1. RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG
3-4 July 2006
Roger Owen
Cathy Bennett

2. CB Rivers GIG Macro-invertebrates
Macro-invertebrate IC
CB Rivers GIG Macro-invertebrates
IC option 2
Use of a common metric (ICMi) .
“General pressure” - a combination of organic/ nutrient
/hydromorphological pressure.
CB GIG comprises 18 Member States (MS)
17 MS have provided macro-invertebrate data (SE, EE, LV, LT, DK, UK, IE, NL, DE, LU, DE, AT, FR, ES, IT, PL, CZ).
National methods - differ in compliance and state of development in relation to WFD normative definitions.
MS provide a dataset with raw macro-invertebrate data, MS EQRs (national method and metrics) and MS class boundaries.
MS datasets are validated against acceptance criteria (the acceptance criteria are shown in the table below). Members of the Steering Group (‘Type Coordinators’) check the compliance of MS datasets within each common intercalibration river type.
A careful review of the screening undertaken by MS for GIG reference criteria has been undertaken by the CBGIG Steering Group and those not judged to have screened adequately have not had their datasets included in the derivation of the GIG mean boundary and mean confidence limits used for comparison. The independent AQEM/STAR benchmark classification (explanation see below) was also included in the comparison.

3. CBGIG Common IC River Types
Macro-invertebrate IC
CBGIG Common IC River Types
Type
Characterisation
Catchment area (of stretch)
Altitude & geomorphology
Alkalinity (meq/l)
R-C1
Small lowland siliceous sand
km2
lowland, dominated by sandy substrate (small particle size), 3-8m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4
R-C2
Small lowland siliceous - rock
lowland, rock material
3-8m width (bankfull size)
< 0,4
R-C3
Small mid-altitude siliceous
mid-altitude, rock (granite) - gravel substrate, 2-10m width (bankfull size)
R-C4
Medium lowland mixed
km2
lowland, sandy to gravel substrate, 8-25m width (bankfull size)
R-C5
Large lowland mixed
km2
lowland, barbel zone, variation in velocity, max. altitude in catchment: 800m, >25m width (bankfull size)
R-C6
Small, lowland, calcareous
km2
lowland, gravel substrate (limestone), width 3-10m (bankfull size)
> 2

4. No. macro-invertebrate samples for each MS
Macro-invertebrate IC
No. macro-invertebrate samples for each MS AT Be -F -W CZ DK EE FR DE IE IT LV LT LU NL PL ES SE UK
R-C1
208 49
127 68
365 15
374
118 51
205
R-C2
378
1505 97 71
188
R-C3 67 50
101
462
174 98
182 31
R-C4
192 36 22
185 88
639 72
508
220
924
R-C5 16
145 12 44
R-C6 45 27
302
1735 73
140 26 20
1338

5. Reference conditions Common procedure:
Macro-invertebrate IC
Common procedure:
Reference sites chosen using REFCOND guidance
Reference status defined by GIG
MS screened selected reference sites against agreed catchment land use (c.25) and chemical threshold limits (5) (MI6 Appendix)
MS completed check list indicating criteria used & available sources of information (a few awaited).
Reference screening flow chart provided.
Procedure checked by Type Coordinators

6. No. of reference ’sites’ (data points)
Macro-invertebrate IC
No. of reference ’sites’ (data points)
RC1
RC2
RC3
RC4
RC5
RC6
Grand Total AT 16
BE-F
 0* 0*
BE-W 20 CZ 7 DE 6 32 DK 5 9 21 EE 4 15 ES 8 35 10 69 FR 23 53
109 42
248 IE
209
138
471 IT LT LU 41 2 18 61 NL PL SE 14 3 22 UK 25 30 19 92
108
300
230
226
218
1,117
*Be-F: use of extrapolated reference values for national metric & ICMi
*NL: propose to ‘borrow’ reference sites

7. Good/Moderate boundary
Macro-invertebrate IC
Boundary Setting
GIG agreed use of ICMi which is compliant with WFD-normative definitions
MS required to compile a fact sheet (Mi6 Appendix C-1) describing:
National macro-invertebrate classification system.
Criteria used for national boundary setting in accordance with WFD-normative definitions. Various approaches used to set boundaries:
‘REFCOND approach’ i.e. 25%ile reference=H/G boundary; equal division of other classes
Ecological approach
Site-specific methods
Country
Classification System
General Description
Criteria for Boundary Setting
High/Good boundary
Good/Moderate boundary
Taxonomic composition and abundance
Ratio of disturbance sensitive to insensitive taxa
Level of diversity

8. Quality checks for MS datasets and classification methods
Macro-invertebrate IC
Quality checks for MS datasets and classification methods
MS provide raw data, MS EQRs & MS class boundaries.
‘Type Coordinators’ (TC) check validation against acceptance criteria.
Summary of MS for inclusion in
i) comparison
ii) calculation of harmonised GIG boundary.
Dialog between TC and MS at recent CB GIG meeting.
Benchmark classification (STAR) included in the comparison (but will not be used for harmonisation).

9. Derivation of GIG boundary
Macro-invertebrate IC
Data quality criteria
Comparison
Derivation of GIG boundary
Raw family lists 
Data to check type allocations
Normative definitions questionnaire
Agreed MS classification system
Agreed national boundaries
MS class. system compliant with WFD-norm. defns.
REFCOND criteria & thresholds questionnaire
Min. no. reference sites: 2
Min. no. reference samples: 6
Use of ‘median’ of MS EQR of reference samples (value ~1)
No. of sites/samples per quality class:
4 samples in each class H, G, M
Relationship between national method & ICMi: R2≥0.5

10. Comparison Yes 10 No Maybe 7 Macro-invertebrate IC MS R-C1 R-C2 R-C3
Be-F
Be-W CZ DE DK EE ES FR IE IT LT LU LV NL PL SE UK
Yes 10 No
Maybe 7

11. Calculation of Harmonised GIG Boundary
Macro-invertebrate IC
Calculation of Harmonised GIG Boundary MS
R-C1
R-C2
R-C3
R-C4
R-C5
R-C6 AT
Be-F
Be-W CZ DE DK EE ES FR IE IT LT LU LV NL PL SE UK
Yes 7 No 6
Maybe 4

12. Results of comparison (Preliminary)
Macro-invertebrate IC
Results of comparison (Preliminary)
Calculated a GIG mean boundary value for each IC river type.
2 options for determining the uncertainty around the mean boundaries & define an acceptable range for MS boundaries to lie within:
a) an uncertainty of ± 5%
(equivalent 25% of class width on EQR scale)
b) mean of 95%ile confidence ranges of MS boundaries (equivalent ± 3% on EQR scale)
CBGIG Rivers present options for:
type-specific boundaries &
boundaries for all types combined**
MS provide a dataset with raw macro-invertebrate data, MS EQRs (national method and metrics) and MS class boundaries.
MS datasets are validated against acceptance criteria (the acceptance criteria are shown in the table below). Members of the Steering Group (‘Type Coordinators’) check the compliance of MS datasets within each common intercalibration river type.
A careful review of the screening undertaken by MS for GIG reference criteria has been undertaken by the CBGIG Steering Group and those not judged to have screened adequately have not had their datasets included in the derivation of the GIG mean boundary and mean confidence limits used for comparison. The independent AQEM/STAR benchmark classification (explanation see below) was also included in the comparison.
**Advantage:
Facilitates boundary setting for river types we have not intercalibrated.
Facilitates MS with many river types

13. Justification for Uncertainty Band
Variation due to:
Collection/sampling methods
Quality of datasets e.g. number of available samples in difference quality classes
Typology issues
Selection of reference sites
Reference screening
Discriminatory power of ICMi (some national methods are better in distinguishing classes)
Scatter/noise around the regression etc.

14. R-C6 (preliminary)
H/G: 0.92 ±0.05 (5% band)
G/M:0.76 ±0.05 (5% band)

15. R-C4
H/G: 0.94 ±0.03 (5% band)
G/M:0.77 ±0.02 (5% band)

16. All Types Combined: Average of harmonised H/G boundaries ± 5%
Macro-invertebrate IC
All Types Combined: Average of harmonised H/G boundaries ± 5%
0.92 ± 0.05

17. All Types Combined: Average of harmonised G/M boundaries ± 5%
Macro-invertebrate IC
All Types Combined: Average of harmonised G/M boundaries ± 5%
0.76 ± 0.05

18. Macro-invertebrate IC
All Types Combined:

19. No significant differences
Macro-invertebrate IC
Outcomes of Comparison
No significant differences
Analysis of significant differences
Technical: Data quality; calculation of EQR; normalisation procedure; variation in reference condition.
Typological: Some MS boundary differences deemed to be due to real typological issues (e.g. reference conditions truly differ).
No action required!

20. Harmonisation of Boundaries
Macro-invertebrate IC
Harmonisation of Boundaries
MS accepts GIG boundary
MS does not accept GIG boundary
MS justifies reasons for not accepting GIG boundary.
MS provides scientific or technical reasons explaining differences (e.g. typological differences).
MS adjusts boundary to fall within GIG confidence range
National system or ICMi as legal boundary?

21. Macro-invertebrates State of Play:
Macro-invertebrate IC
Macro-invertebrates
State of Play:
Much effort was required to define reference status.
No reference sites in some MS for some types.
Not all countries have fully developed or WFD-compatible assessment methods at this time.
Some countries still not decided on a national metric.
Some MS using more than one national metric.
Future work (after 2007):
Further development of the concept of reference status.
Other pressures (e.g. hydromorphology, industrial toxic discharges).
Other river types.

22. Phytobenthos Intercalibration Exercise
Phytobenthos General overview
Phytobenthos Intercalibration Exercise
11 Member states participating:
AT, BE (Flanders/Wallonia), EE, FR, DE, IE, LU, NL, ES, SE, UK
Methods: Sampling – all EN 13946
Analysis – all EN 14407
Metrics: Based on existing WA metrics or New WFD-specific metrics
– compliance with normative definitions
Composition 
diatoms only
Abundance 
All metrics cover relative not absolute abundance
‘Undesirable disturbances’
‘bacterial tufts’

23. Relevance of the IC typology
Phytobenthos IC
Relevance of the IC typology
Fig. DCA all reference samples
No clear separation of the IC types
Retain useful national typologies

24. Intercalibration metric
Phytobenthos IC
Intercalibration metric
Proposed use of simple multimetric ICM
TI (sensitivity at low pressure levels) & IPS (discriminates higher levels of nutrient / organic pressure)
computed as minimum value of two separate EQRs
Inclusion criteria
Harmonisation of status
class boundaries (uncertainty band of 3 or 5% band)
Same as macro-invertebrate exercise
Expected completion date: Provisional boundaries by October 2006

25. Phytobenthos Provisional Results
Phytobenthos IC
Phytobenthos Provisional Results

26. Phytobenthos Provisional Results
Phytobenthos IC
Phytobenthos Provisional Results

27. Phytobenthos - Future work*
Phytobenthos IC
Phytobenthos - Future work*
*Beyond June 2007
Recommendation for a research project to examine the following:
Derive an improved IC typology.
Develop a fully-harmonised ‘benchmark dataset’
(i.e. with a consistent taxonomic approach & quality control of sampling and analysis).
Develop an improved ICM.
Participation by more MS.
Inclusion of other river/stream types.

28. Expected time of finalisation for QE
Expected finalisation date
Main open issues
Macroinvertebrates
October 2006
No reference sites in some MS.
Not all countries have fully WFD compatible assessment methods, or have defined a national metric.
No reference sites for some river types.
Phytobenthos
October 2006*
*provisional boundaries
Typology.
Improved ICM.
Macrophytes
2007
Define a common set of type specific reference.
Define disturbance indicating species to be used as common metrics.