Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Rivers Intercalibration Phase 2 Key Cross-GIG activities  Refining Reference Conditions  Intercalibrating Large River Ecological Status  Initial.
Advertisements

TMAP – WFD Workshop Reference Values Hamburg 29 – 30 November 2004 Overview WFD Implementation Harald Marencic Common Wadden Sea Secretariat.
ECOSTAT meeting – Ispra (IT), July of 14 CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration.
WG ECOSTAT meeting - Ispra, 20 Mar 2012 Maria Dulce Subida & Pilar Drake Experts for CW & TW benthic invertebrates SPAIN - Andalusia.
25 oktober nd phase intercalibration CBGIG Macrophytes Rob Portielje.
Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses.
Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) Phase 2: Milestone 5 Reports (M5R) Presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Intercalibration Guidance: update Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Finished IC No finished IC Typology. BT1 (PL-LT): PL and LT currently do not pass compliance check - Both countries state, their system is still under.
Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators in rivers and lakes Anne Lyche Solheim and Jannicke Moe, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Böhmer, J. Birk, S., Schöll, F. Intercalibration of large river assessment methods.
Working Group A ECOSTAT Intercalibration Progress Coast GIGs JRC, Ispra, Italy, March 2005 Dave Jowett, Environment Agency (England and Wales), Coast.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration CB GIG River Macroinvertebrates Final Report ECOSTAT June 2011 Isabel Pardo Roger Owen.
Intercalibration Option 3 results: what is acceptable and what is not ? Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
11 juni 2007 Ecological classification in the Netherlands1 Diederik van der Molen Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management CIS workshop.
ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Comparability of the results of the intercalibration exercise – MS sharing the same method Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Northern GIG Intercalibration of lake macrophytes Seppo Hellsten, Nigel Willby, Geoff Phillips, Frauke Ecke, Marit Mjelde, Deirdre Tierney.
FI: Ansa Pilke and Liisa Lepisto, Finnish Environment Institute NO: Dag Rosland, Norwegian National Pollution Control Authority Anne Lyche Solheim, Norwegian.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund Third phase of deWELopment project Scope of the work Warsaw, 1st Feb
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
Freshwater fish Classification Tools
Principles and Key Issues
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) Phase 2: Milestone 4 Reports (M4R) Presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
CW-TW Intercalibration results
Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre on Water
Angel Borja Coordinator of the Group
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
French Seagrass indicator - Atlantic and Channel CW & TW
Progress on Intercalibration COAST GIGs
RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG
SoE Guidance – Biological reporting sheets
Coastal waters – intercalibration of chlorophyll a
Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
State of art: Central Baltic Lake GIG
Intercalibration of Opportunistic Algae Blooms
Intercalibration : a “WFD compliant” boundary comparing procedure
Report represents work in progress Makes recommendations for output
Lake Macroinvertebrate IC EC-GIG
NE Atlantic GIG ECOSTAT April 2013 Summary of NE ATLANTIC GIG Workshop held in Lisbon (24th-25th January 2013) The Next Phase.
CW-TW IC Work progress Fuensanta Salas Herrero, CW-TW IC Coordinator
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
Rivers X-GIG phytobenthos intercalibration
WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002
Water Framework Directive
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
WG A ECOSTAT Intercalibration guidance : Annexes III, V, VI
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
NEA-GIG: Intercalibration Validation Meeting (Ispra, March 2012)
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
Lake Intercalibration – IC Decision Annexes + what to do in future
First issue: same classification system - different boundaries (1)
Angel Borja Coordinator of the Group
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
EU Water Framework Directive
Working Group on Reference Conditions
NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GIG
ECOSTAT nutrient work : Brief update February 2017
Guidance on establishing nutrient concentrations to support good ecological status Introduction and overview Martyn Kelly.
Relationships for Broad & Intercalibration Types Geoff Phillips
Joint REFCOND and Intercalibration Meeting
Mismatches between nutrients and BQEs: what does it tell us?
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW COASTAL AND TRANSITIONAL WATERS INTERCALIBRATION VALIDATION WORKSHOP ISPRA 17 nov 2011 E. Van den Bergh (BE), Joao Neto (PT), Jose Juanes (ES), Robert Wilkes (IE)

1. Compliance of methods DE – EM (WISER ID 130): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Metrics: Abundance: SM extent compared to historical reference Taxonomic composition: Relative representation of SMzones compared to reference Combination rule:Mean NL – TSM (WISER ID 259, to be adapted): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Combination rule: One out All out UK – SM (under construction): Saltmarsh in CW and TW Abundance: Saltmarsh extent compared to historical reference Saltmarsh extent compared to intertidal Taxonomic composition: Number of zones compared to maximum Maximum zone area Number of species/zone compared to reference Combination rule: Weighted mean

1. Compliance of methods Abundance = extent Calculation rule for abundance differs Disturbance sensitive taxa = vegetation zones Definition of zones differs Calculation rule for zonation differs No species information for NL-DE REFCOND: historical interpretation and expert judgement, no near natural sites UK adds species representation for taxonomic composition All methods comply

2. Feasability Biotypes:subtypological variants based on physical and chemical xtics

3 Data DE – EM 5 NWB 5 EQR NL – TSM 1 NWB 1 HMWB 2 years each 4 EQR UK – SM 9 HMWB, 5 NWB SM extent + SM ZONES 5 HMWB 16 NWB SM extent only 14 EQR 21 EQR abundance only TOTAL 11 NWB + 10HMWB 23 Complete EQR

4 Pressures Method Pressure Remarks DE – EM Physical disturbance hydro-morphological changes habitat loss Not tested NL - TSM UK - SM Tested

Common approach: Pressure Table for Saltmarsh(CW) 4 Pressures Common approach: Pressure Table for Saltmarsh(CW) Method Pressure category Pressure indicators Remarks DE – EM NL – TSM UK – SM Hydromorphological Land Claim Shoreline re-enforcement Hydromorphological risk assessment Resources use change Dredging area & volume Disposal area & volume Marina development Tourism & recreation

4 Pressure Indicators Hydromorpological pressure Landclaim % intertidal Shoreline % reinforcement Dredge disposal area % subtidal Summed up as Total HMP Maximum value as Maximum HMP For UK only tested on surveillance sites with info on SM extent AND zonation (5wb)

4 Pressure EQR response

5 Assessment concept Method Assessment concept DE – EM NL – TSM Extent of saltmarsh compared to historical reference relative extent of vegetation zones Vegetation mapping with aerial photos and ground truthing (GPS) UK-SM Same elements + species presence OPTION 2 Similar concepts Different measurements and metrics DATA Quality Classes covered across GIG, not at MS level

6 Common Metrics CM 1: SM extent as proportion of reference, truncated at 1 CM 2: H’ of 4 predefined vegetation zones: pioneer, low, mid, high marsh, normalised to values between 0 and 1 CM 3: (CM 1 + CM 2)/2

6 Common Metrics/ EQR response Selection of CM3

6 Common Metrics Pressure response 40 Max pressure 60 Total pressure G/H Reasonable response to total and max hydromorphological pressure

7 REFCOND-BENCHMARK No unimpacted reference sites in DB Defined Ref cond SM extent > 100% Ref H’ >3,75 Defined G-H boundary: SM extent is > 80% Ref Ref and H’>3,25 (nearly all zones present, no real dominance of one zone) Total pressure < 60%, max pressure < 40% Not sufficient alternative benchmark sites in dataset: one dummy added to DB for each MS: EQR=1; CM3=1

8 Boundary setting and adjustment OPT 2 DIV UK-SM NL-TSM DE-EM Max 1,000 H/G 0,779 0,820 0,818 G/M 0,616 0,758 M/P 0,400 P/B 0,200

Common metric selection: the common metric combining a diversity and abundance metric was concluded not to be appropriate, since the abundance metric was taking into account different Member State views on the reference condition. 9 workshop conclusions CM3 combining diversity and abundance takes MS views on RC Take H’ instead; relationship with pressures still to be illustrated. Continuous benchmarking instead of dummy

Later remarks (W. Bonne) H’ no good response to pressure Different appreciation between MS related to a national view or to existing differences in nature?

Way forward? Continue with a common metric by using the way of derivation how one Member State did it and apply this to all: already done The outcome of the calculation sheets probably reflects the good relation of a national view with the national view, IS SURFACE ACCEPTABLE AS MEASURE FOR ABUNDANCE?