WFD Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 6 report
Water category/GIG/BQE/ horizontal activity: / Natural lakes/EC GIG/Benthic invertebratesInformation provided by: / EC GIG BI 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:
Lead: Romania
Bulgaria: Emilia Varadinova, Yanka Vidinova, Violeta Tyufekchieva, Rabia Soufi, Svetoslav Cheshmedjiev, Valerya Giosheva
Hungary: Béla Csányi, Gabor Varbiro, József Szekeres
Romania: Gabriel Chiriac, Claudia Pavelescu-Nagy, Oana Ristea, Nicoleta Rotaru
RO is responsible for data collection. All the three countries are going to work on parts of the analysis (calculation, testing different indices etc.) and the final reports.
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:
BG, HU, RO
1.3. Meetings
List the meetings of the group:
1st Meeting February 2008, Bucharest, RO
2nd Meeting March 2009, Cluj Napoca, RO
3rd Meeting 23-24 March 2010, Budapest, HU
4th Meeting 8-9 March 2011, Bucharest, RO
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
- finalised formally agreed national method,
- intercalibratable finalised method,
- method under development,
- no method developed
MemberState / Method / Status
BG / Proposed method – have to be validated
HU / Mzb used for Assessment of Lakes - MUSSEL) / Pseudo common method will be adopt as national method
RO / ECO-NL-BENT / Finalised formally agreed national method
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 conclusions- Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad).
HU: Yes
RO: Ecological status is classified by one of five classes
- High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Boundary setting procedure)
HU: Yes
RO: Existing near-natural reference conditions, least disturbed conditions, statistical analysis,expert judgment and historical data have been used for setting the boundaries. Use of discontinuities for boundary setting.
- Allrelevant 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.
RO: number of families, ET abundance, molluscs abundance, orthocladiinae/chironomidae abundance ratio, Shannon-Wiener diversity index, abundance of feeding types; combination rule: weighting of average parameters
- 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
HU: Yes
RO: Yes
- The water body is assessed againsttype-specific near-natural reference conditions
HU: alternative benchmarking
RO: Yes. Existing near-natural reference sites, least disturbed sites
- Assessment results are expressed as EQRs
HU: Yes
RO: Yes
- Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time
HU: Yes
RO: Samples: 2 times/year. Multi-habitat procedure. At least 3 consecutive years for data acquisition.
- All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure
HU: Yes
RO: Yes
- Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification
HU: Species and at least genus level for all macroinvetebrates groups excl. Oligochaeta and Chironomidae
RO: Species and at least genus level for all macroinvetebrates groups incl. Oligochaeta and Chironomidae
- Other criteria 1
- Other criteria 2
- Other criteria 3
Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information.
Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking:
RO has developed the assessment method based on benthic fauna.
BG: Not enough data (time-series, seasonal variability) for method testing and the development of the multimetric index.
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 typeEC1 Lowland very shallow hard-water / Altitude <200m
Depth< 6m
Conductivity 300-1000 (µS/cm)
Alkalinity >4 (meq/l HCO3) / BG
HU
RO
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 / RemarksBG metric (% Oligochaeta) / EC1 / Need additional metrics to be classified; BG multimetric system is under development.
HU / EC1 / Pseudo common method will be adopt as national method
RO method (all metrics) / EC1
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology?
The IC typology fits well, in general, with the national typologies.
4.2. Pressures
Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods
Method / Pressure / RemarksBG Method / Degradation, organic matter pollution. / More data we need.
HU Method / Organic and nutrient pollution, hydro-morphological pressures, recreational pressures, fish stocking. / The pressure-response relationship is weak, needs more detailed hydro-morphological stressor data
RO Method / Nutrient loads, organic loads, general degradation (land use, fishing, banks morphology degradation etc.)
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?
Yes in case of RO.
Yes, in case of HU.
More information needed in case of BG.
4.3. Assessment concept
Do all national methods follow a similar assessment concept?
Examples of assessment concepts:
Different community characteristics - structural, functional or physiological - can be used in assessment methods which can render their comparison problematic. For example, sensitive taxa proportion indices vs species composition indices.
Assessment systems may focus on different lake zones – profundal, littoral or sublittoral - and subsequently may not be comparable.
Additional important issues may be the assessed habitat type (soft-bottom sediments versus rocky sediments for benthic fauna assessment methods) or life forms (emergent macrophytes versus submersed macrophytes for lake aquatic flora assessment methods)
Method / Assessment concept / RemarksBG Method / Littoral zones, multihabitat sampling, taxa composition (species/genus), abundance (ind./m2), diversity and functioning based on trophic structure are characterized.
HU Method / Eulittoral macroinvertebrates community, sampled by handnet, multihabitat sampling. Community characteristics are similar: species richness, species composition, diversity features, functional trophic groups
RO Method / Structural and functional macroinvertebrates characteristics are considered, for example, taxa composition, diversity, the presence/absence of some sensitive or ubiquitous animal groups, the prevalence of some groups, the functional groups etc.
All parameters considered focus on the community of the littoral (and sometimes sublittoral) zone of the lake.
Conclusion
Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of assessment concepts?
Yes in case of RO.
Yes: shallow (eulittoral) zone, multi-habitat sampling, hand net method, same community characteristics, in case of HU.
Yes, littoral zones, multihabitat sampling, taxonomic composition, abundance (ind./m2),diversity and functioning based on trophic structure, in case of BG.
5. Collection of IC dataset
Describe data collection within the GIG.
This description aims to safeguard that compiled data are generally similar, so that the IC options can reasonably be applied to the data of the Member States.
Make the following table for each IC common type
Member State / Number of sites or samples or data valuesBiological data / Physico- chemical data / Pressure data
BG / Data collected from 3 lakes of EC1 (2 lakes – Durankulak and Shabla are into Black Sea catchment) / Data collected (Srebarna -data from 2005, 2006 and 2010; Durankulak and Shabla – data from 2010) / Yes
HU / 21 lakes / 29 datasets / 29 / 21
RO / 19 lakes, 148datasets / 19 lakes, 148datasets / 19 datasets
A database with all data (184 data sets) from the GIG countries is available (Annex 2). The dates collected in Romania have been supplemented with other lakes from the same typological category in order to dispose of more data for the common data base and the statistical processing.
Data have been validated. A series of data regarding certain indicators is missing (for ex. lack of data on the permanganate index for the lakes Bugeac and Oltina in Romania, lack of data on COD-Cr for some lakes in Romania, lack of data on the total phosphorus and organic load for the lake Srebarna in Bulgaria, sporadic lack of data on the orthophosphates or organic load for some lakes in Hungary).
A series of indicators have the value 0 (for ex. orthocladiinae/chironomidae ratio index).
These values were considered in the data processing.
In the case of lake Snebarna in Bulgaria, a series of physico-chemical data were not taken into account because of the lack of corresponding biological data.
Data on the lakes Durankulak and Sabla in Bulgaria have been excluded because of the lack of sufficient information regarding the belonging to the intercalibration tipolology.
Indices as %Oligochaeta or ITC (Trophic Index) were included in the data base, but they were not used in the processing.
The main pressures affecting the natural lakes from the plain area (where are also the lakes from the common typology EC_1), as nutrient and organic pollution, hydro-morphological pressures, the bank structure, recreational activities and aquaculture (fishing) were considered. Data on the land use regarding artificial lands, intensive agricultural lands, less intensive agricultural lands and natural or semi-natural lands were also taken into consideration.
In terms of pressure, data on the lakes from the data base vary from 1 (less intense human activity) to 5 (intense human activity). Within the category of less impacted lakes, the lakes Lata and Tarova from Romania, Srebarna from Bulgaria or Kolon-to from Hungary might be included. Within the category of impacted lakes, the lakes Alcsi- Holt Tisza or Szajoli-Holt Tisza from Hungary or Snagov, Siutghiol sau Tabacarie from Romania can be included.
In terms of land use, there are natural lakes, where the land from the drainage area is not or is slightly used by the human communities (Lata, Tarova, Bentu Latenilor and Iezerul Calarasi from Romania or Kelebiai-halastavak and Peresi Holt Koros from Hungary) and lakes subject to anthropogenic impact, with intensive agricultural use or adjacent artificial lands (Victoria-Geormane, Galatui from Romania or Kengyel-to from Hungary).
Within GIG, it was agreed that the accepted taxa level be the one of the specie. All countries delivered data including lists of taxa up to the specie level. There is one exception, referring to the Oligochaeta and Chironomidae groups, for which Hungary and Bulgaria either delivered only the large group including the taxa, either they didn’t deliver anything, as they do not consider these groups in the samples.
List the data acceptance criteria used for the data quality control and describe the data acceptance checking process and results.
Data acceptance criteria / Data acceptance checkingData requirements (obligatory and optional) / BG: Multi-habitat data, single and representative seasonal samples during the vegetation period (low water level season. summer/autumn); general physico-chemistry, description of bottom substrata & macrophytes vegetation (cover, species).
HU: Compulsory physico-chemical, hydro-morphological and biological parameters.
RO: Typology, sampling procedure, ecological zone for sampling, Compulsory biological, physico-chemical, hydro-morphological and pressures parameters.
The sampling and analytical methodology / BG, RO: littoral, 250-500 µm mesh-size handnet, 5-20 replicates, MHS technique, max. 1,5 m depth, standardized time (3 min.)
HU: time standardized KandS, MHS
Level of taxonomic precision required and taxalists with codes / BG, RO: as low as possible (species and genus level)
HU: Species level (except: Oligochaeta, Chironomidae)
The minimum number of sites / samples per intercalibration type / 43 lakes per IC type, minimum 1 site/WB, 1-2 samples/site
Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type / Not enough water bodies for IC type
Other aspects where applicable / no
6. Benchmarking: Reference conditions or alternative benchmarking (October 2010 + later updates)
In section 2 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be included on the derivation of reference conditions for the national methods. In section 6 the checking procedure and derivation of reference conditions or the alternative benchmark at the scale of the common IC type has to be explained to ensure the comparability within the GIG.
Clarify if you have defined
-common reference conditions (Y/N)
-or a common alternative benchmark for intercalibration (Y/N)
6.1.Reference conditions
Does the intercalibration dataset contain sites in near-natural conditions in a sufficient number to make a statistically reliable estimate? (Question 6 in the IC guidance)
-Summarize the common approach for setting reference conditions (true reference sites or indicative partial reference sites, see Annex III of the IC guidance):
-Give a detailed description of reference criteria for screening of sites in near-natural conditions (abiotic characterisation, pressure indicators):
-Identify the reference sites for each Member State in each common IC type. Is their number sufficient to make a statistically reliable estimate?
-Explain how you have screened the biological data for impacts caused by pressures not regarded in the reference criteria to make sure that true reference sites are selected:
-Give detailed description of setting reference conditions (summary statistics used)
6.2.Alternative benchmarking (only if common dataset does not contain reference sites in a sufficient number)
-Summarize the common approach for setting alternative benchmark conditions (describe argumentation of expert judgment, inclusion of modelling)
There are not reference sites for each Member State in common IC type. In general, all lakes are anthropogenic impacted. The group considers least disturbed sites.
-Give a detailed description of criteria for screening of alternative benchmark sites (abiotic criteria/pressure indicators that represent a similar low level of impairment to screen for least disturbed conditions)
The group will use HU proposal as common criteria
Criteria (1) / Notes (2) / reference threshold / rejection thresholdCatchment characteristics / (1) Reference threshold > 85 % nature (i.e. "natural" forests, wetlands, moors, meadows, pasture); NOTE: Rejection threshold = 70 % / Land use is determined using CORINE categories, if more accurate national maps are not available. "Not natural" (opposite to "nature") are agricultural land and urban areas. Forests that are planted and fertilized (e.g. spruce cultures used as Christmas trees etc.) are "not natural". They should be regarded as agricultural land. Pastures are extensively grazed grassland.
(2) No intensive crops (incl. vines) inthe near surroundings (i.e. within a zone of 200 m from the lake shore) / provide numerical value
(3) ≤ 5 % urbanisation and peri-urban areas in the near surroundings (i.e. within a zone of 200 m from the lake shore)
(4) No direct inflow of treated or untreated waste water
(5) Lowimpact of wastewater from scattered dwellings (i.e. < 10 inhabitants km-2) within the whole catchment / Inferred from national maps; number of houses multiplied by the national average of inhabitants per household; provide numerical value
Morphology / (6) ≤ 5 % artificial modification of the shore line / provide numerical value
Trophic state / (7) Generally: No (or insignificant) deviation of the actual from the natural trophic state
Other pressures / (8) No mass (or significant) recreation activities (camping, swimming, rowing, coarse fish angling, put and take angling, releasing and feeding of ducks for hunting)
(9) No actively invading (and reproducing) plant or animal species that may negatively impact the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem
(10) no evidence for one of the following pressures:
- Significant changes in the hydrological and sediment regime of the tributaries (larger than the range between the natural mean low water level and the natural high water level)
- Fish farm activities or other fishing operations that negatively impact the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem
- Introduction of non-native fish species, unless their abundance and biomass areinsignificant
- Significant changes in status parameters prior to major changes in industrialisation, urbanisation and intensification of the agriculture
- Substances mentioned in Annex X and/or in annex VIII of the
WFD in concentrations above the limits of detection of the most advanced analytical techniques in general use or presence of possible and important sources of pollutants.
- Measured values of other anthropogenic, synthetic substances above quality objectives and not near natural background concentrations, except for those from atmospheric sources
(1)The criteria are provided based on: /1/ CIRCA, Feb. 2008, "WFD Intercalibration technical report, Part 2 - lakes, section 3 - phytoplankton composition"; /2/ CIRCA, Feb. 2008, "WFD Intercalibration technical report, Part 2 - lakes, section 3 - macrophytes"; /3/ "CB GIG Rivers reference criteria"
(2)Some of the criteria are difficult to assess - due to the lack of data, and/or because there are qualitatively rather than quantitatively defined
-Identify the alternative benchmark sites for each Member State in each common IC type