Joint REFCOND and Intercalibration Meeting JRC, Ispra, Italy 5th-7th December 2001 Working Group 2.4 Members present: Franck Bruchon, Julia Haythornthwaite, Kari Nygaard

Outline of this Presentation REFCOND meeting Intercalibration meeting Relevant outcomes of meetings for WG 2.4 The presentation is focused upon those outcomes that are relevant for this WG

For reference conditions Typology Not specified as a task for REFCOND project, but needed -> a REFCOND issue There is a need for a common Typology For IC and reporting - simple, transparent - 1 typology for all quality elements - 1 typology all over Europe - not flexible For reference conditions - as simple as possible, but as complicated as needed for adequate protection -  typologies for  quality elements -  typologies in  ecoregions - flexible (be adapted when + and + data available)

Typology... A common Typology simplest level used for reporting (tool for managers, communication) based on common optional factors from system B a more complex typology for management purposes  A common core typology (within ecoregions): guidance for mandatory + a minimum set of optional factors

Typology... Current results of MS answers to questionnaire System A: decided : 0 probably : 3 System B: decided : 2 probably : 9 Boundaries used within System A can be made more ecologically relevant and used within System B altitude : not a limit of altitude but tree line limit stream size: use discontinuities of the hydrographic network Common European Database needed a specific WG must be set up Rare types will not be included in IC

Scale for Typology Is there a minimum size for a type ? System A excludes lakes less than 0.5 km2 Commission’s View: All water bodies should be included but e.g. Sweden : 100,000 lakes among which 6000 > 0.5 km2 First results of the questionnaire : avg. Nb. of types for rivers : 25 (excpt: Portugal 227) avg. Nb. of types for lakes : 20 (excpt: Italy 260) large variety of factors used ; some common factors

Typology... First results of the questionnaire : Recommendation: avg. Nb. of types for rivers : 25 (excpt: Portugal 227) avg. Nb. of types for lakes : 20 (excpt: Italy 260) large variety of factors used ; some common factors Recommendation: starting with a detailed typology is preferable (avoid type 2 errors) then group types with similar reference conditions (validation step)

Reference Conditions No redefinition should be made : guidance should provide further interpretation and assistance start with morphological and chemical conditions that allow description of biological elements Agenda: draft guidance : May 2002 final guidance: December 2002

Reference Conditions... Undisturbed status Minimally disturbed Slightly disturbed High status Good status There is a need to define the term “minimally disturbed” for the selection of reference sites should include levels of impact compatible with e.g. pre-intensification land use needs to consider more gradual changes, e.g. climate change minimal morphological changes should be compatible with the equivalent natural species composition and ecological functioning

Often biased; depends on quality of data supplied Reference Conditions... Proposed hierarchy of methods to be used to define Reference Conditions: 1. Spatial data 2. Paleoecology 3. Predictive modelling 4. Historical data 5. Expert judgement Plotting metrics or index values against disturbance or natural variation ; extrapolating lab results (diatoms, pollens, chironomids); often restricted to lakes; high initial cost; restricted to a few groups High initial cost; requires data validation and calibration Often uncomplete; methods / sampling frequency not comparable; need for resampled sites Often biased; depends on quality of data supplied

Nb. of methods for Rivers using : Reference Conditions... Proposed hierarchy of methods to be used to define Reference Conditions: Nb. of methods for Rivers using : 1. 147 2. 12 3. 40 4. 75 5. 87 1. Spatial data 2. Paleoecology 3. Predictive modelling 4. Historical data 5. Expert judgement

Who sets Class Boundaries? REFCOND (and therefore WG 2.4) propose the principles / methods to be used Intercalibration working group sets the boundaries

How should Class Boundaries be set? Agreement points Classification on a single indicator not appropriate Def. of Q.E. for classification : at group level (phytoplankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, fish) Class boundaries : fixed, derived from lower boundaries of natural dynamics but: UK River Habitat Survey (5 typol. Systems tested on 4500 rivers) -> variability within type > variability among types Ecological classification based on biological and physico-chemical elements Hydromorphology only applies to reference site identification, not for classification

How should Class Boundaries be set? Agreement points Classification based on biological and physico-chemical QE, but Intercalibration only on biological QE All biological QE must be ‘good’ for classifying as ‘good’ Need a range or good / moderate sites to determine the boundary, using: critical loads statistical approach (if good data available) expert judgement, models (if sparse data)

How should Class Boundaries be set? Undisturbed status Minimally disturbed Slightly disturbed High status Good status Boudary def. use pressure - related criteria Classification based on quality elements so, reference conditions baseline must not be defined on QE RC 1st defined on physical and hydromorphological factors... … then linked to biological elements corresponding to RC defined Pressure criteria could be used to define the boundary between high and good quality

How should Class Boundaries be set? Pressures indirect pressures on supporting conditions land-use effect, climate change direct pressures on supporting conditions morphological alterations, abstractions / impoundments; point-source discharges direct pressures on biological quality elements fishing, introduction of alien species

How should Class Boundaries be set? Discussion points Surveillance monitoring requires all QE ? Should different weightings be given to different biological groups? Pro: possible to focus on the most relevant groups (better level of confidence) Contra: some pressures may be underestimated Questions to be addressed: nb of classes, stress-response relationships, variance among/ between classes errors: spatial / sampling/ sample treatment variation asymmetrical pollution effects

How should Class Boundaries be set? One out – all out limit One out – all out limit I have copied this diagram from one of the Ispra papers ‘Setting class boundaries for the classification of rivers and lakes in Europe’ as I thought that it explained the point rather well. Based on the worst quality WFD seems to be strict on this interpretation Consider an average class after withdrawing the worst elements WG favors this interpretation; more adapted to national classification systems; more flexible

Expert Groups Three expert groups are to be set up in January 2002: - Rivers - Lakes - Coastal and transitional waters JRC makes proposal for expert group composition Core drafting Group of 2-5 experts (from CIS WG; not all MS but all ecoregions represented) Report to be produced to IC WG before June 2002 Expert Groups   Ø       Three expert groups are to be set up in January 2002 to define the criteria for the selection of intercalibration sites. The three groups are: -         Rivers -         Lakes -         Coastal and transitional waters Ø       MS will nominate these experts. A letter will be sent out asking for proposals to be given to Anna-Stiina. There will be a core ‘drafting group’ of 2-5 people who will preferably be from other CIS working groups. JRC will facilitate and lead the drafting groups and the IC WG will review the drafts produced. Ø       Information from other WG and other WG outside of CIS e.g. STAR, FAME, AQEM should be included.

Expert Groups The tasks of the temporary expert groups will be to: define criteria for the selection of water body types and sites for each surface water category propose water body types to be included in IC interpret the definitions of the boundaries for each water body category. evaluate confidence limits for each quality element in order to set boundaries between classes. initiate the preliminary selection of sites for the IC network.

Intercalibration - Agenda Selection of types : 2002 Selection of sites : 2003 Intercalibration exercise : 2005-2006 testing guidance (2002) cancelled Selection of Types   Ø       The WRC approach for rivers as presented by Steve Nixon was supported by those at the meeting. It was decided that the approach should therefore be expanded for all quality elements and include all MS. Explain WRC Approach Ø       All important pressures should be covered within the types selected. Ø       As many types as possible should be included whilst at the same time allowing for a sufficiently high number of sites within each type. Ø       A common paper on HMWB should be produced with WG 2.2.

Selection of Types WRC approach proposed that attention should be focused on common types of rivers. The five main types were said to be: Lowland stream/river Mid-altitude stream Alpine stream Mediterranean stream Heavily modified lowland river All important pressures should be covered within the types selected. Selection of Types   Ø       The WRC approach for rivers as presented by Steve Nixon was supported by those at the meeting. It was decided that the approach should therefore be expanded for all quality elements and include all MS. Explain WRC Approach Ø       All important pressures should be covered within the types selected. Ø       As many types as possible should be included whilst at the same time allowing for a sufficiently high number of sites within each type. Ø       A common paper on HMWB should be produced with WG 2.2.

Selection of Types IC should include as many types as possible whilst allowing for a sufficiently high number of sites within each type. A common paper on HMWB should be produced with WG 2.2.

Selection of Sites A range of sites from high to moderate should be examined to set the boundaries. Biological, chemical and physical data and critical loading models (for lakes) should be used to identify the range of potential IC sites. Present recommendation for the number of sites at each boundary is 5 or more if possible All biological quality elements should be included to cover the range of pressures. Selection of Sites   Ø       In order to set the boundaries between classes a range of sites from high to moderate should be examined. Ø       Biological, chemical and physical data and critical loading models (for lakes) should be used to identify the range of potential IC sites. Ø       The number of sites should be greater than 2 at each boundary for each type (the present recommendation is 5 or more if possible). Ø       All biological quality elements should be included to cover the range of pressures. MS do not need to use all quality elements for classification but they should all be used for IC. Ø       There was a debate as to whether ‘non-existent’ reference sites should be included in the IC procedure. Ø       It was pointed out that for some types e.g. European lowland rivers, it will only be possible to carry out IC at the good/moderate boundary.

Selection of Sites Should ‘non-existent’ reference sites be included in the IC exercise? For some types it will only be possible to carry out IC at the good/moderate boundary e.g. European lowland rivers

Summary The need for a common typology is recognised IC exercise will not include all types Size of water bodies to be included is to be addressed Definition of minimally disturbed to be addressed Intercalibration WG will set Class Boundaries By first setting up Expert Groups Number of sites to included in IC exercise to be addressed