Broad European types of lakes and rivers Use of national typology information Anne Lyche Solheim and Jonas Persson, EEA-ETC-ICM, Peter Kristensen, EEA Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Outline Why are broad types needed? How will they be used? Most common type factors used in national typologies for lakes and rivers Identification of broad types and comparison with IC types and HD Freshwater habitat types Next steps Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Why are broad types needed? For the new WFD article 18 European assessment in 2018, the EC and EEA want to know the differences in status, pressures and measures between broad types of water bodies, e.g.: What proportion of lowland, calcareous rivers are not in good status? What are the main pressures and are the measures relevant and sufficient for restoration? Can we see any improvement since the 1st RBMPs? What proportion of highland lakes are affected by hydropower? How many fish migration barriers are found in mid-altitude rivers? What is the status of humic lakes compared to non-humic lakes? Are siliceous mid-altitude and highland lakes still affected by acidification? What proportion of small Mediterranean temporary rivers are in poor status due to water abstraction? What is the status and pressures on very shallow calcareous lakes compared to deeper lakes? What is the status and most common combination of pressures reported for very large, lowland rivers? Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Why are broad types needed? What is the difference between the status and pressures on broad types of WFD water bodies relative to water bodies in national types that are linked to comparable IC types? Which of the broad types show most improvement and least improvement since the 1st RBMP reporting? Can we compare broad types of WFD water bodies with the freshwater habitat types in the Habitats Directive article 17? If yes, are the status and pressures on those broad types comparable to the conservation status and threats reported for related freshwater habitat types? Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

EEA – ETC use of the broad types 2014: Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment report comparing WFD ecological status and pressures in the broad types with the HD freshwater habitat types and their conservation status. Publication on ETC-website Contribute to the assessment of freshwater habitats and species for the HD Article 17 Provide inputs to the assessments of freshwater Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services under the EU Biodiversity strategy 2020 2016-2018 WFD article 18 report (EEA report to EC/EP) based on the article 13 reporting of the 2nd RBMPs: Comparing status, pressures and measures for water bodies in national types sorted into broad types, and look for improvements in status since the 1st RBMPs. Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Why do we need broad types? Type specific assessments not possible in WFD article 18 report in 2012 after the MSs article 13 reporting of the 1st RBMPs due to the huge number of national types not linked to IC types >2000 types (1599 river types and 673 lakes types), only 25% linked to IC types Only single country examples could be shown, e.g. Germany 80% of all WBs were found in 275 national river types and 164 lake types The aim is to define broad types at European scale (or regional scale), by grouping national types with high similarity The aim is not to change the national typologies!! Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Type-specific assessment of German rivers p. 60 in BMU/UBA 2010: Water resource management in Germany – part 2, http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3771.pdf Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Approach In 2012 and 2013 Member States were asked to report the type ranges or descriptions for each type factor used for each of their national types, with a focus on national types holding most of the water bodies. All member states replied to the questionnaire, and typology data were received from all except Luxembourg and Malta. Malta does not have inland surface waters that conform to the typology of rivers and lakes in mainland Europe. They only have some seasonal streams and ponds. Luxembourg is in the process of remaking the whole typology, as the former typology presented some main gaps and was not fully WFD compliant. They will report the new typology as soon as it is established. The most commonly used typology factors were found and used to define a limited number of broad types for both rivers and lakes. The categories and ranges for each typology factor follow the WFD Annex II, system A Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Most common type factors The national typology data show that the most commonly used type factors are: Rivers: Altitude: lowland, mid-altitude, highland Catchment size: very small, small, medium, large, very large Geology: siliceous, calcareous, organic, mixed Lakes: Altitude: lowland, mid-altitude, highland Size: very small, small, medium, large, very large Depth: very shallow, shallow, deep Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

River typology factors used to define the broad types Type factor Categories Codes Range Altitude lowland 1 < 200 masl   mid-altitude 2 200-800 masl highland 3 > 800 masl Catchment size very small < 10 km2 small 10-100 km2 medium 100-1000 km2 large 4 1000-10000 km2 very large 5 >10000 km2 Alkalinity Ca Colour Bedrock or deposits Geology Siliceous < 1 mekv/L < 20 mg/L < 30 mg Pt/L crystalline, granite, gneiss Calcareous > 1 mekv/L > 20 mg/L sedimentary, calcite, carbonaceous Organic /Humic any > 30 mg Pt/L peat Mixed any mixture Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Lake typology factors used to define the broad types Type factor Categories Codes Range Altitude lowland 1 < 200 masl   mid-altitude 2 200-800 masl highland 3 > 800 masl Surface area very small < 0,5 km2 small 0,5-1 km2 medium 1-10 km2 large 4 10-100 km2 very large 5 >100 km2 Alkalinity Ca Colour Bedrock or deposits Geology Siliceous < 1 mekv/L < 20 mg/L < 30 mg Pt/L crystalline, granite, gneiss Calcareous > 1 mekv/L > 20 mg/L sedimentary, calcite, carbonaceous Organic /Humic any > 30 mg Pt/L peat Mixed any mixture Stratification Mixing Mean depth very shallow < 3 m non-stratified polymictic shallow 3-15 m stratified dimictic deep > 15 m Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Methodology used to define the broad types The national types were grouped based on similarity between the type ranges for these most commonly used typology factors. The similarity was first found by cluster analysis, The results were adjusted and expanded to include more national types using freshwater ecological expertise within the ETC-ICM (EEA). The links given by Member States to the IC common types were also used to sort some of the national types into broad types, based on similarities between broad types and IC types. Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Justification for the broad types Pressures vary in relation to altitude, geology and latitude Ecological responses to pressures depend on geology, size, and climate (altitude, latitude) The broad types should be linked to IC common types Mediterranean types separated from the rest of Europe due to a different climate and more pressures from water scarcity and droughts. Pragmatic need to limit the number of broad types to be used for meaningful EU-level assessments of status and pressures. Further details of the justification is given in the typology note distributed before the workshop (available in the Ecostat circa) Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Rivers Broad types Broad type name Broad RW type (2014) Altitude (masl) Catchment area (km2) Geology Very large rivers (all Europe) 1   >10 000 Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Medium-Large 2 ≤200 100 - 10 000 Siliceous/Organic Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Very small-Small 3 ≤100 Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 4 Calcareous/Mixed Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 5 Mid altitude, Siliceous, Medium-Large 6 200 - 800 Siliceous* Mid altitude, Siliceous, Small 7 Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 8 Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 9 Highland, Siliceous 10 >800 Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 11 Mediterranean, Lowland, Medium-Large 12 Mediterranean, Mid altitude, Medium-Large 13 Mediterranean, Very small-Small 14 Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

River broad types: # national types and WBs Broad type name Broad RW type (2014) # national types # WBs* % of WBs Very large rivers (all Europe) 1 43 599 0,6 % Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Medium-Large 2 18 2766 2,7 % Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Very small-Small 3 16 9719 9,4 % Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 4 82 3135 3,0 % Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 5 26 14128 13,6 % Mid altitude, Siliceous, Medium-Large 6 23 4662 4,5 % Mid altitude, Siliceous, Small 7 14 8894 8,6 % Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 8 3262 3,1 % Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 9 20 5001 4,8 % Highland, Siliceous 10 12 4163 4,0 % Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 11 19 3542 3,4 % Mediterranean, Lowland, Medium-Large 15 1030 1,0 % Mediterranean, Mid altitude, Medium-Large 13 21 2427 2,3 % Mediterranean, Very small-Small 31 3721 3,6 % Total 383 67049 64,6 % *Total WBs 103721 100 % Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Links between broad types and IC types RIVERS Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Links between broad types and IC types RIVERS Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Links between broad types and IC types RIVERS Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Lakes broad types Broad type name Broad LW type Altitude (masl) Lake area (km2) Geology Mean depth (m) Very large and deep* 1   >100 > 15 Lowland, Siliceous 2 ≤200 Siliceous* Lowland, Shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 3 Calcareous/Mixed 3 - 15 Lowland, Very shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 4 ≤3 Organic 5 Mid altitude, Siliceous 6 200 - 800 Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed 7 Highland, Siliceous 8 >800 Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 9 Mediterranean, Small-Very large 10 >0.5 Mediterranean, Very small 11 ≤0.5 Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Lakes broad types: # national types and WBs Broad type name Broad LW type # national types # WBs* % of WBs Very large and deep* 1 9 132 0,7 % Lowland, Siliceous 2 26 1755 9,6 % Lowland, Shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 3 24 1601 8,7 % Lowland, Very shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 4 28 1792 9,8 % Organic 5 3349 18,2 % Mid altitude, Siliceous 6 7 2511 13,7 % Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed 23 274 1,5 % Highland, Siliceous 8 548 3,0 % Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 33 0,2 % Mediterranean, Small-Very large 10 15 99 0,5 % Mediterranean, Very small 11 73 0,4 % Total 185 12167 66,2 % * many large lakes are split into smaller water bodies, and thus do not appear as large lakes *Total WBs 18375 100 % Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Links between broad types and IC types LAKES Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Links between broad types and IC types LAKES Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Links between broad types and IC types LAKES Broad LW types EU common intercalibration types Mediterranean 10. Mediterranean, Small-Very large L-M5/7. Reservoirs, deep, large, siliceous, "wet areas" L-M8. Reservoirs, deep, large, calcareous 11. Mediterranean, Very small   Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Annex 1, Rivers: Linking national types to broad types Broad RW type (2014) Country National typology Altitude Catchment Geology WBs % within MS 1 AT MZB_17_1,75 2 5 4 190 3% 6 MZB_2_1,5 3 929 13% MZB_2_1,25 603 8% MZB_12_1,75 243 7 MZB_12_1,5 448 6% 8 MZB_13_1,75 547 7% MZB_11_1,75 465 MZB_13_1,5 198 9 MZB_5_1,5 442 MZB_15_1,5 224 MZB_11_1,5 221 10 MZB_3_1,5 716 10% 11 MZB_7_1,25 MZB_5_1,25 267 4% See table 1 (slide 10) for Typology factor codes Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Annex 2, Lakes: Linking national types to broad types Broad LW type (2014 Country National typology Altitude Area Geology Mean depth WBs % within MS 1 AT B1 2 5 4 3 1.6 % 7 D1 6 9.7 % D2a 4.8 % D2b C1a   B2 8.1 % C1b 6.5 % 9 E1 10 16.1 % BE (Fl) CFe Czb Awe Awom Ad Ai Ami Cb See table 1 in typology note (see slide 11) for Typology factor codes Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Next steps Feedback from Member States concerning the broad types: Do these make sense, and if not, please propose changes before 15th May. Member States should validate the grouping of national types into the broad types including the choice of category for each typology factor given in Annexes 1 and 2. If the current categories for a national type given in Annexes 1 and 2 are wrong for one or several typology factors, then the Member State is kindly asked to make corrections, and consequently move the national type to another broad type. Alternatively they can delete the national type from the list of broad types, if they consider that none of the broad types are relevant. Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Next steps Optional: Member States can add more national types to Annexes 1 and 2 types appearing below the types holding 80% of the water bodies in the Member State specific sheets in the raw data file that was filled in last year Optional: Member States are encouraged to do analysis of status and pressures affecting your national types aggregated to the relevant broad types. This could increase the understanding of type differences. Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

Process to deal with the next steps Activity Deadline Responsible A request letter with all data files and explanations will be sent to Member States 15th April 2014 ETC-ICM and JRC Feedback on broad types. Checking and correcting the sorting of national types into the broad types given in Annexes 1 and 2, and return the data file and Annexes to JRC (who forwards to ETC-ICM) Add more national types to Annexes 1 and 2 (optional) 15th May 2014 Members States (ECOSTAT member organization ??) Revision of broad types by ETC and grouping of national types in Annexes 1 and 2 1st June ETC-ICM Assessment of status and pressures on water bodies within each of the broad types using the WFD RBMP database 15th June ETC_ICM Drafting the report: Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment including the new results 30th June Commenting 1st Sept 2014 EEA, JRC, Member States (?) Revision of the draft report based on comments and publication at the ETC web-site 30th Sept 2014 Presentation of key results at next Ecostat workshop October 2014 Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim