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 development BC2 (DE-DK): DK currently has no finished method for this type BC4 (LV-EE): LV currently does not pass the compliance check - LV states, their system is still under development BC5 (PL-LT-LV): All 3 countries currently do not pass the compliance check - see above BC7 (DE-PL): PL currently does not pass the compliance check - see above

Baltic Sea results benthic invertebrate fauna Extra type BC1 BC3 BC4 BC5 BC7 BC8 BC6 1 st phase results + benchmarking New comparison EE-FI No results LV method not ready No results LV-LT methods not ready No results PL method not ready Results SE-DK Results DE-DK BT1: Vistula and Curanian lagoon,

COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna Member State Full BQE method Composition # Abundance Disturbance sensitive taxa DiversityBio-mass Taxa indicative of pollution Germany MarBIT CW Yes Taxonomic spread index TSI based on reference taxa list for each area Correlation with reference log-normal abundance distribution Fraction of taxa sensitive to disturbance in relation to reference taxa list for each area Taxonomic spread index based on reference taxa list for each area No Fraction of taxa tolerant to disturbance in relation to reference taxa list for each area Sweden BQI CW-TW Finland BBI CW Yes Not in strict sense (only composition of preclassified sensitivity classes) Species abundance weighted with sensitivity value + adjustment factor abundance 4 sensitivity classes Species richness (logarithmic) + Shannon - Wiener’s index (FI) No Oligochaeta, Chironomidae etc. Denmark DKI ver2 CW Yes Not in strict sense (only composition of preclassified sensitivity classes) Species abundance weighted with sensitivity value (from AMBI component)* As in AMBI method (5 sensitivity classes) Shannon – Wiener’s entropy index H No Specific opportunistic species Lithuania, Latvia BQI CW-TW as SE?? Yes Not in strict sense (only composition of preclassified sensitivity classes) Species abundance weighted with sensitivity value + adjustment factor abundance 4 sensitivity classes Species richness (logarithmic) No Oligochaeta, Chironomidae etc. Estonia ZKI CW No (justified) Not in strict sense (only composition of preclassified sensitivity classes) No** 3 sensitivity classes, no very sensitive taxa Species richness adjusted to salinity at waterbody level Relative dry shell- free biomass Oligochaeta, Chironomidae Poland B CW-TW No???

BC3: FI-EEThe IC type

BC3: FI-EEThe field methods FI: Ekman grab and 0.5mm sieve EE: Ekman grab and 0.25mm sieve - Using test data, it could be shown, that EQR results are the same for 0.25 and 1mm (r= ) and thus deduced that the difference between 0.5 and 0.25mm is negligable

BC3: FI-EEThe indices FI: BBI – with abundance EE: ZKI – with biomass -> IC data from city of Helsinki (142 sites) and Estonian coast (14 sites)

BC3: FI-EEBenchmarking BSPI (Baltic Sea Pressure Index) -Only one pressure value against data from different years -Covers more pressures than applicable to benthic fauna -Background data for BSPI sometimes sparse

BC3: FI-EEBenchmarking ZKI EQR vs BSPI median: r = -0.60, p < 0.05 BBI EQR vs BSPI median: r = -0.50, p < 0.05 National indices, unmodified

BC3: FI-EEHarmonisation -Option 3a -Benchmarking using division -EE: 4 sites out of 14 -FI: 110 sites out of 142 PCM scale

BC3: FI-EEHarmonisation FIEE GM bias HG bias Class difference0.56 no changes needed

BC6: SE-DKThe IC type strictly only 2 water bodies in DK, but 3 were used

BC6: SE-DKThe indices SE: BQI – 49 sites in IC data set DK: DKI – 3 sites in IC data set

BC6: SE-DKBenchmarking BSPI (Baltic Sea Pressure Index) - good correlation on water body level National indices, unmodified red dots = DK blue dots = SE no benchmarking needed DKI BQI BSPI p = 0.056p = 0.007

BC6: SE-DKHarmonisation -Option 3a -Benchmarking using division -SE: 20 sites out of 49 -DK: 3 sites out of 3 PCM scale

BC6: SE-DKHarmonisation SEDK GM bias HG bias Class difference0.25 no changes needed for GM boundary skipping results for HG boundary, since there are no high status data from SE

BC6: SE-DKHarmonisation -using division or subtraction for benchmarking gives identical results -spread sheets cannot be used in case of only 2 countries! -Using option 3b results in GM boundary for SE EQR units (on national scale) and DK EQR units

BC8: DE-DKThe IC type

BC8: DE-DKThe indices DE: MarBIT – 17 sites in IC data set from 10 water bodies DK: DKI – 16 sites in IC data set from 14 water bodies

BC8: DE-DKBenchmarking BSPI (Baltic Sea Pressure Index) BSPI MarBIT r = for all DE national data used for BC8 and BC7

BC8: DE-DKBenchmarking BSPI (Baltic Sea Pressure Index) - good correlation on water body level BSPI EQR National indices, unmodified, applied to IC dataset Blue = DKI Red = MarBIT

BC8: DE-DKHarmonisation -Option 3a -Benchmarking using division/subtraction -DE: 7 sites out of 17 -DK: 6 sites out of 16 PCM scale

BC8: DE-DKHarmonisation DEDK GM bias HG bias Class difference0.15 small change needed for GM boundary: DE GM boundary EQR units skipping results for HG boundary, since there are no high status sites

BC8: DE-DKHarmonisation Own calculation approach: DEDK GM bias0.52 (0.271)-0.51 (-0.236) Spread sheetOwn calculation regressionPCM = 0.48*x (r=0.64)PCM = 0.51*x (r=0.64) PCM scaleDE Ref=1.199, GM=0.784DE Ref=1.61, GM=1.19 Changed assignment of benchmark sites changes resulting regression, boundaries on PCM scale, and boundary bias -> but not in spread sheets!!

Summary – as result from validation workshop The proposed boundaries in milestone report 5 and presented here need to be re-calculated manually using a „model II regression“ of one country against the other. This will not remove the already existing significant relationships, but alter the boundary bias and class agreement, and thus affect the proposed harmonised boundaries