Template for the Milestone Reports s3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL JRC JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Institute of Environment and Sustainability

WFD Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 report

Baltic GIG, coastal waters

Water category/GIG/BQE/ hori- This report only applies to coastal waters. No IC zontal activity: has yet been made for transitional waters, and feasibility of this is currently evaluated Information provided by: Torsten Berg (DE) together with the fauna group mem- bers within the Baltic GIG

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:

Alf Josefson (DK) - [email protected] - National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University Kristjan Herkül (EE) - [email protected] - Estonian Marine Institute (LOMI), Uni- versity of Tartu Jonne Kotta (EE) - [email protected] - Estonian Marine Institute (LOMI), University of Tartu Jens Perus (FI) - [email protected] - Finnland's environmental administration Torsten Berg (DE) - [email protected] (benthos group coordinator) - MariLim aquatic research Vadims Jermakovs (LV) - [email protected] - Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology Nijole Remeikaite-Nikiene (LT) - [email protected] - Department of Marine Re- search, Environmental Protection Agency Darius Daunys (LT) - [email protected] - Coastal Research and Planning institute, Klai- peda University Sabina Solovjova (LT) - [email protected] - Department of Marine Research, Envir- onmental Protection Agency Magdalena Blenska (PL) - [email protected] - Maritime Institute in Gdansk Mats Blomqvist (SE) - [email protected] - Hafok AB

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: Generally all 8 Baltic countries participate in the group work. Funding for meetings is given most of the time. There is a need for more funding for the actual IC work between the meetings for at least DK, LT, LV, FI, PL (there is not updated information from EE on this). MS not attending the meetings are kept informed via a group-internal mailing list. The Polish fauna representative has informed (30 September 2010), that they will not participate in the IC exercise any longer due to lack of funding.

1.3. Meetings List the meetings of the group: All meetings of the 2nd intercalibration round are as follows:

17. June 2008: Copenhagen, Denmark 19.-20. November 2008: Riga, Latvia 6.-7. May 2009: Stockholm, Sweden 2.-4. September 2009: Berlin, Germany 25.-26. February 2010: Klaipeda, Lithuania (not present: PL) 29 – 30. September 2010: Poland (not present: EE, not active: PL) planned: March 2011: Denmark

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 Denmark DKI 2** Finland BBI 1 Estonia ZKI 1**** Germany MarBIT 1 Latvia BQI 3* Lithuania BQI 3*** Poland B 3 Sweden BQI 1

* BQI adoption is under development, no finished boundaries ** method final on sample level, not finished on water body level (and thus not possible to intercalibrate with both SE and DE, since these operate on water body level) *** BQI adoption under development, no finished boundaries, no finished sensitivity as- signment in context of IC between PL, LV and LT **** EE uses biomass in the ZKI index and thus it may be diffficult/impossible to IC with FI, LV

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 (April 2010 + update in October 2010)

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 All countries: Yes 1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad). Conclusion: final DE, DK, EE, FI, LV, SE, LT: yes 1. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in PL: ? line with the WFD’s normative definitions (Bound- ary setting procedure) Conclusion: not final DE: taxa composition (taxonomic spread index TSI), abundance (abundance distribution), fraction of sensitive and tolerant taxa DK: Shannon diversity, sensitivity of species (AMBI), species richness, total abundance EE: dry biomass, sensitivity of species FI: abundance, sensitivity, Shannon diversity, species richness LT: same as SE (BQI) 1. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological LV: same as SE (BQI) quality element are covered (see Table 1 in the IC PL: abundance, sensitivity, species Guidance). A combination rule to combine para-meter richness assessment into BQE assessment has to be defined. If SE: sensitivity of species, species parameters are missing, Member States need to demon- richness, total abundance strate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the Combination rule for multimetrics: status of the QE as a whole. DE: median of the 4 metric scores DK: multiplication of metric scores EE: average metric score FI: multiplication of metric scores LT: same as SE (BQI) LV: same as SE (BQI) PL: average metric score for a sampling SE: multiplication of metrics

Conclusion: final

DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV, PL, SE: yes (in LT no application in heavily modi- fied water body Klaipeda Strait, port 1. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common area) types that are defined in line with the typological requirements of the WFD Annex II and approved by WG Finished developing new typology. ECOSTAT Conclusion: final, awaiting aproval on ECOSTAT meeting in 5-6 October 2010. 1. The water body is assessed against type-specific near- DE: yes natural reference conditions Others: No 1. Assessment results are expressed as EQRs Yes 1. Sampling procedure allows for represent-tative in- Yes formation about water body quality/ ecological status in space and time 1. All data relevant for assessing the biological paramet- Yes ers specified in the WFD’s normative definitions are covered by the sampling procedure 1. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate Yes confidence and precision in classification 1. Other criteria 1 1. Other criteria 2 1. Other criteria 3

Clarify if there are still gaps in the national method descriptions information. Summarise the conclusions of the compliance checking: LV has not yet finished the transition to the BQI system. LT has not yet documented the parameters for their use of the BQI system (reference conditions, class boundaries, sensitivity values). DK has not yet final class boundaries, reference conditions for all areas, and no water body as - sessment procedure.

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

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

Conclusion Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of typology ?

In terms of the old typology (from phase 1), IC was feasible between some of the countries (see Milestone 1 report). The group has now finished a new typology based on the experiences of the 1st phase mainly based on having common types in between neigh- bouring countries. This new typology is completely feasible for macrofauna IC, since it addresses all problems the group faced in the 1st round. Please see the attached documentation for more details (as submitted for ECOSTAT meeting in October 2010). There is still uncertainty about the Stettin lagoon, which is a transitional water area in Poland and a coastal water area in Germany. From a biological point of view, the whole area is one community, but in terms of typology, it is two different water categories. The fauna group is currently not able to decide, whether an IC here is needed or acceptable. 4.2. Pressures Describe the pressures addressed by the MS assessment methods Method Pressure Remarks Method A Method B Conclusion Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of pressures addressed by the methods?

Pressures targeted are general degradation which is mainly due to eutrophication. All MS systems target these pressures. There is however, a huge lack/demand of data to prove the impact-response relationship. At least in DE and SE, abiotic data are missing from the sample sites and in a form suitable to relate the pressures to the index outcome.

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 ex- ample, sensitive taxa proportion indices vs species composition indices. - Assessment systems may focus on different lake zones - profundal, littoral or sublit- toral - 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 Method A Method B Conclusion Is the Intercalibration feasible in terms of assessment concepts?

We need more information to answer this question in full. All concepts use the parameters: species composition, abundance, and sensitivity classifications. Currently, only soft- bottom habitats are assessed. EE is also using biomass, which makes data availability difficult for the other countries. FI is not measuring biomass, LV is measuring biomass, but on a different basis (otherwise, LV is only having historical data, conversion factors) and this makes it difficult to provide intercalibration sample data.

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 DK X none* none

EE X none** none

LV X none none

LT X none** none

DE X none* none*

All others none none none

* Salinity, temperature, nutrients, and other data available, but not from the sampling sites. ** Salinity, sediment texture is available for some sites.

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 Meeting of the criteria per country: optional) DE: yes DK: yes EE: yes LV: yes LT: yes The sampling and analytical method- DE: yes ology DK: yes EE: yes LV: yes LT: yes Level of taxonomic precision re- DE: yes quired and taxalists with codes DK: yes EE: yes LV: yes LT: yes The minimum number of sites / samples per intercalibration type will be done soon Sufficient covering of all relevant quality classes per type will be investigated now Other aspects where applicable

6. Benchmarking: Reference conditions or alternative benchmarking In section 2 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be in- cluded 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): No reference sites have yet been defined, mainly because the Baltic Sea has none (compare HOLAS assessment by HELCOM, 2010). An alternative reference/benchmark needs to be defined for IC.

- Give a detailed description of reference criteria for screening of sites in near-natural conditions (abiotic characterisation, pressure indicators):

n.a. - Identify the reference sites for each Member State in each common IC type. Is their number sufficient to make a statistically reliable estimate?

n.a. - 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:

n.a. - Give detailed description of setting reference conditions (summary statistics used)

n.a. 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) Only sites (= water bodies in the context of the Baltic Sea) with good or moderate status are available in a larger number sufficient for IC. The exact method for defining the benchmark is still to be defined, since we lack abiotic data to relate to. Best approach will probably be expert judgement.

LT: expert judgement based on relative abundance (approx. 60% on average) and permanent presence of sensitive and very sensitive species. - 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) See above

LT: sites exposed to background eastern Baltic Proper eutrophication levels with very low or negligible local disturbance.

- Identify the alternative benchmark sites for each Member State in each common IC type To be done

- Describe how you validated the selection of the alternative benchmark with biological data To be done

LT: Correspondence between high number of sensitive species, their increased abundance and low pressure values (validation under development)

- 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 To be done

Describe the biological communities at reference sites or at the alternative benchmark, considering potential biogeographical differences: To be done

LT: Typical Baltic Proper brackish water benthic community dominated by Macoma balthica.

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 evaluation (Y/N) - 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) option 1: LT-LV (as long as PL is not participating, otherwise option3) option 3: LT-LV-PL or PL-LT (see above), EE-LV, FI-EE, PL-DE, DE-DK, DK-SE, SE- FI. Specifically, new option 3b will be used.

Explanation for the choice of the IC option:

1. we do not cover the whole ecological gradient 2. we have mostly bilateral comparisons, making regression (option 3a, option 2) meaning- less 3. we lack a common metric, and only option 3b is working without a common metric, if the subtypological differences are negligable

LT and LV will both use the BQI system and thus are clearly bound to option 1, unless PL gets into IC again. The other types are bilateral types and the new Annex V of the IC guidance has designated option 3b for this. Further explanation follows when Annex V is finished and pub- lished by the EU.

In case of IC Option 2, please explain the differences in data acquisition

7.2. IC common metrics (When IC Options 2 or 3 are used)

Describe the IC Common metric: There are no good common metrics. From the current point of knowledge, all metrics that can be used will result in developing yet another assessment system, since the metrics of the national methods depend upon the only common metrics. This will need further investigation. A test has been made using an overly simple common metric “number of taxa”. This could be a starting point, but is not a sufficiently substantiated biological common metric, as required for IC. 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 A B

Explain if any method had to be excluded due to its low correlation with the common metric: To be done

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) In section 2 of the method description of the national methods above, an overview has to be in- cluded 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) To be done

- Provide pressure-response relationships (describe how the biological quality element changes as the impact of the pressure or pressures on supporting elements increases) To be done

- Provide a comparison with WFD Annex V, normative definitions for each QE/ metrics and type To be done

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). To be done 8.3. Boundary comparison and harmonisation Describe comparison of national boundaries, using comparability criteria (see Annex V of IC guidance). Annex V is still not finished and approved, but a test has been made for a SE-DE comparison using option 3b. See documentation of the drafting group meeting (Ispra, 26-27 August 2010). - Do all national methods comply with these criteria ? (Y/N)

- If not, describe the adjustment process: To be done.