WFD Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 5 report
Water category/GIG/BQE/ horizontal activity: / Natural lakes/EC GIG/Benthic invertebratesInformation provided by: / EC GIG BI Group
1. Organisation
1.1. Responsibilities
Indicate how the work is organised, indicating the lead country/person and the list of involved experts of every country:
Lead: Romania
Bulgaria: Emilia Varadinova, Yanka Vidinova, Violeta Tyufekchieva, Rabia Soufi, Svetoslav Cheshmedjiev, Valerya Giosheva
Hungary: Béla Csányi, József Szekeres
Romania: Gabriel Chiriac, Claudia Pavelescu-Nagy, Oana Ristea
RO is responsible for data collection. All three countries are going to work on parts of the analysis (calculation, testing different indices etc.) and the final reports.
1.2. Participation
Indicate which countries are participating in your group. Are there any difficulties with the participation of specific Member States? If yes, please specify:
BG, HU, RO
1.3. Meetings
List the meetings of the group:
1st Meeting February 2008, Bucharest, RO
2nd Meeting March 2009, Cluj Napoca, RO
3rd Meeting 23-24 March 2010, Budapest, HU
4th Meeting 8-9 March 2011, Bucharest, RO
Next meeting – maybe in autumn 2011
2. Overview of Methods to be intercalibrated
Identify for each MS the national classification method that will be intercalibrated and the status of the method
- finalized formally agreed national method,
- intercalibratable finalized method,
- method under development,
- no method developed
MemberState / Method / Status
BG / Proposed national method – have to be validated with additional data. Method under development.
HU / Mzb used for Assessment of Lakes - MUSSEL) / National method under development
RO / ECO-NL-BENT / Finalized formally agreed national method
Make sure that the national method descriptions meet the level of detail required to fill in the table 1 at the end of this document !
3. Checking of compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements
Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive? (Question 1 in the IC guidance)
Do the good ecological status boundaries of the national methods comply with the WFD normative definitions? (Question 7 in the IC guidance)
List the WFD compliance criteria and describe the WFD compliance checking process and results (the table below lists the criteria from the IC guidance, please add more criteria if needed)
Compliance criteria / Compliance checking conclusions- Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad).
HU: Yes
RO: Ecological status is classified by one of five classes
- High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure)
HU: Yes
RO: Reference conditions, statistical analysis,expert judgment and historical data have been used for setting the boundaries
- All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine para-meter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole.
HU: Yes
RO: number of families, EPT abundance, molluscs abundance, orthocladiinae/chironomidae abundance ratio, Shannon-Wiener diversity index, abundance of feeding types; combination rule: weighting of average parameters
- Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the WFD Annex II and approved by WG ECOSTAT
HU: Yes
RO: Yes
- The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions
HU: alternative benchmarking is under development
RO: Yes. Existing near-natural reference sites, least disturbed sites
- Assessment results are expressed as EQRs
HU: under development
RO: Yes
- Sampling procedure allows for represent-tative information about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time
HU: Yes but more data are needed for analysis
RO: Samples: 2 times/year. Multi-habitat procedure. At least 3 consecutive years for data acquisition.
- All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure
HU: Yes but more data are needed for analysis
RO: Yes
- Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification
HU: Yes
RO: Species and at least genus level for all macroinvetebrates groups incl. Oligochaeta and Chironomidae
- Other criteria 1
- Other criteria 2
- Other criteria 3
Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information.
Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking:
RO has developed the assessment method based on benthic fauna.
HU: gaps exist in boundary setting, alternative benchmarking and pressure specificity analysis because development of method is under progress; Clarification of pressure-response relationship needs more analysis, Consequently: more data have to be collected in the national monitoring.
BG: Not enough data (time-series, seasonal variability) for method testing and development multimetric. Only one index with EQR scale was presented. Testing of other indices is under development.
4. Methods’ intercalibration feasibility check
Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept? (Question 2 in the IC guidance)
4.1. Typology
Describe common intercalibration water body types and list the MS sharing each type
Common IC type / Type characteristics / MS sharing IC common typeEC1 Lowland very shallow hard-water / Altitude <200m
Depth< 6m
Conductivity 300-1000 (µS/cm
Alkalinity 1-4 (meq/l HCO3) / BG
HU
RO
What is the outcome of the feasibility evaluation in terms of typology? Are all assessment methods appropriate for the intercalibration water body types, or subtypes?
Method / Appropriate for IC types / subtypes / RemarksBG metric (% Oligochaeta) / EC1 / Need additional metrics to be classified; BG multimetric system is under development.
HU method is not finalized yet
RO method (all metrics) / EC1
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology?
The IC typology fits well, in general, with the national typologies.
4.2. Pressures
Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods
Method / Pressure / RemarksBG Method / Degradation,organic matter pollution. / More data we need.
HU Method / Organic and nutrient pollution, hydromorphological pressures, recreational pressures, fish stocking. / More analysis is necessary to work out the pressure-response relationship
RO Method / Nutrient loads, organic loads, general degradation
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?
Yes in case of RO.
Yes, after finalized method will be available, in case of HU.
More information needed in case of BG.
4.3. Assessment concept
Do all national methods follow a similar assessment concept?
Examples of assessment concept:
Different community characteristics - structural, functional or physiological - can be used in assessment methods which can render their comparison problematic. For example, sensitive taxa proportion indices vs species composition indices.
Assessment systems may focus on different lake zones - profundal, littoral or sublittoral - and subsequently may not be comparable.
Additional important issues may be the assessed habitat type (soft-bottom sediments versus rocky sediments for benthic fauna assessment methods) or life forms (emergent macrophytes versus submersed macrophytes for lake aquatic flora assessment methods)
Method / Assessment concept / RemarksBG Method / Littoral zones, multihabitat sampling, taxa composition (species/genus), abundance (ind./m2), diversity and functioning based on trophic structute are characterised.
HU Method / Eulittoral macroinvertebrates community, sampled by handnet, multihabitat sampling. Community characteristics are similar: species richness, species composition, diversity features, functional trophic groups
RO Method / Structural and functional macroinvertebrates characteristics are considered. All parameters considered focus on the community of the littoral and sublittoral zone of the lake.
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of assessment concepts?
Yes in case of RO.
Yes: shallow (eulittoral) zone, multi-habitat sampling, hand net method, same community characteristics, in case of HU.
Yes, littoral zones, multihabitat sampling, taxonomic composition, abundance (ind./m2),diversity and functioning based on trophic structute, in case of BG.
5. Collection of IC dataset
Describe data collection within the GIG.
This description aims to safeguard that compiled data are generally similar, so that the IC options can reasonably be applied to the data of the Member States.
Make the following table for each IC common type
MemberState / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
BG / Data collected from 3 lakes of EC1 / Data collected / Yes
HU / 20 lakes / 29 sites / 29 / 29
RO / Yes
4 lakes, 12 sites,
72 samples sets / Yes
4 lakes, 12 sites,
72 samples sets / Yes
4 data sets
List the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control and describe the data acceptance checking process and results
Data acceptance criteria / Data acceptance checkingData requirements (obligatory and optional) / BG: Multihabitat data, single and representative seasonal samples during the vegetation period (low water level season. summer/autumn); general physico-chemistry, description of bottom substrata & macrophyte vegetation (cover, species)
HU: Obligatory physico-chemical, hydro-morphological and biological parameters
RO: all data required
The sampling and analytical methodology / BG, RO: littoral (or sublittoral), 500-1000 µm mesh-size hand-net, 10 replicates, MHS technique, max. 1,5 m depth, standardized time (3 min.)
HU: time standardized KandS, MHS
Level of taxonomic precision required and taxalists with codes / BG, RO: as low as possible
HU: Species level (except: Oligochaeta, Chironomidae)
The minimum number of sites / samples per intercalibration type / 27 lakes per IC type, minimum 1 site/WB, 1-2 samples/site
Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type / Enough water bodies for IC type
Other aspects where applicable / no
6. Benchmarking: Reference conditions or alternative benchmarking (October 2010 + later updates)
In section 2 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be included on the derivation of reference conditions for the national methods. In section 6 the checking procedure and derivation of reference conditions or the alternative benchmark at the scale of the common IC type has to be explained to ensure the comparability within the GIG.
Clarify if you have defined
-common reference conditions (Y/N)
-or a common alternative benchmark for intercalibration (Y/N)
6.1.Reference conditions
Does the intercalibration dataset contain sites in near-natural conditions in a sufficient number to make a statistically reliable estimate? (Question 6 in the IC guidance)
-Summarize the common approach for setting reference conditions (true reference sites or indicative partial reference sites, see Annex III of the IC guidance):
Indicative partial reference sites. Common criteria will be applied to the data in the database, following the IC Guide.
-
-Give a detailed description of reference criteria for screening of sites in near-natural conditions (abiotic characterisation, pressure indicators):
The group will use HU criteria as common criteria:
Criteria (1) / Notes (2) / reference threshold / rejection thresholdCatchment characteristics / (1) Reference threshold > 85 % nature (i.e. "natural" forests, wetlands, moors, meadows, pasture); NOTE: Rejection threshold = 70 % / Land use is determined using CORINE categories, if more accurate national maps are not available. "Not natural" (opposite to "nature") are agricultural land and urban areas. Forest that are planted and fertilized (e.g. spruce cultures used as Christmas trees etc.) are "not natural". They should be regarded as agricultural land. Pasture are extensively grazed grassland.
(2) No intensive crops (incl. vines) within in the near surroundings (i.e. within a zone of 200 m from the lake shore) / provide numerical value
(3) ≤ 5 % urbanisation and peri-urban areas in the near surroundings (i.e. within a zone of 200 m from the lake shore)
(4) No direct inflow of treated or untreated waste water
(5) Impact of wastewater from scattered dwellings low (i.e. < 10 inhabitants km-2) within the whole catchment / Inferred from national maps; number of houses multiplied by the national average of inhabitants per household; provide numerical value
Morphology / (6) ≤ 5 % artificial modification of the shore line / provide numerical value
Trophic state / (7) Generally: No (or insignificant) deviation of the actual from the natural trophic state
Other pressures / (8) No mass (or significant) recreation activities (camping, swimming, rowing, coarse fish angling, put and take angling, releasing and feeding of ducks for hunting)
(9) No actively invading (and reproducing) plant or animal species that may negatively impact the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem
(10) no evidence for one of the following pressures:
- Significant changes in the hydrological and sediment regime of the tributaries (larger than the range between the natural mean low water level and the natural high water level)
- Fish farm activities or other fishing operations that negatively impact the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem
- Introduction of non-native fish species, unless their abundance and biomass is insignificant
- Significant changes in status parameters prior to major changes in industrialisation, urbanisation and intensification of the agriculture
- Substances mentioned in Annex X and/or in annex VIII of the
WFD in concentrations above the limits of detection of the most advanced analytical techniques in general use or presence of possible and important sources of pollutants.
- Measured values of other anthropogenic, synthetic substances above quality objectives and not near natural background concentrations, except for those from atmospheric sources
(1)The criteria are provided based on: /1/ CIRCA, Feb. 2008, "WFD Intercallibration technical report, Part 2 - lakes, section 3 - phytoplankton composition"; /2/ CIRCA, Feb. 2008, "WFD Intercallibration technical report, Part 2 - lakes, section 3 - macrophytes"; /3/ "CB GIG Rivers reference criteria"
(2)Some of the criteria are difficult to assess - due to the lack of data, and/or because there are qualitatively rather than quantitatively defined
-Identify the reference sites for each Member State in each common IC type. Is their number sufficient to make a statistically reliable estimate?
There are not or not enough reference sites for each Member State in common IC type.
BG: EC1 - Near natural conditions sites: Srebarna, lake
The number of reference sites is not enough for all lake types in BG!
HU: No or insufficient number of reference sites.
RO: No reference sites.
-Explain how you have screened the biological data for impacts caused by pressures not regarded in the reference criteria to make sure that true reference sites are selected:
The absence of references.
-Give detailed description of setting reference conditions (summary statistics used)
Three years period of validity of biological, physicochemical data are needed for setting natural reference conditions. Until then sites have to be accepted as near-natural reference conditions.
6.2.Alternative benchmarking (only if common dataset does not contain reference sites in a sufficient number)
-Summarize the common approach for setting alternative benchmark conditions (describe argumentation of expert judgment, inclusion of modelling)
The absence of references. Anthropogenic impacts.
HU: considering least disturbed sites.
-Give a detailed description of criteria for screening of alternative benchmark sites (abiotic criteria/pressure indicators that represent a similar low level of impairment to screen for least disturbed conditions)
RO, HU, BG: The absence of point source pollution. Low level of human impact, low degree of recreational use, low hydromorphoéogical alteration, rich community. Absence of fishculture. Lack of considerable pressure due to invasive species. Natural vegetation in the catchment area (forests). The presence of macrophytes within the littoral and sublittoral areas.
-Identify the alternative benchmark sites for each MemberState in each common IC type
RO – Snagov Lake; BG - Sreabarna Biosphere Reserve.
HU: Not selected yet, more data are necessary to include.
-Describe how you validated the selection of the alternative benchmark with biological data
Rich community with outstanding taxon numbers are selected
-Give detailed description how you identified the position of the alternative benchmark on the gradient of impact and how the deviation of the alternative benchmark from reference conditions has been derived
Guide values for alternative benchmark were proposed as percentages of 10 or 90 of the biological parameters values considered for near-natural or alternative benchmarch sites
Describe the biological communities at reference sites or at the alternative benchmark, considering potential biogeographical differences:
High diversity, rich community with outstanding taxon numbers. Presence of several sensitive taxa. Low amount of invasive species are coexisting Absence of invasive species.
See the Annex 1: Example for type-specific passport information on reference biological communities (BG lake type equivalent to EC1)
7. Design and application of the IC procedure
7.1. Please describe the choice of the appropriate intercalibration option.
Which IC option did you use?
-IC Option 1 - Same assessment method, same data acquisition, same numerical evaluation (Y)
-IC Option 2 - Different data acquisition and numerical evaluation (Y/N)
-IC Options 3 - Similar data acquisition, but different numerical evaluation (BQE sampling and data processing generally similar, so that all national assessment methods can reasonably be applied to the data of other countries) supported by the use of common metric(s) (Y/N)
-Other (specify) (Y/N)
Explanation for the choice of the IC option:
Option 1.
Only RO method has been finalised. One metric is used for assessment and other metrics are under development in BG. HU method is under development.
In case of IC Option 2, please explain the differences in data acquisition
7.2. IC common metrics (When IC Options 2 or 3 are used)
Describe the IC Common metric: