DIRECTORATE GENERAL JRC
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
Institute of Environment and Sustainability
WFD Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 report
Water category/GIG/BQE/ horizontal activity: / Lakes/NGIG/MacrophytesInformation provided by: / Seppo Hellsten FIN and others
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:
Workgroup is chaired by Seppo Hellsten FIN, experts involved Deirdre Tierney IE, Marit Mjelde NO, Frauke Ecke SE and Geoff Phillips UK.
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:
All countries are participating although we have has severe difficulties to allocate time due to activities related to implementation of WFD. On the other hand all partners except Ireland are also included to WISER-project.
1.3. Meetings
List the meetings of the group:
All members except Ireland (not a partner of Wiser), met in one day meeting in November 2009 in Ispra together with Wiser experts. Further UK (via phone), Ireland and Fi (via phone) met in Finland during NGIG-coordinator meeting 25.-26. Feb. 2010.
First all members meeting was held 25.-26. May in Oslo, Norway.
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
1. finalized formally agreed national method,
2. intercalibratable finalized method,
3. method under development,
4. no method developed
Member State / Method / StatusFIN / National macrophyte classification (FINMAC) / 1.
IE / Free Macrophyte Index / 2.
NO / National macrophyte index (Trophic Index – TIc) / 1.
SE / Trophic Macrophyte Index (TMI) / 1
UK / LEAFPAC macrophyte lake classification tool / 2
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 (April 2010 + update in October 2010)
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 conclusions1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Finland = Yes
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = Yes, however, no distinction between poor and bad ecological status due to lack of data.
UK = yes
2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / Finland = Yes, although classes below good status are evenly devided.
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = yes
UK =yes
3. 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. / Finland = Yes, abundance is a part of one metrix (there are three submetrix).
Ireland =yes
Norway = only species composition index. Max.col.depth will (hopefully) be used as an abundance index (see WISER-work)
Sweden = Only presence/absence data included in the index. For ongoing work (see WISER), quantitative data on species frequency and maximum depth of colonization are available
UK =yes
4. 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 / Finland = Yes , during first IC round
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden =yes
UK =yes
5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / Finland = Yes
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = yes
UK = assessed against site specific natural reference conditions
6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / Finland = Yes
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = yes
UK =yes
7. Sampling procedure allows for represent-tative information about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time / Finland = Yes
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = yes
UK =yes
8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / Finland = Yes, majority of older data was sampled by non-transect method, present data is collected by transects.
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = yes
UK =yes
9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / Finland = Yes
Ireland =yes
Norway =yes
Sweden = yes
UK =yes
10. Other criteria 1
11. Other criteria 2
12. Other criteria 3
Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information.
Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking:
Most of the countries are only using presence-absence data and therefore use of abundance is limited. Finland is using abundance as one sub-index and Ireland is using deepest growing depth as one part of multimetrix index.
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 typeL-N2a, 2b, 5
Merged together Now type 101 / 101) low alkalinity, clear. Expanded with some lakes less deep than 3 meters (mean depth), also deep lakes might be included Altitude not counted. / All
L-N3a, 6a Now type 102, L-N3b (6b) / 102) low alkalinity, humic. / All
L-N Now type 201 / 201) moderate alkalinity, clear. Expanded with some lakes less deep than 3 meters (mean depth). Altitude not counted. / All
L-N8a, 8b / 202) moderate alkalinity, humic. Altitude not counted / All
301) High alkalinity clear / NO, UK, IE
302)High alkalinity humic / NO, UK, IE
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 / RemarksFinnMAC / 101, 102, 201, 202 / High alkalinity lakes are largely missing
IE / 101, 102, 201, 202, 301, 302
NO / 101, 102, 201, 202, 301 / 302 too few reference lakes
SE / 101, 102, 201, 202
UK / 101, 102, 201, 202, 301, 302
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology ?
Yes
4.2. Pressures
Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods
Method / Pressure / RemarksFinnMAC / Eutrophication, hydromorphological degradation / method describes the change in type specific species composition and therefore it describes also general degradation
IE / Enrichment/Eutrophication,
NO / Eutrophication
SE / Eutrophication
UK / Enrichment/Eutrophication,
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?
Yes, all are describing eutrophication pressures
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 / RemarksFI FinnMac / Focus on littoral zone, all macrophyte species are included in assessment (also helophytes) / Helophytes are traditionally included in list of macrophytes
IE / Submerged and Floating Aquatic plants only are used in the assessment. The sampling uses a minimum of 4 transects perpendicular to the shore with 9 sampling position covering a distance of 100m at each transect. Other macrophytes are recorded but not used.
NO
SE / All aquatic macrophytes (incl isoetids, elodeids, nymphaeids, lemnids, and charophytes are sampled. / Helophytes are listed in the field, but not included in the Trophic Macrophyte Index.
UK / · Submerged and floating aquatic plants are used in the assessment. Shorline and littoral are surveyed. Metrics include LMNI trophic index
· Number of functional groups
· Number of Taxa
· mean%cover hydrophytes
macroalgae cover / Helophytes are not used in the assessment
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of assessment concepts?
Yes, although Finland includes helophytes to community analysis
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
Low alkalinity clear (101)
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
FI / 36 / 36 / 36
IE / 18 / 18 / 18
NO / 71 / 71 / 71
SE / 11 / 11 / 11
UK / 91 / 91 / 91
Low alkalinity humic (102)
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
FI / 125 / 125 / 125
IE / 18 / 18 / 18
NO / 20 / 20 / 20
SE / 52 / 52 / 52
UK / 29 / 29 / 29
Mod alkalinity clear (201)
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
FI / 19 / 19 / 19
IE / 12 / 12 / 12
NO / 44 / 44 / 44
SE / 11 / 11 / 11
UK / 92 / 92 / 92
Mod alkalinity humic (202)
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
FI / 55 / 55 / 55
IE / 19 / 19 / 19
NO / 37 / 37 / 37
SE / 36 / 36 / 36
UK / 30 / 30 / 30
High alkalinity clear (301)
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
FI
IE / 38 / 38 / 38
NO / 30 / 30 / 30
SE / 4 / 4 / 4
UK / 97 / 97 / 97
High alkalinity humic (302)
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
FI
IE / 34 / 34 / 34
NO / 22 / 22 / 22
SE
UK / 17 / 17 / 17
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) / During the first ic-round data was checked and some outliers were removed from analysis.
The sampling and analytical methodology / All members are using applied transect method
Level of taxonomic precision required and taxalists with codes / OK, species list is based on Rebecca and Wiser coding
The minimum number of sites / samples per intercalibration type / OK,
Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type / OK
Other aspects where applicable
6. Benchmarking: Reference conditions or alternative benchmarking
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) YES
- 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):
True reference sites were selected according to specific criteria. The criteria used consisted of pressure data, impact data, knowledge of biology and chemistry, land-use data in conjunction with expert judgement, and in some cases confirmation by paleodata.
The general approach used by the GIG was to establish a common method for the estimation of the reference values for the macrophyte status common metric (ICCM). Rather than develop a type specific reference value for the ICCM the GIG agreed to develop a lake specific reference value using a multiple regression model. Thus when the EQR for the common metric was determined for all lakes in the common data set each country used the same model and thus identical reference conditions, thus ensuring the harmonisation of reference conditions for the common metric.
Due to the high number of lakes in the NGIG area, it was not possible to quantify the pressure criteria for every single lake. It is important to note that because the GIG applied the boundary setting protocol to a common data set, substantial differences between MS identification of reference sites would become obvious during the boundary setting procedure as the common metric was applied to the whole database.
In addition to this the values for supporting elements indicative of pressure such as Total Phosphorus and other indicators of impact such as water transparency and phytoplankton biomass for reference sites were examined.