WFD-CIS WG 2A”ECOSTAT” LAKES-MEDITERRANEAN GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP (L-M GIG) HOW TO COPE WITH INTERCALIBRATION AS FOR RESERVOIRS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN GROUP? J. Ortiz Casas Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Spain GIG Coordinator 7 July 2004

L-M GIG Meeting, Madrid, 30/6/04 National L-M contact experts: ES: Luisa Serrano GR: Vasiliki Tsiaoussi PT: Helena Alves RO: Ruxandra Girbea JRC-EEWAI: Sandra Poikane Invited expert: Ramón Peña GIG Coordinator: José Ortiz-Casas

OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

BACKGROUND - NUMBER OF TYPES: THREE * - SITES: SUBMISSION STILL IN PROGRESS - ALL RESERVOIRS - MAJOR PRESSURE: NUTRIENT LOADING - MAJOR IMPACT: EUTROPHICATION - COUNTRIES: CY, ES, GR, IT,PT, RO * Additional IC type (natural lakes) may still be proposed by GR and ES.

x L- M GIG TYPOLOGY L-M5 L-M7 L-M8 TYPE DEPTH SIZE ELEVATION GEOLOGY Deep >15m Large >0,5 km2 Low <200m mid 200-800m calc. >1,0 meq/l silic. 0,2-1,0 meq/l L-M5 x L-M7 L-M8

OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

STRONG HYDRO (MORPHO)LOGICAL VARIABILITY HYDROLOGICAL VARIABILITY: A MEDITERRANEAN FEATURE (Especially for reservoirs) STRONG HYDRO (MORPHO)LOGICAL VARIABILITY FULL STORAGE VOLUME BECOMES A FICTITIOUS VALUE, NOT ECOLOGICALLY RELEVANT Are reference conditions and eutrophication response all the same regardless the reservoir is subject to a storage variation, instead of being permanently kept at full capacity?

HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THE SEASONAL VARIATION (1) IN WATER VOLUME/DEPTH? IS THE SEASONAL STORAGE VARIATION CONFINED WITHIN THE TYPE RANGE? (i.e. AVERAGE VALUE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR FULL CAPACITY) YES IS SEASONAL STORAGE VARIATION COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHORE MACROPHYTES? NO (3) NO (2) YES REMAIN IN THE SAME TYPE ASCRIBE TO ANOTHER TYPE (1) Variation assumed to meet the Art. 4 requirements for HMWB designation (2) “No macrophytes” means higher availability of nutrients for phytoplankton (3) “Smaller actual volume” means higher nutrient concentration

Pending on final metadata submission, it seems that all, or nearly all, gig reservoirs are subject to significant seasonal variability in water storage. NO MACROPHYTE COMMUNITIES. SMALLER AVERAGE SIZE. DIFFERENT BEHAVIOUR AND REF. COND. COMPARED TO PERMANENT FULL STORAGE CONDITIONS

OUTLINE BACK GROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA COMMON DATA ONLY FOR PHYTOPLANKTON PHYTOPLANKTON DATA MAINLY RESTRICTED TO CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR RELIABLE AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENT, BEARING IN MIND THE HIGH NATURAL VARIABILITY OF ALGAL CONDITIONS OTHER DATA MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR SOME OF THE SITES. SAMPLING STRATEGIES FOR BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS NEED SOME FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IF THEY ARE TO MEET THE WFD REQUIREMENTS

VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA (cont.) SATELLITE DIGITAL IMAGERY OFFERS A MEANS FOR DEVOLOPING THEMATIC MAPPING, THUS PROVIDING: AN EVIDENCE OF SEASONAL VARIABILITY FOR WATER SURFACE QUALITY ELEMENTS AN APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF SEASONAL AVERAGE VALUES FOR WATER SURFACE QUALITY ELEMENTS

OUTLINE BACK GROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

L-M GIG: POSSIBLE CHOICES Present data sets and sampling/analytical methods “Main” parameter (chlorophyll) Other (SD, TP, div.) Option 2 (?) Look for common metrics Increasing sampling Using remote sensing IC against Improved assessment (Option 1+2) Improvement of biological assessment Converge towards common method (sampling+lab) IC against partially common method (Option 1+2) Totally Partially COMMON METHOD (OPTION 1) THE BEST CHOICE

L-M GIG: WHAT IS COMMONLY DONE? HOW FAR CAN WE GO TOWARDS COMMON ASSESSMENT? BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT PHYTOPLANKTON common PARAMETER CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION common SUMMER AVERAGE? METRICS ANNUAL AVERAGE? MAXIMUM? FREQUENCY/TIMETABLE SAMPLING STRATEGY LOCATION (CENTRE, DEEPEST SITE?) DEPTH (INTEGRATED, DISCRETE?) SAMPLE TREATMENT (STORAGE, FILTERING) ANALYTICAL METHOD EXTRACTIVE REAGENT (ACETONE, METHANOL) OPTICAL DENSITIES (EMPIRICAL EQUATION)

Option 1 seems to be most appropriate choice for the L-M GIG. Current common available data are not sufficient for the IC process to result in a reliable EQR classification scale. Possibilities will be studied by the GIG in order to agree a refined common method for assessment of average chlorophyll concentration. Spain has the know- how and means to help in the assessment of seasonal average values by satellite remote sensing

Two complementary approaches for Option 1 Using current [Chl] data from water surface, single-date summer samples, together with satellite imagery, and checking equivalence between results from different analytical methods. Boundary setting? Agreeing on a common sampling strategy (involving the whole photic layer, increasing sampling dates) and a common lab method. In order to adopt the IC network sites illustrating the boundaries, the common procedure should be applied during the IC exercise period. One approach for hybrid Option 1 & 2 The only common metrics available in the GIG is Secchi depth, to be supported by satellite imagery, against which a common assessment method can be compared once the latter is agreed an applied

OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL 1st STEP: TYPE SPECIFIC REFERENCE CONDITIONS 2nd STEP: ESTABLISHMENT OF TYPE-SPECIFIC OVERALL RANGE OF VALUES 3rd STEP: COMMON INTERPRETATION OF “SLIGHT” AND “MODERATE” 4th STEP: TRANSFORMATION TO EQR VALUES

BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL: HINTS FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS RC [Chl] RC [Chl] RC [Chl] RC [Chl] geology (alkalinity) depth size elevation

x L- M GIG TYPOLOGY L-M5 L-M7 L-M8 TYPE DEPTH SIZE ELEVATION GEOLOGY Deep >15m Large >0,5 km2 Low <200m mid 200-800m calc. >1,0 meq/l silic. 0,2-1,0 meq/l L-M5 x L-M7 L-M8

[Chl] at RC (mg/m3) L-M5 L-M7 low. mid Elev. (m) Silic. L-M8 Alk. Alkalinity. (meq/l) CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION AT REFERENCE CONDITIONS, AS A FUNCTION OF ALKALINITY AND ELEVATION a.s.l.

[Chl] vs LP [Chl] vs zS or “other” RANGE OF [Chl] VALUES Where are the boundaries? Convert into EQR values

OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA PROCESS OPTIONS BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL TIMETABLE

3 weeks before WG-2A meeting 3 weeks before WG-2A meeting (internet) TIMETABLE ACCORDING TO THE IC PROCESS GUIDANCE Milestones Action GIG meeting Reporting WG 2A meeting M1 Agree on first suggestion on IC options and pilot work, if appropriate 30/6/04 7/7/04 7-8/7/04 M2* Agree on option/common metrics, first proposal of BSP, new data collection needs and possibilities, timetable ? 17/9/04 7-8 Oct./04 M3 Development of BSP Agreement on data needs for IC types (depending on option chosen) Agreement on principles for RC Jan-Feb 2005 3 weeks before WG-2A meeting March 2005 M4 Ongoing application of BSP First Identification of benchmarking IC sites 3 weeks before WG-2A meeting (internet) October 2005 M5 Ongoing developing and reviewing of BSP Identification of GIG inconsistencies February 2006 M6 EQR boundary values for each type Revision and identification of benchmarking IC sites June 2006

MAIN PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS Present data and current monitoring practices are sufficient to report the trophic status of reservoirs, but not to report their EQR value according to the WFD requirements. More sampling is needed Satellite remote sensing is a potentially helpful tool in the assessment of seasonal average [Chl] at water surface. Differences between MS regarding biological monitoring practices are not so great. A common method would be possible and desirable, thus allowing IC Option 1 The new agreed common method should start as soon as possible, during the IC exercise period (2004-2005)

THANK YOU