The impacts for stone curlews of increased traffic on the A11. Model and predictions

Stone curlew nest density in the Breckland region of Eastern England was shown to be negatively related to ‘nearby’ housing density and ‘nearby’ trunk road traffic (based on new traffic data for the period 1988-2006). However, no statistically significant additional relationship with non-trunk A-road traffic could be detected. We recommend using the statistical modelling predictions in the report Table 5 as the best currently available estimates of the potential effect of a 70% increase in A11 average daily (March-August)two-way traffic above the average All traffic levels in 2002-06. The predicted effect of a 70% increase in A11 traffic is for a reduction from current observed nest numbers on suitable arable land of 3.7% with no changes in housing density or 4.9% when combined with the predicted effect of housing options. A reduction of 7.3% is predicted for semi-natural grassland and SSSI habitats. Taking both semi-natural grassland/SSSI and arable habitats together, the observed total average nest numbers for the period 2002-2006 was 221.4, and the prediction following a 70% increase in traffic on the A11 is 210.8, a reduction of 10.6 nests (4.8%)

The Solent Disturbance & Mitigation Project. Phase II – results of the Solent household survey

This report sets out the results of the postal household survey component of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation project. The work was commissioned by the Solent Forum in response to concerns over the impact of recreational pressure on features of the Solent SPA, SAC and Ramsar Sites. Of particular concern are the cumulative impacts of recreational use arising from potential new housing developments in Chichester District and South Hampshire. The household survey was distributed to 5000 households within 25km of the coastline between Hurst Castle, including the north shoreline of the Isle of Wight. The questionnaires and reminders were sent between October and December 2010. The household survey contained three sections which elicited information relating to general and specific visits to the coast and household demographics. A total of 1382 completed questionnaires were returned and 42% of these households had visited the coast the week prior to completing the survey. Only 4% of households (56) stated they never visited the coast. Households which did not visit the coast contained a lower number of people, lower number of dogs and a higher percentage did not have regular access to a private vehicle when compared to households that made regular coastal visits. Of the households which visited the coast, 50% visited at least once a week. A total of 55% of households visited the coast equally all year and an additional 39% of households made more visits in the summer. There was a significant difference in coastal visit frequency between households which owned a least one dog and non dog owning households, with dog owning households making more visits. There was no significant difference in visit frequency between households who had garden access or whether the household dwelling type was a flat or ‘non- flat’. The 1155 households providing full responses to the survey made an estimated annual total of 153,433 visits to the Solent coastline. The project and this survey divided the coastline into 103 numbered sections. Households made on average 133 annual coastal visits to 3.7 different sections of the coastline. On average each section received a total of 1490 annual visits but the number of coastal visits made to different sections was significantly different. The most frequently given activities undertaken during a coastal visit were walking (20% of all activity responses) and enjoying the scenery (20%), followed by being on the beach (11%) and meeting up with friends (11% of all activity responses). Households indicated where they undertook their activity during the coastal visit and for 47% of the visit responses the activity (walking, cycling, enjoying the scenery etc) was undertaken on the sea wall or the river bank. A further 39% of responses by households indicated they venture onto the beach/mudflat and 15% of responses actually took to the water. The majority (52%) of coastal visits by households were made by car with 39% made by foot, 4% by bicycle and 5% by public transport. Of the households which made visits by car, 50% travelled 9.5km or less by road to the section they visited and 90% travelled 29.0km or less to their visited section by road. Of the households who visited specific sections by foot half lived within 1.0km of the section (straight line distance from postcode to nearest point on section) and 90% lived within 4.0km of the visited section. Features that act as a deterrent for some households when selecting a coastal location to visit may also attract other households. For example, a requirement for dogs to be on leads and the presence of dog restrictions is rated as attractive to non dog owning households but as a deterrent by dog owning households. By far the most popular attractive feature when households choose which coastal location to visit was ‘sea views and attractive scenery’ followed by ‘feel safe’, ‘ability to do a range of different walks/routes ‘and the ‘presence of wildlife’. Predictions were derived by fitting formal statistical models to the observed (household survey) data. Specifically these models used observed visitor numbers per section per distance band and analysed these in relation to factors representing distance to section and section characteristics. Different models are presented within the report and separate models were generated for car and foot visitors, with each model showing a declining visitor rate with distance from the section – i.e. the further away people live the fewer visits they make. These models suggest some 52 million visits are made each year, by households within a 30km radius of the coastline between Hurst Castle to Chichester Harbour, including the north shore of the Isle of Wight. The models identify Portsmouth’s seafront (South Parade Pier to Fort Cumberland) as the most heavily visited coastal section, with over 3 million household visits per annum. These predictive visit models will be used alongside the bird models, commissioned separately and subject to a further report, to assess the impacts of disturbance to wintering birds under different housing scenarios. The use of the visitor models and how they will link to the bird models within the next stages of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project are discussed

The Solent Disturbance & Mitigation Project Phase II – On-site visitor survey results from the Solent region

This report sets out the results of the on-site visitor survey component of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation project. The work was commissioned by the Solent Forum in response to concerns over the impact of recreational pressure on features of the Solent SPA, SAC and Ramsar Sites. Of particular concern are the cumulative impacts of recreational use arising from potential new housing developments in the Chichester District and South Hampshire. The visitor surveys were conducted during the winter 2009/2010 to assess the level and type of visitor use at selected locations along the Solent coastline. Overall it is likely that the number of visitors interviewed and counted during the survey period was lower than would be normally be expected given the especially cold 2009/2010 winter. With that in mind, there is the potential that the monitoring could provide an underestimate of the absolute number visitors to the region. However, the interviews were designed to elicit generic and site specific details from visitors and although fewer individuals may have been recorded or interviewed because of the weather we can assume that the general winter visitation pattern remained similar and the results very useful in understanding who, where, when and why people use the coast. Counts of people and interviews were conducted at 20 locations around the Solent coastline (including the north shore of the Isle of Wight). A total of 16 hours of surveys were carried out at each location, split equally between weekend (8 hours) and a weekday (8 hours). A total of 784 interviews were conducted, accounting for 1,322 people and 550 dogs. The average group size was 1.7 people. There were differences in visitor numbers between survey locations, with the highest visitor numbers recorded at Emsworth (1088 visitors were recorded using the site over 16 hours) while Lymington (Boldre/Pylewell) was the least busy (33 visitors counted over 16 hours). Visitor numbers per day were typically highest on weekend compared to weekdays. Holiday makers accounted for 6% of the total number of visitors recorded (80 visitors). Visitors were undertook a wide range of activities, with walking (without a dog) and dog walking the two most frequently recorded activities (44% and 42% of interviews). Across all sites and activities, visits were typically short, with 89% lasting less than two hours. The main modes of transport used to reach sites were by car and on foot, with the proportion of people arriving by each mode varying between sites. Across all sites (and taking the data for non-holiday makers only), 51% of interviewees arrived by car and a further 46% arrived on foot. Home postcodes were used to identify the distance between interviewee’s home and the location where interviewed. Half of all visitors arriving on foot lived within 0.7km, while half of all visitors arriving by car lived more than 4km away. Only 9% of foot visitors lived more than 2km away compared to 80% of all car visitors. Linear regressions using housing numbers within different distance bands of a location as a predictor of visitor numbers for each location show a positive relationship between the number of houses within 1km, 3km and 5km and number of visitors entering each survey location. Car park capacity at the access points did not provide a good indication of the frequency of visitors arriving by car to each location. The relationship is more complex, future modelling of visitor rates travelling to locations by car should include potential road related parking (related to length of nearby roads around access points) in addition to official and off road car parking capacity around the access points. 2 Route data were also collected for each interview, with lines drawn directly on maps during the survey. These route data were analysed to determine which activities take place below Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) and how far different groups go out into the intertidal. Across all the interviews, 7% of the mapped routes did not go within 25m of MHWM and were therefore visitors who did not actually make it to the beach (in some locations the survey point was set inland, for example near to parking locations etc.). A further 78% were entirely within the band between 25m above and 25m below MHWM, indicating routes that remained at the top of the beach, on the seawall or similar. It was 14% of the mapped routes that went below 50m from MHWM, and these included a range of activities, for example bait diggers, dog walkers, joggers, cyclists and people out on a family outing. The implications of the results for further modelling and in relation to the disturbance of birds on the European Sites are discussed

WISER Deliverable D6.1-3: WISERBUGS (WISER Bioassessment Uncertainty Guidance Software) tool for assessing confidence of WFD ecological status class User Manual and software: Release 1.1 (Sept 2010)

The aim of the software program WISERBUGS is to assist in quantifying uncertainty in the assessment of the ecological status of lakes, rivers, transitional (estuarine) and coastal waters. WISERBUGS (WISER Bioassessment Uncertainty Guidance Software) is a product of the WISER (Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery) research project (Grant 226273 - WISER) supported by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme (http://www.wiser.eu/). The WISER project aim was to assist in developing methods for calibrating different biological survey results for lakes, transitional and coastal waters against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD requires Member States to assess, monitor, and where inadequate, improve the ecological status of water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). All such water bodies are to be classified to one of five ecological status classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad) with the aim of eventually achieving or maintaining good or better status for all water bodies. The ecological status (i.e. condition) of a water body is often measured using one or more metrics derived from the taxonomic composition and/or abundance obtained from field samples/surveys and/or habitat surveys. The term metric here usually refers to any biological index or other single-valued measure which is designed to measure some aspect of the biological community and its taxonomic composition at a site or water body. The Articles of the Water Framework Directive (Annex V, section 1.3) require that “Estimates of the level of confidence and precision of the results provided by the monitoring programmes shall be given in the (monitoring) Plan”. Thus, water body monitoring and management organisations need to have some understanding and estimates of the confidence to which an individual water body can be assigned to an ecological status class. In addition the WFD requires that the Ecological Status of surface waters of Member States are maintained or improved. However, because of the uncertainties associated with biological monitoring, waterbodies may appear to change Ecological Status over time when, in reality, this is only an artefact due to the uncertainty resulting from the whole bioassessment process and sampling procedures. A core part of the WISER project was to collect standardised field sample and survey information on phytoplankton, aquatic macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, fish and aquatic habitats at each of a wide range of lake, transitional and coastal water body sites across Europe. One important reason for this was to improve understanding and provide estimates of the sampling uncertainty (replicate, sub-sample, spatial and temporal) associated with specific sampling/surveying methods, individual metrics and multi-metric classification rules. The WISERBUGS software program has been written to provide a general means of using simulations to assess uncertainty in estimates of ecological status class for water bodies based on either single metrics or a combination of metrics, multi-metric indices (MMIs) and multi-metric rules. The User provides prior estimates of the relevant sampling uncertainty for each metric and metric value to be involved in the water body assessments, together with metric status class limits and the rules for combining metrics into an overall water body assessment. WISERBUGS can also be used just to test the effect of new status class limits and multi-metric rules on site/waterbody status assessments, without any uncertainty assessment (by setting all uncertainty components to zero). Although initially designed for use with river macroinvertebrate data and metrics, program WISERBUGS is designed to be as generic as possible, so that it can be used with a wide range of metrics derived from field site sampling and survey data for any single or combination of biological quality elements (BQEs, namely phytoplankton, aquatic flora, macroinvertebrates and/or fish) and any type of water body (rivers, lakes, transitional or coastal waters). The program requires the User to provide a ‘Metric Specification File’ in EXCEL format, in which they specify which metrics are to be used to determine the site or waterbody bioassessments, the individual metric uncertainty estimates and the multi-metric rules for combining information from individual metrics. The uncertainty in the estimate of the (usually) mean value of a metric for a water body depends on the level of sampling replication on which it was based in terms of replicate sampling, spatial and temporal sampling coverage over the area of the water body to be assessed and the period of time for which the water body assessment is to apply. The estimates of uncertainty in individual metric values can include the sampling standard deviation (SD) due to sampling/sub-sampling variation and (optionally) the SD and bias due to sample sorting and identification. In practice the uncertainty SD estimates for each metric for each water body or site to be assessed within WISERBUGS must be based on best-available information from replicated sampling studies on this or environmentally-similar water bodies. The ecological status class assessment for individual metrics can be based on just the observed (O) values of metrics or on normalised Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs) involving the ratio of the observed metric values to the Reference Condition values (E1) of the metric.The EQR could be a RIVPACS-type O/E ratio where E1 is set a RIVPACS model-based site-specific expected value and E0 is set to zero When several EQRs are used to create a Multi-Metric Index (MMI) by averaging their values, each EQR is forced into the range 0-1 by setting any EQR values greater than 1 to 1. If EQRs are used, then the User can provide an estimate of the error SD for the Reference Condition values (E1) of each metric for the group of sites or water bodies to be assessed. The same User-specified ‘Metric Specification File’ must also give the ecological status class (‘High’ to ‘Poor’) limits for each metric or EQR. Program WISERBUGS allows the User to specify a wide range of rules for combining individual metrics into multi-metric indices (MMI) or for combining individual metric classes into a metric group class and thus in deriving an overall site/waterbody assessment. For example, it can cope with combining status classes for macro-invertebrate metrics designed to measure one type of stress (e.g. eutrophication, diversity or acidification) and then combine (using the same or a different rule) the classes from these individual stress types into an overall class for macro-invertebrates, and then combine (using the same or a different rule) the overall class for macroinvertebrates with that for one or more other biological quality elements (macrophytes, diatoms or fish). For each set of sites/waterbodies to be assessed, the program reads the observed values of each metric to be used from a User-specified ‘Observed metric values’ EXCEL file. The observed values of the metrics must have been calculated previously, outside of program WISERBUGS. The layout of this input file was designed to provide immediate compatibility with the metric values EXCEL files derived and output from the freshwater macroinvertebrate sample software known as ‘AQEMrap’ or ‘ASTERICS’ (obtainable from the EU Fifth Framework Programme river classification project STAR Web site at www.eu-star.at). The AQEMrap software could be used to calculate and export observed metric values for freshwater macroinvertebrate samples for input to the WISERBUGS program. The content and format of the User-specified EXCEL input files are explained in detail in Section 4. WISERBUGS uses the uncertainty estimates for each metric to simulate a large number of other possible observed metric or EQR values which could have been obtained for the site/waterbody. If the sampling SD is considered to be constant on a specified transformed scale, then, in each simulation the observed value (x) is first transformed, then a random sampling error (z) added and the result back-transformed to obtain a simulated observed value. Each simulation leads to a status class based on each individual metric and then groups of metrics in the specified multi-metric rules for site/waterbody bioassessment. From the statistical distribution of simulated values and classes, estimates of the probability of belonging to each status class are obtained. The content and format of the EXCEL output file give the ecological status assessment and the associated uncertainty for each site/waterbody is explained in Section 5 WISERBUGS software and User Manaual was written and produced by Ralph Clarke of Bournemouth University (BourneU) in the UK

Alien Registration- Clarke, Ralph L. (Rumford, Oxford County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/13663/thumbnail.jp

Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase II: Predicting the impact of human disturbance on overwintering birds in the Solent.

The Solent coastline provides feeding grounds for internationally protected populations of overwintering waders and wildfowl, and is also extensively used for recreation. In response to concerns over the impact of recreational pressure on birds within protected areas in the Solent, the Solent Forum initiated the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project to determine visitor access patterns around the coast and how their activities may influence the birds. The project has been divided into two phases. Phase I collated and reviewed information on housing, human activities and birds around the Solent, and reviewed the potential impact of disturbance on birds. Phase II has involved a programme of major new data collection to (i) estimate visitor rates to the coast from current and future housing, (ii) measure the activities and distances moved by people on the shore and intertidal habitats, and (iii) measure the distances and time for which different bird species respond to different activities. The current report represents the culmination of Phase II, in which the primary data are used to predict whether disturbance may be reducing the survival of birds. Predictions are derived for wader species by developing detailed computer models of birds and disturbance within Southampton Water and Chichester Harbour. These models create a virtual environment within the computer incorporating the intertidal invertebrate food supply of the birds, the exposure and covering of this food through the tidal cycle, disturbance from human activities, and the energy requirements and behaviour of the birds as they avoid humans and search for food. The invertebrate food supply of birds in the models was derived from previous intertidal surveys, and the exposure of intertidal habitat predicted from a tidal model of the Solent. The models incorporate the costs that birds incur when avoiding human activities (e.g. increased density in non-disturbed areas, reduced time for feeding and increased energy demands when flying away), but also their abilities to compensate for these costs (e.g. by feeding for longer or avoiding more disturbed areas). The predictions indicate how disturbance may be effecting the survival of waders throughout the Solent. The following waders were included in the models: Dunlin Calidris alpina, Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, Redshank Tringa totanus, Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa, Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica (Chichester Harbour model only), Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus and Curlew Numenius arquata. A simpler approach was used to assess how disturbance may be effecting Brent Geese in the Solent. As with any models, the predictions of the models used in this project depend on the data with which they are parameterised and the assumptions they make about the real system. The current and future visitor rates used in the models were themselves predicted using statistical analyses of household survey and on-site visitor data. The responses of birds to disturbance were parameterised using on-site observations of the responses of birds to disturbance. Furthermore, models are a simplification of real systems, and it is important to recognise this when interpreting their predictions. The report considers how the model parameters and assumptions may influence predictions. These include: (i) the way in which the disturbance data were measured and assumptions made about how birds and people are distributed in space and time; (ii) the way in which the behaviour of birds to disturbance differs between sites; (iii) the effect of extreme weather on the birds; (iv) how rare or localised activities are incorporated into the models; and (v) how consumption of food by species other than waders is included. The project predicted changes in visitor numbers to the Solent coast. Local authorities in the Solent region provided projections of future housing developments in the region. These were combined with data on visitor rates to different parts of the coast and the distance travelled to visit the coast, to predict coastal visitor rates with current and future housing. Using current housing levels, 52 million household visits per year to the Solent coast were predicted (i.e. the shore from Hurst Castle to Chichester Harbour, including the north shore of the Isle of Wight). Using the housing data provided by local authorities, visitor numbers were predicted to rise by around 8 million household visits, to a total of 60 million, an overall increase of 15%. Within Chichester Harbour, the food supply surveyed was not predicted to be able to support the majority of wading birds modelled. This implied that either the invertebrate survey underestimated the intertidal food supply, or that other food was available either terrestrially, or from neighbouring intertidal sites such as Langstone Harbour. Similar invertebrate surveys have been used to parameterise 17 other similar models, and in all cases birds were predicted to have survival rates close to, or higher than those expected. Due to uncertainties with the Chichester Harbour invertebrate data, it was decided not to use the Chichester Harbour model to predict the effect of disturbance on the birds. However, it is important to note what the effect of low food abundance would be on the effect of disturbance on the birds. The impact of disturbance on survival and body condition will depend on the birds’ ability to compensate for lost feeding time and extra energy expenditure. Birds will be better able to compensate when more food is available, and so lower food abundance in a site will make it more likely that disturbance decreases survival and body condition. Within Southampton Water, in the absence of disturbance, all wader species modelled were predicted to have 100% survival and maintain their body masses at the target value throughout the course of winter. Disturbance from current housing was predicted to reduce the survival of Dunlin, Ringed Plover, Oystercatcher and Curlew. Increased visitor numbers as a result of future housing was predicted to further reduce the survival of Dunlin and Ringed Plover. Disturbance was predicted to have a relatively minor effect on the mean body mass of waders surviving to the end of winter, largely because the individuals with very low mass starved before the end of winter. The Southampton Water model provided evidence that current and future disturbance rates may reduce wader survival in this site. Hypothetical simulations were run to explore how intertidal habitat area, energy demands of the birds and the frequency of different activities may influence the survival of waders within Southampton Water. The survival rates of Dunlin, Ringed Plover, Oystercatcher and Curlew were predicted to be decreased by any reduction in intertidal habitat area (e.g. due to sea level rise) or increases in energy demands (e.g. due to disturbance at roosts or cold weather). Wader survival was predicted to increase if intertidal activities were moved to the shore. This meant that the disturbance from these activities was restricted to the top of the shore rather than the whole intertidal area, and so the proportion of intertidal habitat disturbed was reduced. Reductions in the number of dogs that were off leads were also predicted to increase the survival of some wader species. Removing bait digging from simulations did not increase wader survival. However, this happened because bait-digging was assumed to be a relatively infrequent activity. This does not mean that bait-digging could not adversely affect the birds if it occurs at a higher frequency, and the simulations did not incorporate the depletion of the invertebrate prey of the birds caused by bait digging, which would be an additional effect on the birds in addition to disturbance. Brent Geese were considered in the light of the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy. Important issues are the size of individual sites, their spacing and the ease with which birds can move between the sites. A high proportion of each site needs to be further away from visitor access routes than the distances over which birds are disturbed to ensure that disturbance to the birds is minimised. This could be achieved through a network of larger sites or by preventing visitor access through, or close to, smaller sites. Both intertidal and terrestrial food resources are important to the birds, intertidal food typically being of higher food value but dying back and / or becoming depleted during the autumn / early winter. Previous models of Brent Geese have predicted that the loss of terrestrial habitat typically has the highest effect on survival, and so such habitat is predicted to be particularly important for the birds. Maintaining a suitable network of saltmarsh sites will be increasingly important as the total area of saltmarsh declines with sea level rise. The findings of the present project are in general support with the recommendations of the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy. Predicted current visitor rates varied widely throughout the Solent, but were relatively high within Southampton Water. The highest percentage increases in visitor rates were on the Isle of Wight (50-75%). Wader survival was predicted to be decreased in Southampton Water when daily visitor rates to coastal sections were greater than 30 per ha of intertidal habitat. The potential impact of visitors on wader survival throughout the Solent was calculated by comparing visitor densities throughout the Solent (expressed relative to maximum intertidal habitat area) to the visitor densities predicted to decrease bird survival within Southampton Water. The intertidal food supply within Chichester Harbour was insufficient to support the model birds and so any disturbance (by reducing feeding area or time, or increasing energy demands) would have decreased predicted survival in this site. There is also doubt as to the food supply within the other harbours and so some caution is appropriate when applying the results from Southampton Water to these sites. Coastal sections with daily visitor rates over 30 per ha are identified. The predictions of the Southampton Water model suggest that birds within these sections may have reduced survival due to disturbance from visitors. Whether or not such visitor rates will reduce survival will depend on the food abundance in the coastal sections themselves as well as that in neighbouring sections. The area of overlap between an activity / development and the distribution of birds is often used as a measure of the impact of the activity on the birds, with 1% overlap often taken as the threshold for impact (note however that this 1% overlap does not necessarily mean that an activity will have an adverse effect on the survival or body condition of birds). Therefore, the percentage of intertidal habitat disturbed within each coastal section was calculated as an index of the potential impact of disturbance on the birds. Assuming the maximum intertidal area and only including intertidal visitors, over 50% of the area of many coastal sections was predicted to be disturbed, with an average of 42%

SNIFFER WFD119: Enhancement of the River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project funders/partners: Environment Agency (EA), Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Background to research The Regulatory Agencies in the UK (the Environment Agency; Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency) now use the River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT) to classify the ecological quality of rivers for Water Framework Directive compliance monitoring. RICT incorporates RIVPACS IV predictive models and is a highly capable tool written in a modern software programming language. While RICT classifies waters for general degradation and organic pollution stress, producing assessments of status class and uncertainty, WFD compliance monitoring also requires the UK Agencies to assess the impacts of a wide range of pressures including hydromorphological and acidification stresses. Some of these pressures alter the predictor variables that current RIVPACS models use to derive predicted biotic indices. This project has sought to broaden the scope of RICT by developing one or more RIVPACS model(s) that do not use predictor variables that are affected by these stressors, but instead use alternative GIS based variables that are wholly independent of these pressures. This project has also included a review of the wide range of biotic indices now available in RICT, identifying published sources, examining index performance, and where necessary making recommendations on further needs for index testing and development. Objectives of research •To remove and derive alternative predictive variables that are not affected by stressors, with particular emphasis on hydrological/acidification metric predictors. •To construct one or more new RIVPACS model(s) using stressor independent variables. •Review WFD reporting indices notably AWIC(species), LIFE (species), PSI & WHPT. Key findings and recommendations : Predictor variables and intellectual property rights : An extensive suite of new variables have been derived by GIS for the RIVPACS reference sites that have been shown to act as stressor-independent predictor variables. These include measures of stream order, solid and drift geology, and a range of upstream catchment characteristics (e.g. catchment area, mean altitude of upstream catchment, and catchment aspect). It is recommended that decisions are reached on which of the newly derived model(s) are implemented in RICT so that IPR issues for the relevant datasets can be quickly resolved and the datasets licensed. It is also recommended that licensing is sought for a point and click system (where the dataset cannot be reverse engineered) that is capable of calculating any of the time-invariant RIVPACS environmental predictor variables used by any of the newly derived (and existing) RIVPACS models, and for any potential users. New stressor-independent RIVPACS models : Using the existing predictor variables, together with new ones derived for their properties of stressor-independence, initial step-wise forward selection discriminant models suggested a range of 36 possible models that merited further testing. Following further testing, the following models are recommended for assessing watercourses affected by flow/hydromorphological and/or acidity stress: • For flow/hydromorphological stressors that may have modified width, depth and/or substrate in GB, it is suggested that a new ‘RIVPACS IV – Hydromorphology Independent’ model (Model 24) is used (this does not use the predictor variables width, depth and substratum, but includes a suite of new stressor-independent variables). • For acidity related stressors in GB, it is suggested that a new ‘RIVPACS IV – Alkalinity Independent’ model (Model 35) is used (this does not use the predictor variable alkalinity, but includes new stressor-independent variables). • For flow/hydromorphological stressors and acidity related stressors in GB, it is suggested that a new ‘RIVPACS IV – Hydromorphology & Alkalinity Independent’ model (Model 13) is used (this does not use the predictor variables width, depth, substratum and alkalinity, but includes a suite of new stressor-independent variables). • Reduced availability of appropriate GIS tools at this time has meant that no new models have been developed for Northern Ireland. Discriminant functions and end group means have now been calculated to enable any of these models to be easily implemented in the RICT software. Biotic indices : The RIVPACS models in RICT can now produce expected values for a wide range of biotic indices addressing a variety of stressors. These indices will support the use of RICT as a primary tool for WFD classification and reporting of the quality of UK streams and rivers. There are however a number of outstanding issues with indices that need to be addressed: • There is a need to develop a biotic index for assessing metal pollution. • WFD EQR banding schemes are required for many of the indices to report what is considered an acceptable degree of stress (High-Good) and what is not (Moderate, Poor or Bad). • A comprehensive objective testing process needs to be undertaken on the indices in RICT using UK-wide, large-scale, independent test datasets to quantify their index-stressor relationships and their associated uncertainty, for example following the approach to acidity index testing in Murphy et al., (in review) or organic/general degradation indices in Banks & McFarland (2010). • Following objective testing, the UK Agencies should make efforts to address any index under-performance issues that have been identified, and where necessary new work should be commissioned to modify existing indices, or develop new ones where required so that indices for all stress types meet certain minimum performance criteria. • Testing needs to be done to examine index-stressor relationships with both observed index scores and RIVPACS observed/expected ratios. Work should also be done to compare the existing RIVPACS IV and the new stressor-independent models (developed in this project) as alternative sources of the expected index values for these tests. • Consideration should be given to assessing the extent to which chemical and biological monitoring points co-occur. Site-matched (rather than reach-matched) chemical and biological monitoring points would i) generate the substantial training datasets needed to refine or develop new indices and ii) generate the independent datasets for testing

RIVPACS database documentation. Final report

With the advent of the EU Water Framework Directive the concept of the 'reference condition' has become explicit within the legislative framework of the European Union. Reference condition has been established as a quality standard against which assessments of biological degradation must be compared. It is therefore essential that Member States can demonstrate that the biological datasets used to define their reference conditions meet the criteria of the WFD. The RIVPACS reference site dataset is therefore central to the definition of reference conditions for macroinvertebrates in streams and rivers in the United Kingdom. Objectives of research: • To establish the ownership of the RIVPACS reference site dataset • To liaise with all stakeholders of the dataset to establish unhindered access to the RIVPACS reference site dataset for the UK agencies (in perpetuity) • To deliver the RIVPACS reference site dataset to the UK agencies and to the public domain in a readily accessible database together will its accompanying physicochemical variables (both existing and newly collated as part of this project), historical and current anthropogenic stress data, and a range of calculated biotic indices. Key findings and recommendations: Ownership of the RIVPACS dataset resides with no single organization and several different organizations consider that they own different portions of the dataset. Formal permissions to release the dataset into the public domain have been obtained from all twelve extant organizations that have been identified as having funded various phases of RIVPACS research. In addition, CEH/NERC has also agreed to release the RIVPACS dataset to the public domain. Terms and conditions relating to the end use of the RIVPACS dataset have now been established. The RIVPACS database has been assembled in Microsoft® Access and can now be downloaded from the CEH web site. This report details the terms and conditions that apply to all end users of the database and it documents the tables given in the database, their structure and the origin of their data. A separate Pressure Data Analysis report describes the screening of the RIVPACS sites in terms of the current and emerging definitions of reference condition