Template for the milestone reports
Water category/GIG/BQE/ Lake/EC/macrophyte horizontal activity: Information provided by: Balázs A. Lukács Ph.D.
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: Anca Soare Minea (Romania) – expert Balázs A. Lukács Ph.D. (Hungary) – leader expert Gana Gecheva Ph.D. (Bulgaria) – expert Vlad Farcas (Romania) – expert
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: Bulgaria: BG will send new data from the common type. BG has no difficulties in participation. Hungary: No difficulties. Romania: No difficulties.
1.3. Meetings List the meetings of the group:
Bucharest (Romania) 14-15 April 2010. Budapest (Hungary) 7-8 June 2011
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 Status Bulgaria Reference Index of intercalibratable finalized method. BG will macrophytes adopt the HU reference species values for lakes. Hungary Reference Index of intercalibratable finalized method. macrophytes Romania Reference Index of RO will adopt HU method. macrophytes
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 BG – Yes 1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes HU – Yes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). RO – Yes BG – Yes 2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative definitions HU – Yes (Boundary setting procedure) RO – Yes 3. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological BG – Yes quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC HU – Yes Guidance). A combination rule to combine para- meter assessment into BQE assessment has to be RO – Yes 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. 4. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common BG – Yes types that are defined in line with the typological HU – Yes requirements of the WFD Annex II and approved by WG ECOSTAT RO – Yes BG – Yes 5. The water body is assessed against type-specific HU – Yes near-natural reference conditions RO – Yes
BG – Yes 6. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs HU – Yes RO – Yes BG – Yes 7. Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality / ecological HU – Yes status in space and time RO – Yes BG – Yes 8. All data relevant for assessing the biological parameters specified in the WFD’s normative HU – Yes definitions are covered by the sampling procedure RO – Yes BG – Yes 9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate HU – Yes confidence and precision in classification RO – Yes 10. Other criteria 1 11. Other criteria 2 12. Other criteria 3
Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information. Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking: BG, HU and RO methods seems to meet requirements of the WFD compliant methods.
RO will adopt HU method and in the future RO will finalize its own method. BG will adopt HU reference species list and in the future will finalize its own list of indicators.
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 type EC1 Lowland very Altitude <200m BG – Yes shallow hard-water Depth< 6m HU – Yes Conductivity 300-1000 RO – Yes (µS/cm Alkalinity 1-4 (meq/l HCO3)
EC2 Lowland very Altitude <.200m BG – No shallow but very high Depth< 6m HU – No alkalinity Conductivity >1000 RO – Yes (µS/cm) Alkalinity >4 (meq/l HCO3)
EC3 Altitude 200-800m BG – No Depth <6m HU – No Conductivity 200- RO – Yes 1000(µS/cm) Alkalinity 1-4 (meq/l HCO3)
EC4 Altitude 200-800m BG – No Depth>6m HU – No Conductivity 200- RO – No 1000(µS/cm) Alkalinity 1-4 (meq/l HCO3)
EC5 Reservoirs Altitude 200-800 ?m BG – Yes Depth>6m HU – No Conductivity 200- RO – No 1000(µS/cm) Alkalinity 1-4 (meq/l HCO3)
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 Remarks BG EC-1 lake type Appropriateness was checked for EC1 lakes HU EC-1 lake type Appropriateness was checked for EC1 lakes RO EC-1 lake type Appropriateness was checked for EC1 lakes Conclusion Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology?
The intercalibration is feasible in terms of typology. The methods can be intercalibrated in case of EC1 lakes.
4.2. Pressures Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods Method Pressure Remarks Method A Aquatic habitat destruction, Eutrophication, (BG) General degradation, Riparian habitat alteration Method B alteration of the riparian vegetation, alteration (HU) of lake shore habitats, degree of fish introduction, mean NH4, mean P-total, mean NO3, CODCr Method C Nutrients, fishing, boating, agricultural (RO) activities, number of habitats in the catchment area Conclusion Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?
In terms of pressures addressed by the methods the intercalibration is feasible.
4.3. Assessment concept Do all national methods follow a similar assessment concept? Examples of assessment concept: 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 Remarks BG Reference Index of macrophytes Finalized HU Reference Index of macrophytes Finalized RO Reference Index of macrophytes Finalized Conclusion Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of assessment concepts?
In terms of assessment concepts the intercalibration is feasible.
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 values Biological data Physico- chemical data Pressure data BG 1 1 1 HU 87 87 87 RO 9 9 9
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 checking Data requirements (obligatory and BG: data from the vegetation period optional) HU: data from the vegetation period RO: data from the vegetation period The sampling and analytical BG, HU, RO: Sampling based on belt-transects. The methodology number of the transects depends on lake size. Level of taxonomic precision Taxa have to be identified to species level required and taxalists with codes The minimum number of sites / One type can be intercalibrated. The database contains samples per intercalibration type 97 lake (BG+HU+RO) data. Sufficient covering of all relevant Data cover a wide range of stressors. Sites in high and quality classes per type bad ecological status are missing. Other aspects where applicable In order to have data in the heavily impacted lake category, data for lakes that smaller than 50 ha had also to be used.
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) No - or a common alternative benchmark for intercalibration (Y/N) Yes 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): not applicable
- Give a detailed description of reference criteria for screening of sites in near-natural conditions (abiotic characterisation, pressure indicators): not applicable
- Identify the reference sites for each Member State in each common IC type. Is their number sufficient to make a statistically reliable estimate? not applicable
- 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: not applicable
- Give detailed description of setting reference conditions (summary statistics used) not applicable
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)
These lakes have already been exposed to anthropogenic impacts for centuries, therefore unimpacted lakes cannot be found in this ecoregion. In the lack of unimpacted lakes the reference assemblages cannot be given by data of reference lakes. In this case alternative benchmark lakes have to be selected. During the selection of alternative benchmark lakes benchmark criteria have to be used. To avoid circularity these criteria have to be based exclusively on pressure criteria. Land use variables can be used for confirmation (Bailey et al. 2004) of the selection results. During the benchmarking a multistep process was applied. The main steps of this process were the followings: 1. Compilation of a common database in which morphometric features of the lakes, biological, chemical data and various pressures are collected
2. Experienced staff of the regional water authorities and other experts was asked to propose lakes of “good quality” on basis of best professional judgement (Stoddard et al. 2006).
3. Reference criteria used by EU countries (Poikane et al, 2010) and specified in the most recent Intercalibration Guidance (EC 2010) were applied to these lakes. It practically means that we investigated, which are those criteria that are common for all the proposed “good quality lakes”. These criteria are the so-called alternative benchmarking criteria for the EC-1 lakes.
4. The benchmarking criteria were applied to the whole lake population. The lakes that fulfilled all the benchmarking criteria were selected as alternative benchmark lakes. The others were considered as impacted lakes.
5. Parallel with the spatial selection a temporal selection can also be made. In those cases when changes in lake use result in considerable changes in one of the relevant pressures, the position of the lakes (i.e. benchmark lake or impacted lake) might also change. This can be made when data for longer time periods are available.
The regional staff was also asked to propose lakes of “bad quality“. Focusing on the intensity of the pressures, common characteristics of these lakes were also analysed. Applying these characteristics for the impacted lake population heavily impacted lakes were selected. As a result of the above described selection process three groups of lakes, i.e. benchmark lakes, impacted lakes and heavily impacted lakes were defined.
- 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)
1. Alteration of shoreline vegetation is minimal. 2. Complete zonation of the macrophytes in the littoral zone 3. Absence or minimal fish introduction. 4. Absence or minimal recreational use.
- Identify the alternative benchmark sites for each Member State in each common IC type
Hungary: Atkai-Holt-Tisza Egyek-Pusztakócsi mocsarak Kolon-tó Kunkápolnási-mocsár Szöglegelői-Holt-Tisza Tiszadobi-Malom-Tisza Tiszaugi-Holt-Tisza Vámospércsi tározó Vörsi-víz
Romania: Romania have no benchmark habitat in the common database.
Bulgaria: Srebarna Lake - Describe how you validated the selection of the alternative benchmark with biological data
For validating the three groups of lakes descriptive statistics of pressure variables were used. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the mean concentrations of these variables among lake groups.
Using the whole dataset significant differences were found in terms of NH4 between the benchmark, impacted and heavily impacted lakes (p=0.012, p=0.017), and in terms of total phosphorus between benchmark and heavily impacted lakes (p=0.04) (Fig. 2). Not significant but strong correlation (p=0.057) were found in terms of CODMn between benchmark and impacted lakes.
The minimum values of these stressors were consistently low in benchmark and impacted lake populations. Considerable increase of the median values and the values of the upper and lower end of the distributions (e.g.75th and 25th percentiles and the maxima) was observed between the impacted and heavily impacted lake populations. Fig. Validation of alternative benchmark sites with various stressors. (1-benchmark sites, 2-impacted sites, 3-heavily impacted sites) - Give detailed description how you identified the position of the alternative benchmark on the gradient of impact and how the deviation of the alternative benchmark from reference conditions has been derived
Although some stressors were found to be in a moderate or weak relationship with macrophyte abundance in the literature vegetation alteration (overall habitat perturbation) are treated as the best indicator. Unfortunately data are hardly available for these kind of stressors, and mostly depends on experts judgements. To fulfil the demands for stressor specificity we use the Land-use stressor (LUS) metric as pressure gradient which incorporate lake use and chemical stressors.
Land-use stressor (LUS) development At first we chose a stressor which give the best relationship (r2 score) with EQR. Using the dataset NH4 were found to be the best stressor. Median values of NH4 were calculated for the benchmark and the heavily impacted lakes. (We choose NH4 previously from many stressors because it was the only environmental value which got real significant differences between benchmark, impacted and heavily impacted lakes.) These values were considered as boundaries, and values were put into three categories. Y We plotted normalized EQR and LUS values with polynomial fitting and determined are there any discontinuities. We found that the polynomial fit has a discontinuities near 1.35 LUS value. We determined that benchmark position is situated between 1 and 1.35 LUS value. 1.0 r = -0.6130; p = 0.0000; y = 0.8157 - 0.1696*x 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 R Q E 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 Var1 Fig. The identification of benchmark position with the use of land-use stressor (LUS) metric. Describe the biological communities at reference sites or at the alternative benchmark, considering potential biogeographical differences: In the lack of unimpacted lakes in this lake type (EC1) we had to accept that the attributes of high quality lakes are identical with that of the reference lakes. This pragmatic approach was followed during the description of the characteristics of the type specific reference phytoplankton assemblages. Macrophyte communities at benchmark lakes are characterized with well developed zonation structure which contains near all zonation elements, and has less- or undisturbed riparian vegetation. High species and life-form diversity are typical for benchmark lakes. Characteristic species are Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia, Nymphaea alba, Nymphoides peltata, Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, broad leaved Potamogeton species, Utricularia vulgaris, U. australis. 6.3 Benchmark standardisation Describe how benchmark standardisation has been applied (see IC Guidence Annex V, Step 2) No benchmark standardization needed, because the EQR values of the BG, HU and RO national methods calculated for the benchmark sites do not differ significantly. There are no subtypes in the EC-1 lake type. 7. Design and application of the IC procedure 7.1. Please describe the choice of the appropriate intercalibration option. Which IC option did you use? - IC Option 1 - Same assessment method, same data acquisition, same numerical evalua-tion (Y/N) Yes - IC Option 2 - Different data acquisition and numerical evaluation (Y/N) - IC Options 3 - Similar data acquisition, but different numerical evaluation (BQE sampling and data processing generally similar, so that all national assessment methods can reasonably be applied to the data of other countries) supported by the use of common metric(s) (Y/N) - Other (specify) (Y/N) Explanation for the choice of the IC option: In case of EC1 lakes Option 1 will be used. The BG, HU and RO data acquisition is based on Kohler-method. Reference Index of macrophytes used all the countries for assessment. Reference species list are common, BG and RO will adopt the HU list. In case of IC Option 2, please explain the differences in data acquisition not applicable 7.2. IC common metrics (When IC Options 2 or 3 are used) Describe the IC Common metric: There is no common metric. All countries use the same assessment method. Are all methods reasonably related to the common metric(s)? (Question 5 in the IC guidance) Please provide the correlation coefficient (r) and the probability (p) for the correlation of each method with the common metric (see Annex V of IC guidance). Member State/Method r p ------Explain if any method had to be excluded due to its low correlation with the common metric: - 8. Boundary setting / comparison and harmonization in common IC type Clarify if - boundaries were set only at national level (Y/N) - or if a common boundary setting procedure was worked out at the scale of the common IC type (Y/N) - YES In section 2 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be included on the boundary setting procedure for the national methods to check compliance with the WFD. In section 8.1 the results of a common boundary setting procedure at the scale of the common IC type should be explained where applicable. 8.1. Description of boundary setting procedure set for the common IC type Summarize how boundaries were set following the framework of the BSP: Provide a description how you applied the full procedure (use of discontinuities, paired metrics, equidistant division of continuum) G/M boundaries was based on Land-use stressor (LUS) metric which incorporate lake use and NH4 stressors. We could identify discontinuities in the relationship between EQR and gradient of impact (LUS) values, which related with class boundaries. 1.0 r = -0.6130; p = 0.0000; y = 0.8157 - 0.1696*x 0.9 Good Moderate Poor 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 R Q E 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 LUS Fig. Relationship between harmonised EQR's and the land-use stressor (LUS) metric Provide pressure-response relationships (describe how the biological quality element changes as the impact of the pressure or pressures on supporting elements increases) 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 E Q 0.5 R 0.4 r = -0.1226; p = 0.3681; y = 0.5636 - 0.0002*x 0.3 0.2 0.1 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 COD-Mn 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 E Q 0.5 R 0.4 r = -0.6391; p = 0.00008; y = 0.6166 - 0.0018*x 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 COD-Cr 1.0 0.9 0.8 r = -0.2643; p = 0.0211; 0.7 y = 0.5524 - 8.9327E-5*x 0.6 E Q 0.5 R 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 P-tot 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 E Q 0.5 R r = 0.1112; p = 0.4280; y = 0.5036 + 8.8545E-5*x 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 PO4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 E Q 0.5 R r = 0.3325; p = 0.0056; y = 0.4802 + 0.0666*x 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 NO3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 E Q 0.5 R 0.4 r = -0.5552; p = 0.00001; y = 0.5858 - 0.3353*x 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 NH4 Fig. Relationship between harmonised EQR's and various chemical stressor. Provide a comparison with WFD Annex V, normative definitions for each QE/ metrics and type ecol. Normative definition (WFD) Interpretation status High The values of the biological quality Taxa species richness is high. The elements for the surface water body abundance of taxa considered as reference reflect those normally associated with that (taxa that belong to group A) is higher than EQR type under undisturbed conditions, and 80%. The ratio of the impacted taxa (taxa 0.81–1.0 show no, or only very minor, evidence of that belong to group C) is smaller than 30%. distortion. The value of the lake-use stressor (LUS)<0.5 “The taxonomic composition corresponds Lakes are characterized with well developed totally or nearly totally to undisturbed zonation structure which contains near all conditions. The average phytoplankton zonation elements, and has undisturbed biomass is consistent with the type- riparian vegetation. High species and life- specific physico-chemical conditions ” form diversity are typical for them. Good The values of the biological quality As compared with that of the reference state, elements for the surface water body type there is a slight decrease in the ratio of the show low levels of distortion resulting reference assemblages.>60%. The ratio of EQR = from human activity, but deviate only the impacted taxa is higher but <40%. 0.53–0.8 slightly from those normally associated The value of the lake-use stressor (LUS)<1.33 with the surface water body type under Lakes are characterized with all layers of undisturbed conditions. macrophyte zonation, but some of them may “There are slight changes in the be disturbed by human acts. composition and abundance of planktonic taxa compared to the type-specific communities. Such changes do not indicate any accelerated growth of algae resulting in undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms present in the water body or to the physico-chemical quality of the water or sediment.” Moderate The values of the biological quality At this state the ratio of the impacted taxa may elements for the surface water body type reach the 30%. Dominance of neutral taxa deviate moderately from those normally (F=5) can be expected. The ratio of reference EQR = associated with the surface water body assemblages less than 50%. The value of the lake-use stressor (LUS)<2.6 0.33–0.52 type under undisturbed conditions. The values show moderate signs of distortion Some layer of the macrophyte zonation are resulting from human activity and are missing or highly disturbed. significantly more disturbed than under conditions of good status. “The composition and abundance of planktonic taxa differ moderately from the type-specific communities. Biomass is moderately disturbed and may be such as to produce a significant undesirable disturbance in the condition of other biological quality elements and the physico-chemical quality of the water or sediment.” Poor Waters showing evidence of major The ratio of the impacted taxa > 50 %. The alterations to the values of the biological ratio of reference assemblages less than 30%. EQR = quality elements for the surface water The value of the lake-use stressor (LUS)<3.4 0.01–0.32 body type and in which the relevant Lakes are characterized with only a few layers biological communities deviate of macrophyte zonation, and all of them are substantially from those normally disturbed by human acts. associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions, shall be classified as poor. Bad Waters showing evidence of severe Absence of aquatic macrophyte vegetation alterations to the values of the biological EQR quality elements for the surface water body <0.01 type and in which large portions of the relevant biological communities normally associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions are absent, shall be classified as bad. 8.2. Description of IC type-specific biological communities representing the “borderline” conditions between good and moderate ecological status, considering possible biogeographical differences (as much as possible based on the common dataset and common metrics). The major changes in the abundance of different functional groups are consistent with an overall increase in lake use. Thus the abundance of large emergent species (Phragmites australis, Bolboschoenus maritimus, Typha spp, etc) and ceratophylloids (Ceratophyllum demersum, C. submersum) are decreasing. According to the decreasing intensity of lake use the overall diversity, medium sized emergents (Alisma spp., Bidens spp., Carex spp., Equisetum spp., etc.) and small sized emergents (Lycompus spp., Galium spp., Juncus spp., Scutellaria galerculata, Stachys palustris, etc) are growing. A pronounced changes as quality increase is the decreasing of trapoids (Trapa natans) and the increasing of magno Potamoids (Potamogeton natans, Nymphaea alba, Nuphar lutea, Nympohoides peltata). 100% Vallisnerioid 90% Trapoid Stratiotid 80% small emergent 70% Riccielloid Pteridophyta ) 60% % parvo Potamoid ( e c n Myriophylloid a 50% d n med emergent u b A 40% magno Potamoid Lemnoid 30% large emergent Hydrocharoid 20% Elodeoid 10% Ceratophylloid Callitrichoid 0% Batrachioid IV III II amphibious Sites ranked by increasing EQR Fig. Graphical representation of modelled changes in major plant growth forms across EQR in EC-1 lakes. (Roman numerals refers to ecological status) 8.3. Boundary comparison and harmonisation Describe comparison of national boundaries; using comparability criteria (see Annex V of IC guidance). RO and HU has the same boundaries. In the case of BG boundaries were compared directly with HU/RO ones. We calculated quality classes according to both method in the common database and the results were compared. According to that one site got different classes. Do all national methods comply with these criteria? (Y/N) If not, describe the adjustment process: - 9. IC results Provide H/G and G/M boundary EQR values for the national methods for each type in a table Member Classification Ecological Quality Ratios State Method High-good Good-moderate boundary boundary Common metric HU Reference Index of 0.81 0.52 Marcophytes RO Reference Index of 0.81 0.52 Marcophytes BG Reference Index of 0.75 0.50 Marcophytes Present how common intercalibration types and common boundaries will be transformed into the national typologies/assessment systems (if applicable) - Indicate gaps of the current intercalibration. Is there something still to be done? Romania plan to set up their own method (species list and boundaries) later. Bulgaria will continue upgrading its own list and will finalize it.