1. WFD-CIS WG 2A”ECOSTAT”
LAKES-MEDITERRANEAN GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP (L-M GIG)
HOW TO COPE WITH INTERCALIBRATION AS FOR RESERVOIRS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN GROUP?
J. Ortiz Casas
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Spain
GIG Coordinator
7 July 2004

2. L-M GIG Meeting, Madrid, 30/6/04
National L-M contact experts:
ES: Luisa Serrano
GR: Vasiliki Tsiaoussi
PT: Helena Alves
RO: Ruxandra Girbea
JRC-EEWAI:
Sandra Poikane
Invited expert:
Ramón Peña
GIG Coordinator:
José Ortiz-Casas

3. OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

4. OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

5. BACKGROUND - NUMBER OF TYPES: THREE *
- SITES: SUBMISSION STILL IN PROGRESS
- ALL RESERVOIRS
- MAJOR PRESSURE: NUTRIENT LOADING
- MAJOR IMPACT: EUTROPHICATION
- COUNTRIES: CY, ES, GR, IT,PT, RO
* Additional IC type (natural lakes) may still be proposed by GR and ES.

6. x L- M GIG TYPOLOGY L-M5 L-M7 L-M8 TYPE DEPTH SIZE ELEVATION GEOLOGY
Deep
>15m
Large
>0,5 km2
Low
<200m
mid m
calc.
>1,0 meq/l
silic.
0,2-1,0 meq/l
L-M5 x
L-M7
L-M8

7. OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

8. STRONG HYDRO (MORPHO)LOGICAL VARIABILITY
HYDROLOGICAL VARIABILITY: A MEDITERRANEAN FEATURE (Especially for reservoirs)
STRONG HYDRO (MORPHO)LOGICAL VARIABILITY
FULL STORAGE VOLUME BECOMES A FICTITIOUS VALUE, NOT ECOLOGICALLY RELEVANT
Are reference conditions and eutrophication response all the same regardless the reservoir is subject to a storage variation, instead of being permanently kept at full capacity?

11. HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THE SEASONAL VARIATION (1) IN WATER VOLUME/DEPTH?
IS THE SEASONAL STORAGE VARIATION CONFINED WITHIN THE TYPE RANGE? (i.e. AVERAGE VALUE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR FULL CAPACITY)
YES
IS SEASONAL STORAGE VARIATION COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHORE MACROPHYTES?
NO (3)
NO (2)
YES
REMAIN IN THE SAME TYPE
ASCRIBE TO ANOTHER TYPE
(1) Variation assumed to meet the Art. 4 requirements for HMWB designation
(2) “No macrophytes” means higher availability of nutrients for phytoplankton
(3) “Smaller actual volume” means higher nutrient concentration

12. Pending on final metadata submission, it seems that all, or nearly all, gig reservoirs are subject to significant seasonal variability in water storage.
NO MACROPHYTE COMMUNITIES.
SMALLER AVERAGE SIZE.
DIFFERENT BEHAVIOUR AND REF. COND. COMPARED TO PERMANENT FULL STORAGE CONDITIONS

13. OUTLINE BACK GROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

14. VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
COMMON DATA ONLY FOR PHYTOPLANKTON
PHYTOPLANKTON DATA MAINLY RESTRICTED TO CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION
INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR RELIABLE AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENT, BEARING IN MIND THE HIGH NATURAL VARIABILITY OF ALGAL CONDITIONS
OTHER DATA MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR SOME OF THE SITES.
SAMPLING STRATEGIES FOR BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS NEED SOME FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IF THEY ARE TO MEET THE WFD REQUIREMENTS

15. VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA (cont.)
SATELLITE DIGITAL IMAGERY OFFERS A MEANS FOR DEVOLOPING THEMATIC MAPPING, THUS PROVIDING:
AN EVIDENCE OF SEASONAL VARIABILITY FOR WATER SURFACE QUALITY ELEMENTS
AN APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF SEASONAL AVERAGE VALUES FOR WATER SURFACE QUALITY ELEMENTS

16. OUTLINE BACK GROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

17. L-M GIG: POSSIBLE CHOICES
Present data sets and sampling/analytical methods
“Main” parameter (chlorophyll)
Other (SD, TP, div.)
Option 2 (?)
Look for common metrics
Increasing sampling
Using remote sensing
IC against
Improved assessment (Option 1+2)
Improvement of biological assessment
Converge towards common method (sampling+lab)
IC against
partially common method (Option 1+2)
Totally
Partially
COMMON METHOD (OPTION 1)
THE BEST CHOICE

18. L-M GIG: WHAT IS COMMONLY DONE? HOW FAR
CAN WE GO TOWARDS COMMON ASSESSMENT?
BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT
PHYTOPLANKTON
common
PARAMETER
CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION
common
SUMMER AVERAGE?
METRICS
ANNUAL AVERAGE?
MAXIMUM?
FREQUENCY/TIMETABLE
SAMPLING STRATEGY
LOCATION (CENTRE, DEEPEST SITE?)
DEPTH (INTEGRATED, DISCRETE?)
SAMPLE TREATMENT (STORAGE, FILTERING)
ANALYTICAL METHOD
EXTRACTIVE REAGENT (ACETONE, METHANOL)
OPTICAL DENSITIES (EMPIRICAL EQUATION)

19. Option 1 seems to be most appropriate choice for the L-M GIG.
Current common available data are not sufficient for the IC process to result in a reliable EQR classification scale.
Possibilities will be studied by the GIG in order to agree a refined common method for assessment of average chlorophyll concentration.
Spain has the know- how and means to help in the assessment of seasonal average values by satellite remote sensing

20. Two complementary approaches for Option 1
Using current [Chl] data from water surface, single-date summer samples, together with satellite imagery, and checking equivalence between results from different analytical methods. Boundary setting?
Agreeing on a common sampling strategy (involving the whole photic layer, increasing sampling dates) and a common lab method. In order to adopt the IC network sites illustrating the boundaries, the common procedure should be applied during the IC exercise period.
One approach for hybrid Option 1 & 2
The only common metrics available in the GIG is Secchi depth, to be supported by satellite imagery, against which a common assessment method can be compared once the latter is agreed an applied

21. OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

22. BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
1st STEP: TYPE SPECIFIC REFERENCE CONDITIONS
2nd STEP: ESTABLISHMENT OF TYPE-SPECIFIC OVERALL RANGE OF VALUES
3rd STEP: COMMON INTERPRETATION OF “SLIGHT” AND “MODERATE”
4th STEP: TRANSFORMATION TO EQR VALUES

23. BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL: HINTS FOR REFERENCE CONDITIONS
RC [Chl]
RC [Chl]
RC [Chl]
RC [Chl]
geology (alkalinity)
depth
size
elevation

24. x L- M GIG TYPOLOGY L-M5 L-M7 L-M8 TYPE DEPTH SIZE ELEVATION GEOLOGY
Deep
>15m
Large
>0,5 km2
Low
<200m
mid m
calc.
>1,0 meq/l
silic.
0,2-1,0 meq/l
L-M5 x
L-M7
L-M8

25. [Chl] at RC (mg/m3) L-M5 L-M7 low. mid Elev. (m) Silic. L-M8 Alk.
Alkalinity. (meq/l)
CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION AT REFERENCE CONDITIONS,
AS A FUNCTION OF ALKALINITY AND ELEVATION a.s.l.

26. [Chl] vs LP [Chl] vs zS or “other” RANGE OF [Chl] VALUES
Where are the boundaries?
Convert into EQR values

27. OUTLINE BACKGROUND VARIABILITY OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL DATA
VARIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
PROCESS OPTIONS
BOUNDARY SETTING PROTOCOL
TIMETABLE

28. 3 weeks before WG-2A meeting 3 weeks before WG-2A meeting (internet)
TIMETABLE ACCORDING TO THE IC PROCESS GUIDANCE
Milestones
Action
GIG meeting
Reporting
WG 2A meeting M1
Agree on first suggestion on IC options and pilot work, if appropriate
30/6/04
7/7/04
7-8/7/04
M2*
Agree on option/common metrics, first proposal of BSP, new data collection needs and possibilities, timetable ?
17/9/04
7-8 Oct./04 M3
Development of BSP
Agreement on data needs for IC types (depending on option chosen)
Agreement on principles for RC
Jan-Feb 2005
3 weeks before WG-2A meeting
March 2005 M4
Ongoing application of BSP
First Identification of benchmarking IC sites
3 weeks before WG-2A meeting (internet)
October 2005 M5
Ongoing developing and reviewing of BSP
Identification of GIG inconsistencies
February 2006 M6
EQR boundary values for each type
Revision and identification of benchmarking IC sites
June 2006

29. MAIN PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Present data and current monitoring practices are sufficient to report the trophic status of reservoirs, but not to report their EQR value according to the WFD requirements. More sampling is needed
Satellite remote sensing is a potentially helpful tool in the assessment of seasonal average [Chl] at water surface.
Differences between MS regarding biological monitoring practices are not so great. A common method would be possible and desirable, thus allowing IC Option 1
The new agreed common method should start as soon as possible, during the IC exercise period ( )

30. THANK YOU