1. Broad European types of lakes and rivers
Use of national typology information
Anne Lyche Solheim and Jonas Persson,
EEA-ETC-ICM,
Peter Kristensen, EEA
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

2. Outline Why are broad types needed? How will they be used?
Most common type factors used in national typologies for lakes and rivers
Identification of broad types and
comparison with IC types and HD Freshwater habitat types
Next steps
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

3. Why are broad types needed?
For the new WFD article 18 European assessment in 2018, the EC and EEA want to know the differences in status, pressures and measures between broad types of water bodies, e.g.:
What proportion of lowland, calcareous rivers are not in good status? What are the main pressures and are the measures relevant and sufficient for restoration? Can we see any improvement since the 1st RBMPs?
What proportion of highland lakes are affected by hydropower?
How many fish migration barriers are found in mid-altitude rivers?
What is the status of humic lakes compared to non-humic lakes?
Are siliceous mid-altitude and highland lakes still affected by acidification?
What proportion of small Mediterranean temporary rivers are in poor status due to water abstraction?
What is the status and pressures on very shallow calcareous lakes compared to deeper lakes?
What is the status and most common combination of pressures reported for very large, lowland rivers?
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

4. Why are broad types needed?
What is the difference between the status and pressures on broad types of WFD water bodies relative to water bodies in national types that are linked to comparable IC types?
Which of the broad types show most improvement and least improvement since the 1st RBMP reporting?
Can we compare broad types of WFD water bodies with the freshwater habitat types in the Habitats Directive article 17?
If yes, are the status and pressures on those broad types comparable to the conservation status and threats reported for related freshwater habitat types?
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

5. EEA – ETC use of the broad types
2014: Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment report comparing WFD ecological status and pressures in the broad types with the HD freshwater habitat types and their conservation status. Publication on ETC-website
Contribute to the assessment of freshwater habitats and species for the HD Article 17
Provide inputs to the assessments of freshwater Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services under the EU Biodiversity strategy 2020
WFD article 18 report (EEA report to EC/EP) based on the article 13 reporting of the 2nd RBMPs: Comparing status, pressures and measures for water bodies in national types sorted into broad types, and look for improvements in status since the 1st RBMPs.
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

6. Why do we need broad types?
Type specific assessments not possible in WFD article 18 report in 2012 after the MSs article 13 reporting of the 1st RBMPs due to the huge number of national types not linked to IC types
>2000 types (1599 river types and 673 lakes types),
only 25% linked to IC types
Only single country examples could be shown, e.g. Germany
80% of all WBs were found in 275 national river types and 164 lake types
The aim is to define broad types at European scale (or regional scale), by grouping national types with high similarity
The aim is not to change the national typologies!!
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

7. Type-specific assessment of German rivers
p. 60 in BMU/UBA 2010: Water resource management in Germany – part 2,
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

8. Approach
In 2012 and 2013 Member States were asked to report the type ranges or descriptions for each type factor used for each of their national types, with a focus on national types holding most of the water bodies.
All member states replied to the questionnaire, and typology data were received from all except Luxembourg and Malta.
Malta does not have inland surface waters that conform to the typology of rivers and lakes in mainland Europe. They only have some seasonal streams and ponds.
Luxembourg is in the process of remaking the whole typology, as the former typology presented some main gaps and was not fully WFD compliant. They will report the new typology as soon as it is established.
The most commonly used typology factors were found and used to define a limited number of broad types for both rivers and lakes.
The categories and ranges for each typology factor follow the WFD Annex II, system A
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

9. Most common type factors
The national typology data show that the most commonly used type factors are:
Rivers:
Altitude: lowland, mid-altitude, highland
Catchment size: very small, small, medium, large, very large
Geology: siliceous, calcareous, organic, mixed
Lakes:
Altitude: lowland, mid-altitude, highland
Size: very small, small, medium, large, very large
Depth: very shallow, shallow, deep
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

10. River typology factors used to define the broad types
Type factor
Categories
Codes
Range
Altitude
lowland 1
< 200 masl
mid-altitude 2
masl
highland 3
> 800 masl
Catchment size
very small
< 10 km2
small
km2
medium
km2
large 4
km2
very large 5
>10000 km2
Alkalinity Ca
Colour
Bedrock or deposits
Geology
Siliceous
< 1 mekv/L
< 20 mg/L
< 30 mg Pt/L
crystalline, granite, gneiss
Calcareous
> 1 mekv/L
> 20 mg/L
sedimentary, calcite, carbonaceous
Organic /Humic
any
> 30 mg Pt/L
peat
Mixed
any mixture
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

11. Lake typology factors used to define the broad types
Type factor
Categories
Codes
Range
Altitude
lowland 1
< 200 masl
mid-altitude 2
masl
highland 3
> 800 masl
Surface area
very small
< 0,5 km2
small
0,5-1 km2
medium
1-10 km2
large 4
km2
very large 5
>100 km2
Alkalinity Ca
Colour
Bedrock or deposits
Geology
Siliceous
< 1 mekv/L
< 20 mg/L
< 30 mg Pt/L
crystalline, granite, gneiss
Calcareous
> 1 mekv/L
> 20 mg/L
sedimentary, calcite, carbonaceous
Organic /Humic
any
> 30 mg Pt/L
peat
Mixed
any mixture
Stratification
Mixing
Mean depth
very shallow
< 3 m
non-stratified
polymictic
shallow
3-15 m
stratified
dimictic
deep
> 15 m
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

12. Methodology used to define the broad types
The national types were grouped based on similarity between the type ranges for these most commonly used typology factors.
The similarity was first found by cluster analysis,
The results were adjusted and expanded to include more national types using freshwater ecological expertise within the ETC-ICM (EEA).
The links given by Member States to the IC common types were also used to sort some of the national types into broad types, based on similarities between broad types and IC types.
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

13. Justification for the broad types
Pressures vary in relation to altitude, geology and latitude
Ecological responses to pressures depend on geology, size, and climate (altitude, latitude)
The broad types should be linked to IC common types
Mediterranean types separated from the rest of Europe due to a different climate and more pressures from water scarcity and droughts.
Pragmatic need to limit the number of broad types to be used for meaningful EU-level assessments of status and pressures.
Further details of the justification is given in the typology note distributed before the workshop (available in the Ecostat circa)
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

14. Rivers Broad types Broad type name Broad RW type (2014)
Altitude (masl)
Catchment area (km2)
Geology
Very large rivers (all Europe) 1
>10 000
Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Medium-Large 2
≤200
Siliceous/Organic
Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Very small-Small 3
≤100
Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 4
Calcareous/Mixed
Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 5
Mid altitude, Siliceous, Medium-Large 6
Siliceous*
Mid altitude, Siliceous, Small 7
Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 8
Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 9
Highland, Siliceous 10
>800
Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 11
Mediterranean, Lowland, Medium-Large 12
Mediterranean, Mid altitude, Medium-Large 13
Mediterranean, Very small-Small 14
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

15. River broad types: # national types and WBs
Broad type name
Broad RW type (2014)
# national types
# WBs*
% of WBs
Very large rivers (all Europe) 1 43
599
0,6 %
Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Medium-Large 2 18
2766
2,7 %
Lowland, Siliceous/Organic, Very small-Small 3 16
9719
9,4 %
Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 4 82
3135
3,0 %
Lowland, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 5 26
14128
13,6 %
Mid altitude, Siliceous, Medium-Large 6 23
4662
4,5 %
Mid altitude, Siliceous, Small 7 14
8894
8,6 %
Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Medium-Large 8
3262
3,1 %
Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed, Very small-Small 9 20
5001
4,8 %
Highland, Siliceous 10 12
4163
4,0 %
Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 11 19
3542
3,4 %
Mediterranean, Lowland, Medium-Large 15
1030
1,0 %
Mediterranean, Mid altitude, Medium-Large 13 21
2427
2,3 %
Mediterranean, Very small-Small 31
3721
3,6 %
Total
383
67049
64,6 %
*Total WBs
103721
100 %
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

16. Links between broad types and IC types RIVERS
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

17. Links between broad types and IC types RIVERS
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

18. Links between broad types and IC types RIVERS
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

19. Lakes broad types Broad type name Broad LW type Altitude (masl)
Lake area (km2)
Geology
Mean depth (m)
Very large and deep* 1
>100
> 15
Lowland, Siliceous 2
≤200
Siliceous*
Lowland, Shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 3
Calcareous/Mixed
3 - 15
Lowland, Very shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 4 ≤3
Organic 5
Mid altitude, Siliceous 6
Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed 7
Highland, Siliceous 8
>800
Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 9
Mediterranean, Small-Very large 10
>0.5
Mediterranean, Very small 11
≤0.5
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

20. Lakes broad types: # national types and WBs
Broad type name
Broad LW type
# national types
# WBs*
% of WBs
Very large and deep* 1 9
132
0,7 %
Lowland, Siliceous 2 26
1755
9,6 %
Lowland, Shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 3 24
1601
8,7 %
Lowland, Very shallow, Calcareous/Mixed 4 28
1792
9,8 %
Organic 5
3349
18,2 %
Mid altitude, Siliceous 6 7
2511
13,7 %
Mid altitude, Calcareous/Mixed 23
274
1,5 %
Highland, Siliceous 8
548
3,0 %
Highland, Calcareous/Mixed 33
0,2 %
Mediterranean, Small-Very large 10 15 99
0,5 %
Mediterranean, Very small 11 73
0,4 %
Total
185
12167
66,2 %
* many large lakes are split into smaller water bodies, and thus do not appear as large lakes
*Total WBs
18375
100 %
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

21. Links between broad types and IC types LAKES
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

22. Links between broad types and IC types LAKES
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

23. Links between broad types and IC types LAKES
Broad LW types
EU common intercalibration types
Mediterranean
10. Mediterranean, Small-Very large
L-M5/7. Reservoirs, deep, large, siliceous, "wet areas"
L-M8. Reservoirs, deep, large, calcareous
11. Mediterranean, Very small
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

24. Annex 1, Rivers: Linking national types to broad types
Broad RW type (2014)
Country
National typology
Altitude
Catchment
Geology
WBs
% within MS 1 AT
MZB_17_1,75 2 5 4
190 3% 6
MZB_2_1,5 3
929
13%
MZB_2_1,25
603 8%
MZB_12_1,75
243 7
MZB_12_1,5
448 6% 8
MZB_13_1,75
547 7%
MZB_11_1,75
465
MZB_13_1,5
198 9
MZB_5_1,5
442
MZB_15_1,5
224
MZB_11_1,5
221 10
MZB_3_1,5
716
10% 11
MZB_7_1,25
MZB_5_1,25
267 4%
See table 1 (slide 10) for Typology factor codes
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

25. Annex 2, Lakes: Linking national types to broad types
Broad LW type (2014
Country
National typology
Altitude
Area
Geology
Mean depth
WBs
% within MS 1 AT B1 2 5 4 3
1.6 % 7 D1 6
9.7 %
D2a
4.8 %
D2b
C1a B2
8.1 %
C1b
6.5 % 9 E1 10
16.1 %
BE (Fl)
CFe
Czb
Awe
Awom Ad Ai
Ami Cb
See table 1 in typology note (see slide 11) for Typology factor codes
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

26. Next steps Feedback from Member States concerning the broad types:
Do these make sense, and if not, please propose changes before 15th May.
Member States should validate the grouping of national types into the broad types including the choice of category for each typology factor given in Annexes 1 and 2.
If the current categories for a national type given in Annexes 1 and 2 are wrong for one or several typology factors, then the Member State is kindly asked to make corrections, and consequently move the national type to another broad type.
Alternatively they can delete the national type from the list of broad types, if they consider that none of the broad types are relevant.
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

27. Next steps
Optional: Member States can add more national types to Annexes 1 and 2
types appearing below the types holding 80% of the water bodies in the Member State specific sheets in the raw data file that was filled in last year
Optional: Member States are encouraged to do analysis of status and pressures affecting your national types aggregated to the relevant broad types. This could increase the understanding of type differences.
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim

28. Process to deal with the next steps
Activity
Deadline
Responsible
A request letter with all data files and explanations will be sent to Member States
15th April 2014
ETC-ICM and JRC
Feedback on broad types.
Checking and correcting the sorting of national types into the broad types given in Annexes 1 and 2, and return the data file and Annexes to JRC (who forwards to ETC-ICM)
Add more national types to Annexes 1 and 2 (optional)
15th May 2014
Members States (ECOSTAT member organization ??)
Revision of broad types by ETC and grouping of national types in Annexes 1 and 2
1st June
ETC-ICM
Assessment of status and pressures on water bodies within each of the broad types using the WFD RBMP database
15th June
ETC_ICM
Drafting the report: Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment including the new results
30th June
Commenting
1st Sept 2014
EEA, JRC, Member States (?)
Revision of the draft report based on comments and publication at the ETC web-site
30th Sept 2014
Presentation of key results at next Ecostat workshop
October 2014
Event/ date: Ecostat workshop / 1st April 2014 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim