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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Intercalibration - Agenda
Selection of types : 2002
Selection of sites : 2003
Intercalibration exercise :
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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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