The topics below provide brief descriptions of complementary work on eutrophication assessment in the European Union and in the United States. Details are also given of collaborative efforts to harmonize methodologies and intercalibrate results.

 OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure (COMMP)

The Comprehensive Procedure is the second and more intensive evaluation of a two step assessment process. It is preceded by the Common Procedure which is a broad brush screening process with the purpose of characterizing a water body in terms of nutrient related problems as a problem area, an area with potential problems or a non-problem area. The intent of the Common Procedure is to enable regional comparisons of eutrophication status on a common basis. This preliminary process is likely to be applied once only in any given area.  

The second step is to apply the Comprehensive Procedure to all areas which are identified in the first step as problem areas and potential problem areas. Application of the Comprehensive Procedure also results in classification of a water body as a problem areas, potential problem area or non problem area and consists of a set of assessment criteria that may be linked to form an overall assessment of eutrophication status. The biological, chemical and physical assessment criteria are organized into four categories of information:

• Category I: Causative Factors including sources of nutrients such as riverine loading of TN, TP, winter DIN and DIP, N/P-ratios
• Category II: Direct Effects of nutrient enrichment including growing season maximum and mean chlorophyll a, phytoplankton indicator species, macrophytes, including macroalgae, microphytobenthos
• Category III: Indirect Effects of nutrient enrichment including growing season degree of oxygen deficiency, changes/kills in zoobenthos and fish kills, changes of organic matter, ecosystem community structure
• Category IV: Other Possible Effects of nutrient enrichment such as algal toxins DSP/PSP mussel infection events  

For the elements in each category a score is determined using specific criteria. In general, an indicator that is equal to or below a background or reference level is given a – indicating a Non Problem Area. Levels between reference and reference levels + 50% are considered Potential Problem Areas and receive a ?, and levels for an indicator variable above the reference level +50% is considered indicative of a Problem Area and receive a + . Trends can also be used in the evaluation such that increasing trends compared to previous years (or decreasing in the case of dissolved oxygen concentrations) can indicate a Problem Area. And finally, for situations that are difficult to interpret, Supporting Environmental Factors such as light climate, turbidity, hydrodynamic conditions, climate, zooplankton grazing can be used to help in the determination however these factors are not yet formally involved in the assessment method.  

The OSPAR method uses a one-out-all-out approach so that one Problem Area score in a category will result in the entire category being classified as a Problem. The combination of Category Scores and resultant Final Classifications are shown in the table below.  

Final score table for OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure

Category I: Influencing Factors	Category II: Direct Effects	Category III: Indirect Effects	Category IV: Other Possible Effects	Classification
+	+	+	+	Problem Area
-	+	+	+	Problem Area
+	-	-	-	Potential Problem Area
-	-	-	-	Non Problem Area

A (+) indicates that one or more components of a category showed increased trends, elevated concentrations or shifts/changes
A (–) indicates no components showed elevated concentrations, shifts/changes, or increased trends

 Comparison and Assessment of Eutrophication (COMPASS )

This project is a cooperative initiative between the US and EU in the thematic area of coastal eutrophication and includes the following partners: German Environment Agency (UBA),  University of Hamburg, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute of Marine Research (IMAR) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The general objective is to compare and harmonize different methodologies for eutrophication assessment in coastal and estuarine (transitional waters). This will be done by means of a side by side comparison of results of the application of the ASSETS method, derived from the US National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment, and the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure to several US and EU waterbodies.


 EPA National Coastal Assessment (NCA)

The US EPA's National Coastal Assessment surveys the condition of the Nation's coastal resources through an integrated, comprehensive monitoring program among the coastal states to answer broad-scale questions on environmental conditions to fulfill section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act which requires EPA to report periodically on the condition of the nation’s waters. In the first National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR1) the eutrophication indicator was taken from NOAA’s National Estuarine Eutrophcation Assessment. In the National Coastal Condition Report II (NCCR2), the Water Quality Index of is roughly equivalent to the NEEA/ASSETS eutrophication indicator. 

The NCCR2 summarizes data from EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment and National Coastal Assessment Programs (EMAP and NCA) to provide a picture of water quality conditions in US coastal waters. These programs are national in scope, sampling once per year in all estuaries/coastal water bodies included in the study during specific index periods that vary depending upon the indicator variable being sampled.

The Water Quality Index uses data for 5 indicators: nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, water clarity and dissolved oxygen. The index is intended to characterize acutely degraded water quality conditions (which is a different focus than NEEA/ASSETS) and does not consistently identify sites experiencing occasional or infrequent hypoxia, nutrient enrichment or decreased water clarity. As a result a rating of poor means that the site is likely to have consistently poor conditions during the monitoring period only.

If a site is designated as fair or good, poor conditions were not observed on the sample date but these may occur for short time periods outside the index period. In order to assess the level of variability in the index at a specific site, increased or supplemental sampling is needed.

Criteria have been developed for each of the 5 indicators which are individually assessed. The ratings for the 5 indicators are combined for an overall rating for a site as shown in the table below.

Criteria for Determining the Water Quality Index Rating by Site

Rating	Criteria
Good	A maximum of one indicator is fair and no indicators are poor
Fair	One of the indicators is rated poor or two or more indicators are rated fair
Poor	Two or more of the five indicators are rated poor
Missing	Three components of the indicator are missing and the available indicators do not suggest a fair or poor rating

The water quality index is then calculated for each region using the criteria in the table below.

Criteria for Determining the Water Quality Index Rating by Region

Rating	Criteria
Good	Less than 10% of coastal waters are in poor condition and less than 50% of coastal waters are in combined poor and fair condition
Fair	10% to 20% of coastal waters are in poor condition or more than 50% of coastal wasters are in combined fair and poor condition
Poor	More than 20% of coastal waters are in poor condition

Note that for several of the indicators the criteria are different for different regions based on the sensitivity of a system to nutrient inputs. The thresholds for the different regions and systems were developed by EPA in conjunction with NOAA and other agencies.

 CICEET Gulf of Maine Project: Data acquisition and development of metrics and indices to describe the status and track trends of nutrient related water quality in estuaries and coastal waters  

This is a NOAA pilot project being funded by the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). The project objectives are:

• To update Gulf of Maine estuaries using the modified NEEA/ASSETS assessment methodology

• To develop a complementary human use/socioeconomic indicator. The new indicator is intended to evaluate the impact of nutrient related water quality problems on various human uses of estuaries, identifying what activities are affected in order to maximize the effectiveness of management strategies. There are few studies that have looked at the social and economic costs of eutrophication and those that do look mostly at costs of lost productivity because indirect and non-use costs are difficult to measure.

 NOAA National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update Program

The National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) Update Program is a management oriented program designed to improve monitoring and assessment efforts through the development of type specific classification of estuaries that will allow improved assessment methods, development of analytical and research models and tools for managers which will help guide and improve management success for estuaries and coastal resources.  This program is designed to address the question “To what extent do nutrient inputs to US estuaries and coastal waters impair society’s uses of those water bodies?” by measurement and assessment of:

• Status and trends of water quality related to nutrient enrichment.
• Causes of observed problems (e.g. susceptibility, nutrient loadings).
• Socioeconomic impacts of nutrient related water quality degradation.
• Alternative management responses and the impacts of those alternatives. 

Results of a 2002 workshop on how to best address the follow up of the 1999 National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) suggested that three working groups be formed to address categories of issues more thoroughly and to improve the methods developed in the NEEA:

1.      Typology

The purpose of this working group is to develop a type classification, primarily from hydrologic and physical characteristics that influence the processing of nutrients within a system, specifically to help in the assessment of eutrophic conditions. The main purpose for determining typology is that the thresholds for eutrophication classes will vary according to type. Once a typology is developed, type specific indicator variables and thresholds can be determined which will improve the accuracy and management implications of the assessment method.

Preliminary results of the Typology working group using physical and hydrologic data for 149 US estuaries and coastal water bodies are promising and work continues in order to finalize the classification.

2.      Monitoring, assessment and classification

The focus of this working group is on the two complementary parts of the monitoring, assessment and classification component of the Update Program, one addressing assessment of eutrophic conditions, causes and future outlook and the other to develop a human use/socioeconomic index that puts the degradation of water quality and loss of use into context for the public as well as quantifying these costs and losses on a national basis for the first time.

Nutrient related eutrophication: The NEEA method has been modified and improved and is now called ASSETS but additional modifications could improve the accuracy of the method. These modifications include re-evaluation of selection of existing indicator variables, the development of type specific thresholds for indicator variables, and alternate variables for types of systems where, for instance, the submerged aquatic grasses indicator would not be appropriate because the systems do not have these grasses.

A pilot project is presently underway that uses the ASSETS eutrophication assessment method to update the assessment for several Gulf of Maine estuaries (see CICEET Gulf of Maine Project: Data acquisition and development of metrics and indices to describe the status and track trends of nutrient related water quality in estuaries and coastal waters). Lessons learned in the pilot will be used during the update of the assessment on a national basis which is anticipated to be completed in 2006.

Socioeconomic impacts to human uses: An additional human use/socioeconomic index is being developed to complement the eutrophication index and put into context the losses of use due to nutrient related water quality problems and costs associated with the loss of use of systems where possible. The approach taken is to relate changes in fish catch rate to changes in water quality (eg. dissolved oxygen) as a first step toward a socioeconomic analysis of eutrophication.

Preliminary analysis of Long Island Sound data shows that as nitrogen inputs decrease, dissolved oxygen and recreational catch of Striped Bass increase. The increase in catch is shown to be related to changes in oxygen when other influences (ie. fishermen avidity and experience, temperature, changes in fish stock) are accounted for. The increase in fish catch can be converted to dollars using existing model determined valuations. Lessons learned in the pilot will be used to guide application of the human use/socioeconomic assessment on a national basis which is anticipated to be completed along with the eutrophication assessment update in 2006.