project about hazardous substances in Bothnian Bay still has to be classified and harmonized for ecological and chemical status.
Data exchange: o Finland send to Sweden the Outokumpu data for the stations on Swedish side. These data can be used as a reference also in Sweden. o Zoobenthos data from both countries to cross analyze them according to the other nations guidelines. o Finland send the excel sheets to Sweden to fill up the information on limit values of the quality criteria.
6 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
Table 3. Border Coastal waters SW code SW name FI code FI name SW Ecol. State FI Ecol. State Common Notes agreement SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden 6_Ps_002 Röytta sisä Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate status 2009. Due to sek namn eutrophication (data of nutrients and chl-a) SE654130-249500 Katajafjärden 6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko* Good Moderate To be Good status 2009 (SW), further moderate status in FI due to investigated zoobenthos and phytoplankton. harmonized Modelled data in SW results in good status 2013.
SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden 6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko* Good Moderate To be Good status 2009 (SW, further moderate status in FI due to investigated zoobenthos and phytoplankton. and Modelled data in SW results in harmonized good status 2013. SE652400-223501 Norrbottens 5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko High Moderate Will be Good status 2009 (SW/FI). High skärgårds changed into status 2013 in SW based on kustvatten ** good status models, but this status will be in SW. Good change into Good status based status more on zoobenthos, which by time of realistic than the meeting hadn’t been moderate? classified. To be further Moderate status 2013 in Finland investigated due to zoobenthos and and phytoplankton. Now also harmonized. biomass of phytopl. evaluated, last time only chl-a. Moderate status is not seemed as realistic? Has to be investigated further. SE652400-223501 Norrbottens 4_Pu_040 Hailuoto-Kuivaniemi High Moderate Will be skärgårds changed into kustvatten ** good status SW. Good status more realistic than moderate? To be further investigated and harmonized. *Tornio ulko covers two water bodies in Sweden **Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten covers two water bodies in Finland
Chemical status
Classification in Finland is not finalized yet. In the Swedish border lakes and rivers only mercury is classified as not good chemical status. There’s not so much data, but the available data for metals has good status. In the border coastal waters PBDE and mercury are classified as not good chemical status. At this stage Sweden is using the revised limit values set by the revised prio-directive (2013/39/EU) and Finland the old prio-directive (2455/2001/EG). This leads to different classification of PBDE in the coastal area (Haparandafjärden). The new priority substances will be classified by 2018. On Finnish side interpretation of results has been considered difficult as for example detection levels with different PBDs have been higher than the EQS + due to analytical issues
7 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
PBDE
Basically all samples of PBDE (biota) in both freshwater and coastal waters in Sweden are above the limit value, due to a strict new limit value in biota. In Finland PBDE is not a problem as long as the old limit values in water are used. The classification cannot be changed and the difference has to be explained in the common management plan. The fact that the countries have different approach to the revised directive has to be raised to the responsible authorities on national level.
Mercury
Sweden doesn’t use the background value and Finland does. This leads to different status in Torne River area, in fact all water bodies in Sweden are classified as not good status based on mercury (extrapolation). The Torne river is classified as good chemical status in Finland. The background level used in Finland is 0,18-0,23 mg/kg (limit value is background value + 0,02 mg/l (EQS)) depending on different water types. Background values in Finland are based on mercury measurements carried out earlier in Finland. On the basis of these measured mercury levels, the background values were calculated. Mercury levels in Lapland are very close to those background values. At first Sweden will raise the issue on their side, can this be changed? Finland send the document for the background levels of mercury (in Finnish). Discussion will be continued. If the classification cannot be changed due to different use of background levels this has to be explained in the common management plan.
Other issues Malin will discuss with Lisa Lundstedt how Sweden shall inform HaV about the progress in the international district. Finland send minutes to the ministry.
Environmental impact assessment for the whole IRBD has to made. Malin will take this to Lisa to be discussed with HaV, Pekka will discuss this with the Ministry of Environment.
Measures still has to be harmonized, preferably on a physical meeting. The contents of the common IRBMP can be outlined when SW has hired extra personnel. Pekka sends a draft of the contents for a common plan between Norway and Finland.
8 (8)
Datum Diarienummer
Next meeting
Videomeeting 26th of March, 10-15. Pekka invites to the meeting.
Suggestion of subjects to follow up at the meeting - Personnel - Translations RBMPs (national/international) - Ecological status in Muoniälven/Muonionjoki (see table 1) - Uranium… - Classification of outer coastal waters - Chemical classification – results of Finnish classification, Hg, PBDE - Something still to follow up about groundwater bodies? - Results of N. Bothnian Bay – project for hazardaous substansces. Something to harmonize? - Formal agreement for harmonized classification - Measures - Common IRBMP - Physical meeting, agenda?
/Malin