Template for the milestone reports
Water category/GIG/BQE/ horizontal activity: / NGIG benthic macroinvertebrates acidification (lakes and rivers) eutrophication (lakes)Information provided by: / Leonard Sandin and the NGIG invertebrate working group
1. Organisation
1.1. Responsibilities
Indicate how the work is organised, indicating the lead country/person and the list of involved experts of every country:
The NGIG work for lake macroinvertebrates (acidification and eutrophication) includes the following countries: Ireland (Ruth Little), UK (Fiona Carse, David Colvill), Norway (Ann-Kristin Schartau), Sweden (Leonard Sandin and Emma Göthe) and Finland (Jukka Aroviita). Sweden is leading the work within the group. The group has met 2 times a year and have intensive e-mail discussions in-between meetings. At each meeting a detailed work plan is set up for the coming six months with a “to do list” that is monitored by all participants.
1.2. Participation
Indicate which countries are participating in your group. Are there any difficulties with the participation of specific Member States? If yes, please specify:
SE, NO and UK participated in lake and river acidification intercalibration using littoral invertebrates. FI did not participate in the acidification work and IE had only limited acidification data and did not meet the required chemistry criteria for data submission. FI and SE participated in lake eutrophication intercalibration using profundal invertebrates. It was not possible to intercalibrate methods for lake eutrophication using littoral invertebrates as UK and SE national methods were incompatible (CPET and ASPT). IE could not demonstrate a strong dose-response relationship between the littoral invertebrates and pressure and NO did not have adequate data on littoral or profundal invertebrates for lake eutrophication intercalibration. UK and IE will intercalibrate CPET through XGIG intercalibration.
1.3. Meetings
List the meetings of the group:
The group has had 2 meetings a year since the start of the intercalibration. The meetings for 2010 and 2011 were:
May 2010 Stockholm
November 2010 Helsinki
Teleconference: 3rd of February 2011
March 2011 Edinburgh (8-9 of March)
Teleconference: 23rd of February 2011
May 2011 Oslo (final meeting of the group, 18-19 of May)
2. Overview of Methods to be intercalibrated
Identify for each MS the national classification method that will be intercalibrated and the status of the method
1. finalized formally agreed national method,
2. intercalibratable finalized method,
3. method under development,
4. no method developed
Member State / Method / StatusLake littoral - acidification
SE / MILA Multimetric Invertebrate Lake Acidification index / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
NO / MultiClear: Multimetric Invertebrate Index for Clear Lakes (lake acidification) / 2 - Intercalibratable finalized national method (Appendix 1)
UK / LAMM (lake acidification) / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
Lake profundal eutrophication
SE / BQI (profundal eutrophication) / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
FI / BQI (profundal eutrophication) / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
River acidification
SE / MISA Multimetric Invertebrate Stream Acidification index / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
NO / AcidIndex2 (Modified Raddum index2) / 2 - Intercalibratable finalized national method (Appendix 1)
UK / WFD Acid Water Indicator Community species
WFD-AWICsp (river acidification) / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
Lake littoral eutrophication
SE / ASPT – index (littoral eutrophication) / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
UK / CPET (Chironimidae Pupal Exuviae Technique) / 1 - Finalized agreed national method (Appendix 1)
Make sure that the national method descriptions meet the level of detail required to fill in the table 1 at the end of this document !
3. Checking of compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements
Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive? (Question 1 in the IC guidance)
Do the good ecological status boundaries of the national methods comply with the WFD normative definitions? (Question 7 in the IC guidance)
List the WFD compliance criteria and describe the WFD compliance checking process and results (the table below lists the criteria from the IC guidance, please add more criteria if needed)
Compliance criteria / Compliance checking conclusions1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). / Sweden; Yes, all metrics have 5 classes.
UK; LAMM for clear waters has 4 classes, poor/bad combined. LAMM for humic waters has three classes, moderate, poor, bad combined. WFD-AWICsp and CPET have all 5 classes.
Finland; Yes, BQI has 5 classes.
Norway: Yes, all metrics have 5 classes.
2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure) / Sweden: Based on a statistical division of the EQR gradient (equidistant).
UK: CPET: Using paired metrics (relative abundance of sensitive and tolerant taxa) that respond in different ways to the influence of the pressure
LAMM Using discontinuities in the relationship of anthropogenic pressure (ANC) and the biological response (LAMM, diversity measures and functional groups). Where discontinuities could not be found then partitioning based on the Damage Matrix was used.
WFD AWIC: Boundaries set using discontinuities in pressure (ANC + pH) gradient, UCL damage matrix, proportions of sensitive taxa & functional trait groups.
Finland: Based on deviation from reference condition (H/G-boundary = 75 % of reference value) and statistical not equidistant division of the EQR gradient.
Norway: AcidIndex2 (rivers): The HG boundary was identified as the point at which the E/P ratio indicate that the number of very sensitive mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are 50 % of the numbers of very tolerant stoneflies (Plecoptera).
MultiClear (lakes): The HG boundary was identified as the lower 5th percentile of scores of all reference sites (due to low number of reference sites this equals to the whole reference population; small adjustments may be necessary when more data is available). Both methods (lakes and rivers): GM = the point where only 50 % of the samples from a site contain very sensitive taxa and the remaining 50 % of the samples contain moderately sensitive taxa.
3. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC Guidance). A combination rule to combine para-meter assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole.
See also annex 2 / Not all parameters included for all metrics, see Annex 2 for a description and explanation why not all parameters are included.
SE: ASPT (relative abundance not included), BQI (diversity not included) MILA and MISA includes all parameters.
UK: LAMM and WFD AWICSp (diversity not included), CPET (diversity and abundance not included).
FI: BQI (diversity not included)
NO: AcidIndex2/modified Raddum2 (diversity not included), Multiclear includes all parameters.
4. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the WFD Annex II and approved by WG ECOSTAT / SE: For acidification the Swedish lake and river types does not distinguish between clear water and humic waters. The assessment method divides the country into ecoregions (Illies 14, 20, and 22) one ecoregion is used in the intercalibration work (Illies ecoregion 22).
UK: This is true for LAMM. For WFD-AWICsp the typology is based on Scottish humic and clear waters (cutoff at 10 mg/l) and a Welsh/English typology. CPET is site specific.
FI: yes
NO: yes
5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions / SE: yes
UK: yes
FI: Yes. Lakes are assessed against near-natural reference conditions where expected (reference) values for BQI are derived with a regression model for each site.
NO: yes
6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs / SE: yes
UK: yes
FI: yes
NO: yes
7. Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time / SE: yes
UK: yes
FI: yes
NO: yes
8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure / SE: yes
UK: yes
FI: yes
NO: yes
9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification / SE: yes
UK: yes
FI: yes
NO: yes
Note: the descriptions of status classes and boundaries are based on the original methods before any adjustments of boundaries.
Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information.
Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking:
No gaps in the national method descriptions.
Conclusion of the compliance checking:
Acidification - lake and rivers:
SE, UK, NO national assessment methods comply with requirements of WFD.
IE and FI have little acidification pressure / data and do not have national methods. In FI, humic lakes can be acidic, but this is a natural phenomenon in boreal peatlands.
Summary: Three countries compliant (SE, UK, NO). Two countries have no data (IE, FI).
Several of the methods do not include either the parameter abundance, or the parameter diversity (see appendix 2).
Eutrophication - lakes
SE has compliant national methods using littoral (ASPT) and profundal (BQI) invertebrates. FI have a compliant method using profundal invertebrates (BQI). IE has no method. UK has a compliant method using chironomid exuviae (CPET). The BQI methods do not include the parameter diversity per se. NO does not have any national method for assessment of lake eutrophication.
Summary: Three countries compliant (SE, FI, UK). IE has no method. NO has no data.
4. Methods’ intercalibration feasibility check
Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept? (Question 2 in the IC guidance)
4.1. Typology
Describe common intercalibration water body types and list the MS sharing each type
Common IC type / Type characteristics / MS sharing IC common typeLake and river acidification:
IC type 1: 1 – IC types from the 1st round, but we have combined similar types according to alk and humic content / Clear, low alkalinity lake types (L-N2+L-N5)
Clear, low alkalinity river types (R-N2+R-N5) / NO: yes
UK: yes
SE: no (sub-type of clear lakes is included in the intercalibration), because the SE assessment system does not distinguish between clear and humic lakes and the SE data fitted clearly best with the other countries clear data from a typological perspective
Lake and river acidification:
IC type 2: 1 – IC types from the 1st round, but we have combined similar types according to alk and humic content / Humic, low alkalinity lake types (L-N3+L-N6)
Humic, low alkalinity river types (R-N3+R-N9) / NO: yes
UK: yes
SE: no (sub-type of humic rivers is included in the intercalibration), since all SE clear data was references (tests was done to use other countries data as pressure affected data, but the results were poor)
Lake profundal eutrophication: / Ecoregion 22, clear and humic, low alkalinity / SE: yes
FI: yes
What is the outcome of the feasibility evaluation in terms of typology? Are all assessment methods appropriate for the intercalibration water body types, or subtypes?
Method / Appropriate for IC types / subtypes / RemarksLake acidification / Clear water type
Humic water type / Clear water is feasible, excluding very low Ca
Humic waters not feasible
River acidification / Clear water type
Humic water type / Humic rivers is feasible.
Clearwater is feasible excluding very low Ca sites.
Lake profundal eutrophication / Ecoregion 22, clear and humic, low alkalinity / Intercalibration was restricted to lakes with area ≥ 1 km2 and deepest point (i.e. sampling depth) ≥ 6 m.
Lake littoral eutrophication / Ecoregion 22 / Only SE had an assessment system
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology ?
Lake acidification: Intercalibration is feasible for the clear water lakes excluding lakes with very low calcium levels (Norwegian type exclusively. Natural low proportions of acid sensitive taxa). It is not feasible to intercalibrate humic lake types for acidification. The SE method does not distinguish between clear and humic lakes. Explorations from a typology perspective showed that the SE data fitted the clear lake typology best and intercalibration proceeded on this basis.
River acidification: Intercalibration is feasible, but the high number of national types with different reference criteria and class boundaries makes it inappropriate to use IC option 3, but instead IC option 2 is used where each type is included as a separate “country”. SE does not distinguish between clear and humic rivers. For the SE data most of the data (except a few reference sites) fell into the humic type and SE was included in the humic river intercalibration (see chapter 5). Rivers with very low calcium levels were excluded from the intercalibration (Norwegian type exclusively. Natural low proportions of acid sensitive taxa).
Lake profundal eutrophication: intercalibration is feasible
Lake littoral eutrophication: only SE has a lake littoral method
4.2. Pressures
Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods
Method / Pressure / RemarksSE: MILA
UK: LAMM
NO: MultiClear / Acidification (lakes) / methods address the same pressure
SE: MISA
UK: WFD-AWICsp
NO: AcidIndex2 (Modified Raddum index2) / Acidification (rivers) / methods address the same pressure
SE: ASPT, BQI
FI: BQI
UK: CPET / Eutrophication (lakes)
Eutrophication (lakes)
Eutrophication (lakes) / BQI address the same pressure
ASPT (littoral) and BQI (profundal) are not correlated and thus do not address the same pressure (ASPT weakly correlated to TotP, whereas BQI is strongly correlated to TotP)
ASPT (littoral) and CPET (all lake assessment) address the same pressure but do not respond in the same way (see appendix 3)
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?
Acidification (lakes and rivers): intercalibration is feasible.
Lake eutrophication (profundal): intercalibration are feasible
Lake eutrophication (littoral and all lake assessment): a significant relationship between the pressure (TP) and littoral invertebrate communities could not be found in the data for IE and UK, therefore no lake littoral eutrophication intercalibration could be undertaken. The relationship between CPET and ASPT in the Irish dataset was very low (see appendix 3) and no intercalibration could be performed between lake littoral and CPET methods. UK, IE & PO are undertaking a XGIG intercalibration exercise using CPET under option1. SE lake littoral (ASPT) results/assessment methods for the SE type Ecoregion 22 included in this report.
4.3. Assessment concept