RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG 3-4 July 2006 Roger Owen Cathy Bennett

CB Rivers GIG Macro-invertebrates Macro-invertebrate IC CB Rivers GIG Macro-invertebrates IC option 2 Use of a common metric (ICMi) . “General pressure” - a combination of organic/ nutrient /hydromorphological pressure. CB GIG comprises 18 Member States (MS) 17 MS have provided macro-invertebrate data (SE, EE, LV, LT, DK, UK, IE, NL, DE, LU, DE, AT, FR, ES, IT, PL, CZ). National methods - differ in compliance and state of development in relation to WFD normative definitions. MS provide a dataset with raw macro-invertebrate data, MS EQRs (national method and metrics) and MS class boundaries. MS datasets are validated against acceptance criteria (the acceptance criteria are shown in the table below). Members of the Steering Group (‘Type Coordinators’) check the compliance of MS datasets within each common intercalibration river type. A careful review of the screening undertaken by MS for GIG reference criteria has been undertaken by the CBGIG Steering Group and those not judged to have screened adequately have not had their datasets included in the derivation of the GIG mean boundary and mean confidence limits used for comparison. The independent AQEM/STAR benchmark classification (explanation see below) was also included in the comparison.

CBGIG Common IC River Types Macro-invertebrate IC CBGIG Common IC River Types Type Characterisation Catchment area (of stretch) Altitude & geomorphology Alkalinity (meq/l) R-C1 Small lowland siliceous sand 10-100 km2 lowland, dominated by sandy substrate (small particle size), 3-8m width (bankfull size) > 0,4 R-C2 Small lowland siliceous - rock lowland, rock material 3-8m width (bankfull size) < 0,4 R-C3 Small mid-altitude siliceous mid-altitude, rock (granite) - gravel substrate, 2-10m width (bankfull size) R-C4 Medium lowland mixed 100-1000 km2 lowland, sandy to gravel substrate, 8-25m width (bankfull size) R-C5 Large lowland mixed 1000-10000 km2 lowland, barbel zone, variation in velocity, max. altitude in catchment: 800m, >25m width (bankfull size) R-C6 Small, lowland, calcareous 10-300 km2 lowland, gravel substrate (limestone), width 3-10m (bankfull size) > 2

No. macro-invertebrate samples for each MS Macro-invertebrate IC No. macro-invertebrate samples for each MS AT Be -F -W CZ DK EE FR DE IE IT LV LT LU NL PL ES SE UK R-C1 208 49 127 68 365 15 374 118 51 205 R-C2 378 1505 97 71 188 R-C3 67 50 101 462 174 98 182 31 R-C4 192 36 22 185 88 639 72 508 220 924 R-C5 16 145 12 44 R-C6 45 27 302 1735 73 140 26 20 1338

Reference conditions Common procedure: Macro-invertebrate IC Common procedure: Reference sites chosen using REFCOND guidance Reference status defined by GIG MS screened selected reference sites against agreed catchment land use (c.25) and chemical threshold limits (5) (MI6 Appendix) MS completed check list indicating criteria used & available sources of information (a few awaited). Reference screening flow chart provided. Procedure checked by Type Coordinators

No. of reference ’sites’ (data points) Macro-invertebrate IC No. of reference ’sites’ (data points) RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC5 RC6 Grand Total AT   16 BE-F  0* 0* BE-W 20 CZ 7 DE 6 32 DK 5 9 21 EE 4 15 ES 8 35 10 69 FR 23 53 109 42 248 IE 209 138 471 IT LT LU 41 2 18 61 NL PL SE 14 3 22 UK 25 30 19 92 108 300 230 226 218 1,117 *Be-F: use of extrapolated reference values for national metric & ICMi *NL: propose to ‘borrow’ reference sites

Good/Moderate boundary Macro-invertebrate IC Boundary Setting GIG agreed use of ICMi which is compliant with WFD-normative definitions MS required to compile a fact sheet (Mi6 Appendix C-1) describing: National macro-invertebrate classification system. Criteria used for national boundary setting in accordance with WFD-normative definitions. Various approaches used to set boundaries: ‘REFCOND approach’ i.e. 25%ile reference=H/G boundary; equal division of other classes Ecological approach Site-specific methods Country Classification System General Description Criteria for Boundary Setting High/Good boundary Good/Moderate boundary Taxonomic composition and abundance Ratio of disturbance sensitive to insensitive taxa Level of diversity

Quality checks for MS datasets and classification methods Macro-invertebrate IC Quality checks for MS datasets and classification methods MS provide raw data, MS EQRs & MS class boundaries. ‘Type Coordinators’ (TC) check validation against acceptance criteria. Summary of MS for inclusion in i) comparison ii) calculation of harmonised GIG boundary. Dialog between TC and MS at recent CB GIG meeting. Benchmark classification (STAR) included in the comparison (but will not be used for harmonisation).

Derivation of GIG boundary Macro-invertebrate IC Data quality criteria Comparison Derivation of GIG boundary Raw family lists  Data to check type allocations Normative definitions questionnaire Agreed MS classification system Agreed national boundaries MS class. system compliant with WFD-norm. defns. REFCOND criteria & thresholds questionnaire Min. no. reference sites: 2 Min. no. reference samples: 6 Use of ‘median’ of MS EQR of reference samples (value ~1) No. of sites/samples per quality class: 4 samples in each class H, G, M Relationship between national method & ICMi: R2≥0.5

Comparison Yes 10 No Maybe 7 Macro-invertebrate IC MS R-C1 R-C2 R-C3 Be-F Be-W CZ DE DK EE ES FR IE IT LT LU LV NL PL SE UK Yes 10 No Maybe 7

Calculation of Harmonised GIG Boundary Macro-invertebrate IC Calculation of Harmonised GIG Boundary MS R-C1 R-C2 R-C3 R-C4 R-C5 R-C6 AT Be-F Be-W CZ DE DK EE ES FR IE IT LT LU LV NL PL SE UK Yes 7 No 6 Maybe 4

Results of comparison (Preliminary) Macro-invertebrate IC Results of comparison (Preliminary) Calculated a GIG mean boundary value for each IC river type. 2 options for determining the uncertainty around the mean boundaries & define an acceptable range for MS boundaries to lie within: a) an uncertainty of ± 5% (equivalent 25% of class width on EQR scale) b) mean of 95%ile confidence ranges of MS boundaries (equivalent ± 3% on EQR scale) CBGIG Rivers present options for: type-specific boundaries & boundaries for all types combined** MS provide a dataset with raw macro-invertebrate data, MS EQRs (national method and metrics) and MS class boundaries. MS datasets are validated against acceptance criteria (the acceptance criteria are shown in the table below). Members of the Steering Group (‘Type Coordinators’) check the compliance of MS datasets within each common intercalibration river type. A careful review of the screening undertaken by MS for GIG reference criteria has been undertaken by the CBGIG Steering Group and those not judged to have screened adequately have not had their datasets included in the derivation of the GIG mean boundary and mean confidence limits used for comparison. The independent AQEM/STAR benchmark classification (explanation see below) was also included in the comparison. **Advantage: Facilitates boundary setting for river types we have not intercalibrated. Facilitates MS with many river types

Justification for Uncertainty Band Variation due to: Collection/sampling methods Quality of datasets e.g. number of available samples in difference quality classes Typology issues Selection of reference sites Reference screening Discriminatory power of ICMi (some national methods are better in distinguishing classes) Scatter/noise around the regression etc.

R-C6 (preliminary) H/G: 0.92 ±0.05 (5% band) G/M:0.76 ±0.05 (5% band)

R-C4 H/G: 0.94 ±0.03 (5% band) G/M:0.77 ±0.02 (5% band)

All Types Combined: Average of harmonised H/G boundaries ± 5% Macro-invertebrate IC All Types Combined: Average of harmonised H/G boundaries ± 5% 0.92 ± 0.05

All Types Combined: Average of harmonised G/M boundaries ± 5% Macro-invertebrate IC All Types Combined: Average of harmonised G/M boundaries ± 5% 0.76 ± 0.05

Macro-invertebrate IC All Types Combined:

No significant differences Macro-invertebrate IC Outcomes of Comparison No significant differences Analysis of significant differences Technical: Data quality; calculation of EQR; normalisation procedure; variation in reference condition. Typological: Some MS boundary differences deemed to be due to real typological issues (e.g. reference conditions truly differ). No action required!

Harmonisation of Boundaries Macro-invertebrate IC Harmonisation of Boundaries MS accepts GIG boundary MS does not accept GIG boundary MS justifies reasons for not accepting GIG boundary. MS provides scientific or technical reasons explaining differences (e.g. typological differences). MS adjusts boundary to fall within GIG confidence range National system or ICMi as legal boundary?

Macro-invertebrates State of Play: Macro-invertebrate IC Macro-invertebrates State of Play: Much effort was required to define reference status. No reference sites in some MS for some types. Not all countries have fully developed or WFD-compatible assessment methods at this time. Some countries still not decided on a national metric. Some MS using more than one national metric. Future work (after 2007): Further development of the concept of reference status. Other pressures (e.g. hydromorphology, industrial toxic discharges). Other river types.

Phytobenthos Intercalibration Exercise Phytobenthos General overview Phytobenthos Intercalibration Exercise 11 Member states participating: AT, BE (Flanders/Wallonia), EE, FR, DE, IE, LU, NL, ES, SE, UK Methods: Sampling – all EN 13946 Analysis – all EN 14407 Metrics: Based on existing WA metrics or New WFD-specific metrics – compliance with normative definitions Composition  diatoms only Abundance  All metrics cover relative not absolute abundance ‘Undesirable disturbances’ ‘bacterial tufts’

Relevance of the IC typology Phytobenthos IC Relevance of the IC typology Fig. DCA all reference samples No clear separation of the IC types Retain useful national typologies

Intercalibration metric Phytobenthos IC Intercalibration metric Proposed use of simple multimetric ICM TI (sensitivity at low pressure levels) & IPS (discriminates higher levels of nutrient / organic pressure) computed as minimum value of two separate EQRs Inclusion criteria Harmonisation of status class boundaries (uncertainty band of 3 or 5% band) Same as macro-invertebrate exercise Expected completion date: Provisional boundaries by October 2006

Phytobenthos Provisional Results Phytobenthos IC Phytobenthos Provisional Results

Phytobenthos Provisional Results Phytobenthos IC Phytobenthos Provisional Results

Phytobenthos - Future work* Phytobenthos IC Phytobenthos - Future work* *Beyond June 2007 Recommendation for a research project to examine the following: Derive an improved IC typology. Develop a fully-harmonised ‘benchmark dataset’ (i.e. with a consistent taxonomic approach & quality control of sampling and analysis). Develop an improved ICM. Participation by more MS. Inclusion of other river/stream types.

Expected time of finalisation for QE Expected finalisation date Main open issues Macroinvertebrates October 2006 No reference sites in some MS. Not all countries have fully WFD compatible assessment methods, or have defined a national metric. No reference sites for some river types. Phytobenthos October 2006* *provisional boundaries Typology. Improved ICM. Macrophytes 2007 Define a common set of type specific reference. Define disturbance indicating species to be used as common metrics.