1

BENTHIC ECOSYSTEM QUALITY INDEX 2:

DESIGN AND CALIBRATION OF THE BEQI-2 WFD METRIC FOR
MARINE BENTHOS IN TRANSITIONAL WATERS




dr. Willem M.G.M. van Loon (Centre for Water Management - RWS Waterdienst)
ir. Anja J. Verschoor (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment - RIVM)
dr. Arjan Gittenberger (Gimaris)















2
































This report will be published in the near future in an international journal. Therefore, please
use this report for the purpose of intercalibration only.










Document status Final, 8 dec. 2011
Acknowledgements Angel Borja, Peter Bot, Gert van Hoeij, Dick de Jong, Graham
Philips, Hans Ruiter and Gerard Spronk are acknowledged for
their valuable comments.
Legend front page figure Detailed ecotope map of the Eastern part of the Westerschelde
(ecotope names in Dutch). With courtesy to Dick de Jong, RWS
Zeeland.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4

List of Definitions and Abbreviations ................................................................................. 5

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

2. Selection of datasets .................................................................................................... 7

3. Ecotope Classification, Sample Availability and Quality Control .................................... 8
3.1 Ecotope classification .............................................................................................. 8
3.2 Sample availability ................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Quality control ......................................................................................................... 8

4. Data pooling ................................................................................................................. 9

5. Final Selection of Indicators ........................................................................................ 11
5.1 Diversity indicator trends .......................................................................................... 11
5.2 AMBI, AMBI sedimentation, AMBI fisheries and ITI indicator trends ........................ 14
5.3 Correlation analysis ............................................................................................................... 16
5.4 Final Selection of Indicators ...................................................................................... 16

6. Calculation of national reference values ..................................................................... 17
6.1 Reference setting method ......................................................................................... 17
6.2 Reference values ...................................................................................................... 17

7. Calibration Method ...................................................................................................... 19
7.1 BEQI-2 calibration method ........................................................................................ 19
7.2 Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI using Westerschelde data pools ...................... 20
7.3 Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI using the NEAGIG dataset ............................... 21

8. Pressure-Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 23
8.1 Qualitative pressure-impact analysis ......................................................................... 23
8.2 Qualitative description of human pressures .............................................................. 23
8.3 Quantitative pressure-impact analysis in the Dutch Westerschelde ecotopes
Mesohaline-Intertidal and Polyhaline-Subtidal ................................................................ 24

9. Validation of BEQI-2 with expert judgement ................................................................ 31

10. References.33

Appendix 1: BEQI-2 results for the Dollard .................................................................... 33


4

SUMMARY
The BEQI-2 is a redesigned version of the BEQI metric (Van Hoeij et al. 2007) which The
Netherlands first used as their WFD metric for marine benthos. In the BEQI-2, level 1 (ratio
between fytoplanton primary production and total benthic biomass) has been omitted (see
Boon et al., 2011). Level 2, area assessment of habitats, has been left unchanged. Level 3,
quality of the benthic community, has been redesigned fundamentally. The summary of this
report is given as a method summary fact sheet. For explanations of abbreviations and
definitions, see the Table on the following page.


Aspect of BEQI-2 Summary description
Indicator selection The indicators Species richness, Shannon index (log base 2) and
AMBI appear to show the most sensitive trends in the Dutch
transitional water benthos data and were therefore selected for use
in the BEQI-2. The ITI also appears to give good results in the
Westerschelde and Dollard, and shows comparable slopes and
significances as the AMBI. Therefore, the more commonly used
AMBI was preferred for use in BEQI-2.
Calibration method The BEQI-2 is calibrated by straightforward univariate calibration of
the three individual indicators. The indicator-EQR values are
combined using equal weight factors. The resulting BEQI-2 EQR
values are very similar to the corresponding m-AMBI scores.
However, the univariate calibration procedure is very transparant
and the resulting indicator-EQR values can be communicated very
well to policy makers and water managers. In addition, the BEQI-2
EQR values calculations can be automated very easily compared
with the m-AMBI.
Very good correlations between BEQI-2 and m-AMBI EQRs have
been demonstrated for the Westerschelde and NEAGIG common
dataset.
Ecotope
classification
The NEAGIG ecotope classification is used: Mesohaline-Intertidal,
Mesohaline-Subtidal, Polyhaline-Intertidal and Polyhaline-Subtidal.
Addition of the classification sand/mud is considered less useful
because of the very gradual gradients in sediment composition.
Season Only autumn data are available for the Westerschelde.
For the Dollard, the autumn data show slightly higher significant
trends than spring data.
Data period 1990 - 2005
Sample area and
data pooling
Small manual core samples (ca. 0.015 m
2
) are randomly pooled to
0.1 m
2
+ 0.01 m
2
. This pooling procedure is repeated 10 times to
average out random variations in the pooling process. Per ecotope-
year, the average indicator values of the 10 pool runs are
calculated. This surface area of 0.1 m
2
is necessary to (a) obtain
sufficient benthic signal for all samples, (b) get good trend analysis
results and (c) to harmonize with the NEAGIG agreement on 0.1 m
2
.
Reference values Of a complete ecotope-indicator dataset (all years) of the
Westerschelde the 99 percentile of the indicator values of Species
richness and Shannon index are used. For AMBI(ref) = 0 is used as
a theoretically correct value which also gives the most plausible
results in both Dutch transitional water bodies compared with expert
judgement.
For the Dollard Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope, the reference values
5

of the corresponding Westerschelde ecotope are used because this
is a national WFD procedure.
Bad values Theoretically correct bad values are used: S(bad) = 0; H(bad) = 0;
AMBI(bad) = 6.
EQR trends Using this new BEQI-2 method, a considerable number of significant
trends were found for Species richness, Shannon, AMBI, ITI and
BEQI-2 in several ecotopes.
Pressure sensitivity
validation
Significant correlations between Dissolved Oxygen concentrations
(p = 0.017) and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (p = 0.0010) and
BEQI-2 EQRs have been found for the Westerschelde Mesohaline-
Intertidal. A significant correlation (p = 0.0087) between the
percentage of high dynamic intertidal ecotope (as a proxy for the
maximum flow velocity) and the EQR of Westerschelde Polyhaline-
Subtidal has been. These results demonstrate the human pressure
sensitivity of BEQI-2.
Water body
assessment
EQR-values of ecotopes are combined with the relative area of the
ecotope as weight factor. All area within a water body must be
represented by the ecotopes used.


List of Definitions and Abbreviations


Subject Full description / Definition
AMBI Aztec Marine Biotic Index. A commonly used indicator for the quality
of benthic species.
BEQI-2 Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index 2. The Dutch WFD metric for
marine benthos. The BEQI-2 is an improved version of the BEQI-1.
S Species richness. A very commonly used ecological diversity
indicator.
H Shannon index. A very commonly used ecological diversity indicator.
This index assesses a combination of the Species richness and
relative abundances of species. Note: this index can have a log base
2, e or 10. In the BEQI-2 and m-AMBI, log base 2 is used.
IC Intercalibration
ITI Infaunal trophic index. This index is based on the classification of
species into four trophic groups.
Macrozoobenthos

Animals which live in (endofauna) or on top of (epifauna) the soft
bottom sediment that are retained at a sieve with a mesh size of 1
mm.. Epifauna may be sessile or mobile. Hard bottom benthos is not
included in the WFD definition.
m-AMBI Multivariatie AMBI. Factorial and discriminant analysis using the
indicators AMBI, S and H and multivariate calibration.
Multivariate
calibration
Calibration using a multi-dimensional reference point. For example,
the m-AMBI uses multivariate calibration.
Simpson index A well-known ecological diversity indicator, comparable with the
Shannon index. This index assesses a combination of the Species
richness and relative abundances of species.
TW Transitional water
Univariate
calibration
Calibration of a single indicator, e.g. the Shannon index.
6

1. Introduction
In this report, the redesign and calibration of the Dutch WFD metric for marine benthos, the
Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index 2 (BEQI-2) is described. This redesign is based on the
BEQI review (Boon et al., 2011) which was commissioned by RWS Waterdienst. In this
review, the indicators present in BEQI, but also other commonly used indicaters and metrics
in Western Europe, are reviewed. The review led to the conclusion that the original BEQI
could be optimized significantly, by (a) omitting level 1 and (b) by using a different
combination of indicators at level 3. Based on this review, in 2010 RWS Waterdienst started
a redesign and calibration project of BEQI-2. As a part of this project, two subprojects were
started for (a) the review of common Dutch benthic species and their sensitivities for
environmental pressures (Gittenberger & Van Loon, 2011) and (b) calibration and
intercalibration of BEQI-2 (calibration results presented in this report).
In the calibration process of BEQI-2, the most promising indicators and calibration
methods (with a score > 4; highest score = 5) from the BEQI review (Boon et al., 2011)
were selected for testing with Dutch transitional water data. The selected indicators and
calibration methods are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: selection of indicators and metrics for testing with Dutch transitional water data.

Indicators Remarks
Species richness The number of species found in a standardized sample areas.
Margalef index The number of species divided by the square root of the
abundance.
Shannon index The number of species combined with the evenness.
Simpson index The number of species combined with the evenness
AMBI AZTI marine biotic index
AMBI-sedimentation In this newly designed index, the AMBI model is used but the
species classifications have been optimized for the physical
pressure sedimentation (see also Gittenberger & Van Loon, 2011).
AMBI-fisheries In this newly designed index, the AMBI model is used but the
species classifications have been optimized for the physical
pressure fisheries (see also Gittenberger & Van Loon, 2011).
ITI Infaunal Trophic Index
Calibration methods Remarks
DKI/NKI model In these models, univariatie calibration and weighted averaging of
two indicator EQR values is used.
m-AMBI/BAT model In these models, multivariate calibration including factor analysis,
discriminant analysis is used based on 3 indicators.


The suitability of the selected indicators has been evaluated using trend analysis in
the Westerschelde and Dollard data and the results are presented in Chapter 5.
The univariate and multivariate calibration methods have been compared and the results
are presented in Chapter 7.

7

2. Selection of datasets
The TW-NEAGIG database version 5 and 8, and the MacBEQI(ii) database containing only
the official Dutch MWTL monitoring data were used for the calibration calculations.
For the Westerschelde data, we selected the autumn samples because (a) this constitutes
the bulk of the samples and (b) autumn data are judged by benthic experts to be the most
suited for a benthos assessment considering the most full grown and stabilized community
composition (Boon et al. 2011).
The dataset submitted for the Westerschelde contains a more detailed ecotope
classification, including sand/mud and low/high dynamic. For the IC process, these
additional ecotopes have been omitted.
Data from the Dollard, a part of the binational Eems Dollard estuary, were selected
to additionally test and optimize the BEQI-2. Note however that that these data are not
officially part of the intercalibration process.
We have performed a review of the AMBI values of circa 300 benthic species which are
more common in Dutch marine waters (Gittenberger & Van Loon, 2011). However, in the IC
process we strictly use the AMBI classification given in the species table in the TW-NEAGIG
database in order to obtain the best comparability. If AMBI species classifications were
missing for our BEQI-2 calibration with the reviewed AMBI values, we used the AMBI-list of
AZTI, version february 2010, to supplement missing values.




8

3. Ecotope Classification, Sample Availability and Quality Control
3.1 Ecotope classification
The distinction of ecotopes is an important method in the benthos assessment in order to
improve the comparability of benthos data and to reduce the natural variability. If a suitable
ecotope classification is used, the possibilities for trend analysis within an ecotope, and the
comparison of similar ecotopes from different West European countries, improves
significantly.
In the NEAGIG benthos intercalibration in Transitional Waters, the following ecotope
classification has been agreed on:
Based on salinity: mesohaline (5 - 18 PSU) and polyhaline (18 - 30 PSU).
Based on global height: Intertidal (above the Average Low Water Line) and Subtidal
(below the Average Low Water Line).
The distinction between Sandy (<25% mud (fraction <63 um)) and Muddy (>25% mud) is
not used in the IC.
In the Dutch Ecotope system used in the Delta area (including the Westerschelde),
the so-called ZES (Zoute Ecotopen Stelsel, Bouma et al. 2005), the maximum flow velocity
is an important physical pressure on the benthos. It is stated that above a maximum flow
velocity of 0.8 m/s, marine benthos can no longer stay present but is flushed away. This
flow velocity of 0.8 m/s is used as the border line between low dynamic and high dynamic
conditions. Maximum flow velocities below 0.65 m/s represent good ecotope conditions for
benthos. In Chapter 8.3, an attempt is made to estimate this hydrological pressure using the
relative area of high dynamic ecotope as a proxy indicator for the flow velocity.

3.2 Sample availability
In general for the polyhaline Westerschelde ecotopes circa 2900 small core samples
(mostly 0.0149 or 0.0177 m
2
) are available for the period 1990-2005. Per ecotope the
following numbers of samples are available: Mesohaline-Intertidal, 258; Mesohaline-
Subtidal, 250; Polyhaline-Intertidal, 1057; Polyhaline-Subtidal, 1342. Using data pooling,
the following number of data pools can be made in 1 poolrun per year: Mesohaline-
Intertidal, 1 3; Mesohaline-Subtidal, 0 7; Polyhaline Intertidal, 3 35; Polyhaline-
Subtidal, 8 25). In the subtidal, routinely box cores have been taken and 3 subsamples
have been taken with manual cores (of approx. 0.015 m
2
). As a result of this subsampling
procedure, these apparently small samples in the Westerschelde subtidal have been lost in
the Intercalibration process because only box core samples larger than 0.05 m
2
were
selected for further processing. This problem could partly be corrected for by using BEQI-2
reference values for the Westerschelde subtidal ecotopes calculated using our national data
pool procedure with 0.1 m
2
data pools.
For the Dollard, which is not an official part of the intercalibration process, sufficient
benthos data are available for 1 ecotope (mesohaline-intertidal) (see Appendix 1). These
data have been used to check the design of the BEQI-2.

3.3 Quality control
We tested the individual sample data using the m-AMBI criteria (S > 3; N > 6; percentage of
total abundance AMBI classified > 80%; Borja & Mader, 2006). It appeared that approx.
40% of the samples did not meet these criteria. Especially the polyhaline sandy sampes
often had too little "benthic signal" according to the m-AMBI criteria. Trend analysis of the
Westerschelde dataset (approx. 2900 samples) did not show any significant instead trend,
but instead showed large variations.
It was concluded in this project that the use of these individual samples with often
poor benthic signals would not result in reliable assessment and trend analysis results.
Therefore, it was concluded that data pooling was essential in order to obtain useful results.
9

In view of the discussions and consensus in the NEAGIG benthos group, a pool area of 0.1
m
2
+ 10% was chosen as the standard pool area.
The BEQI-2 script reports per data pool of 0.1 m
2
: (a) the number of taxa, (b) the
total abundance and (c) per indicator which percentage of the abundance is not AMBI-
classified.
The BEQI-2 script uses a list of standardized taxa from the NEAGIG, and a separate
list of taxa synonyms and their standardized taxa.

4. Data pooling
We developed an automated pool routine which uses 1000 random selections of samples
and uses practically all available samples. Per-ecotope year, a limited number of samples
may remain unpooled if the desired pooling area of 0.1 m
2
cannot be reached. These
remaining samples can be different in separate poolruns, so there is no systematic
elimination of specific samples. These unpooled samples are removed from the produced
poolfile. In many cases, a random combination of circa 7 samples of 0.015 m
2
is made.
Since the random selection process can lead to a certain variation in the indicator values
obtained, the pool run is repeated 10 times, and the assessment values are calculated as
the average indicator values of these 10 pool runs per ecotope-year. This procedure leads
to a deviation of the indicator reference values of less than 2% of the asymptotic value for
many repetitions (see Figure 1). An illustration of the (often limited) variation between 10
repeated poolruns is given in Figure 2 for the indicator Species richness in the 4
Westerschelde ecotopes, plotted as cumulative distributions.

Figure 1: effect of repeating the pool procedure on the deviation from the average indicator
value (residuals)




10


Figure 2: variation of cumulative values of Species richness for 10 data pool runs.


11

5. Final Selection of Indicators
The selection of indicators has been based by evaluating the trend analysis results for all
tested indicators using the 4 Westerschelde ecotopes, 1 Dollard ecotope and the data
period 1990-2005/2007. The trend analysis is performed per indicator and per ecotope,
using ecotope-year averages or all separate data pools per ecotope-year. The indicators
which show the most significant trends, and therefore appear to be the most sensitive for
changes of the benthic community, are selected for use in BEQI-2.
5.1 Diversity indicator trends
Averaging method
Trend analyses are based on average ecotope-year values. These average values can be
obtained by (a) calculating the (arithmetic) average indicator value per ecotope-year or (b)
calculating the median of the indicator values per ecotope-year. This choice was tested with
data for the Westerschelde ecotopes Mesohaline-Intertidal and Polyhaline-Subtidal.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this test:
In the Mesohaline Subtidal, the average value shows higher R
2
and p-values for the
indicators S and H (which show clear linear trends) than the median values. This supports
the idea that when the amount of data pools is limited, the average is a more robust choice
than the median.
In the polyhaline subtidal, the median has higher R
2
and p-values for S, while the average
has higher R
2
and p-values for H. So, in this ecotope with many data pools and well defined
distributions, the median does not overall show better statistical results than the average.
The correlations and p-values for AMBI sedimentation (with a very week linear trend) do
not show clearly better results for the average or median.
The AMBI organic did not show a significant linear trend.
In conclusion, this comparison for the Westerschelde ecotopes shows that the
arithmetic average is on average a better choice than the median. The use of data pooling
probably leads to more normalized distributions of the data pool indicator values. It is
assumed that this conclusion will also hold for the Dollard data, for which data are also
pooled.

Trend analysis results
Trend analyses have been performed using the average indicator value of the 10 pool runs
for each ecotope-year dataset. In Table 2, the significant correlations with a p-value <0.05
are shown. It appears that several signficant trends are observed for the diversity indicators
Species richness (see Figure 3), Margalef, Shannon and Simpson in the Westerschelde, in
the ecotopes Mesohaline-Intertidal (positive quality trends) and Polyhaline-Subtidal
(negative quality trends), respectively.
The clear positive trends of Species richness and Shannon in the Mesohaline-
Intertidal may be explained by an assumed gradual improvement of the organic and
chemical water quality of the Westerschelde, among others caused by a different disposal
regime for harbour sludge since the end of the eighties (Spronk, 1994) and the gradual
introduction of sewage purification plants along the Schelde since 1990 (Spronk 2011,
personal communication).
The fact that this positive trend is not observed in the Mesohaline-Subtidal may be
explained by the fact that the hydrodynamic and salinity pressures presumably have
gradually increased in the Westerschelde in the sublitoral zone. For detailed information
and discussion on these processes see the MER report Verruiming Vaargeul (Anoniem,
2007).
In the Polyhaline-Subtidal, the decreasing diversity trend can probably also be
explained by increasing hydrodynamic and salinity pressures, as described above.
12

In the Dollard a significant negative trend of Species richness is observed (see
Appendix 1). Shannon does not show a trend. The observed trend for S is consistent with
the negative AMBI quality trends.
The diversity indicators Species richness, Margalef and Shannon show very
significant and consistent trends in two Westerschelde ecotopes. Furthermore, these
diversity indicators showed a relatively good correlation with a human pressure index in a
recent study from Borja et al. (2011). Therefore, these diversity indicator trends are used as
leading in the evaluation of the AMBI, AMBI sedimentation and AMBI fisheries.
Species richness gives the most significant trends in both ecotopes. The significance
of the Margalef trend is somewhat lower than of Species richness. This shows that the
indicator Species richness is slightly more sensitive than the Margalef index to show
Species richness changes in the Westerschelde data.
Shannon also gives significant trends in the two mentioned ecotopes, and the trend
is consistent with the Species richness trends.
Simpson gives a significant trend in the Polyhaline-Subtidal, but not in the
Mesohaline-Intertidal. It appears therefore that the Simpson index is not as sensitive as the
Shannon index to show diversity changes in the Westerschelde data.

Table 2: Indicators which show significant trends (p<0.05) in the Westerschelde and
Dollard ecotopes. Only autumn trends are shown, because the spring trends (if observed)
are similar.

Water body Ecotope Season Indicator Slope p-value
Westerschelde Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn Species richness 0.666 0.00016
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn Margalef 0.0866 0.00041
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn Shannon log 2 0.0356 0.035
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn BEQI-2 0.0107 0.016
Westerschelde Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn Species richness -0.314 0.021
Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn Margalef -0.0569 0.029
Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn Shannon log 2 -0.0420 0.030
Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn Simpson (lambda) 0.00744 0.036
Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn AMBI review 0.0405 0.028
Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn ITI 0.0336 0.012
Polyhaline-Subtidal Autumn BEQI-2 -0.010 0.022
Eems Dollard Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI 0.0101 0.00085
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI review 0.00812 0.0085
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI sediment. -0.0055 0.013
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI fisheries -0.037 0.000017
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn ITI 0.0168 0.000075



13

Figure 3: trend analysis of S, H and AMBI in the four Westerschelde ecotopes.





14

5.2 AMBI, AMBI sedimentation, AMBI fisheries and ITI indicator trends
AMBI
In the Westerschelde, significant organic and chemical pressures are expected in the
Mesohaline part so the AMBI is potentially relevant to use in the water body (Boon et al.,
2011).
In the Westerschelde, no significant AMBI trends are observed. However, in the
Mesohaline-Intertidal, where the three diversity indicators show very significant positive
trends, a small (non significant) positive AMBI quality trend (decreasing AMBI) is observed.
So, the non-significant AMBI trend is consistent with the diversity trends.
In the Polyhaline-Subtidal, where significant negative diversity trends are observed,
a small negative AMBI quality trend (increasing AMBI) is observed. Again, the AMBI trend is
consistent with the diversity trends.
In the Dollard, significant chemical pressures are present so the AMBI is potentially relevant
to use in this water body.
In the Dollard, a small but very significant negative AMBI quality trend (increasing
AMBI) is observed (see Figure 4). This trends appears to correlate with small (non-
significant) negative diversity trends. So, also in the Dollard the AMBI trend is consistent
with the diversity trends. These negative quality trends can be explained by increasing
chemical pressures, and maybe also partly by the presumed increasing sedimentation
pressures.
In conclusion, in the cases described above the AMBI results are consistent with the
diversity results and the results can be explained from the available qualitative pressure
information. This gives sufficient confidence that the AMBI gives correct results and is
suited for use in BEQI-2.




Figure 4: trend analysis of AMBI
in the Dollard, ecotope
Mesohaline-Intertidal.



AMBI review
In a recent study of Gittenberger & Van Loon (2011), the standard AMBI species
classifications from Borja were reviewed for the Dutch marine waters and a number of
updates were proposed by 3 Dutch marine benthos taxonomic specialists. In the Polyhaline-
Subtidal, a significant negative quality trend of the AMBI review (p = 0.0277) was observed.
This trend correlates with the negative trends for S and H. In this ecotope, the AMBI review
15

gives more significant trend analysis results than the standard AMBI. Since however in the
Dollard a very signficant standard AMBI trend was observed, which is more significant than
the AMBI review trend. Therefore, since the AMBI review does not consistently shows
better results than the standard AMBI, at this point we choose to use the standard AMBI.

AMBI sedimentation
In the Westerschelde significant sedimentation pressure is present due to a considerable
amount of dredging and dumping.
In the Mesohaline-Subtidal, a nearly significant negative trend for AMBI
sedimentation is observed (p = 0.078). In this ecotope, Species richness shows a small and
non-significant decrease, Margalef shows a small and non-significant increase and
Shannon a small and non-significant increase. It appears that these three diversity
indicators show small, non-significant and different trends, which do not support an
ecological meaningful trend for AMBI sedimentation in this ecotope. It is concluded
therefore that the AMBI sedimentation probably does not give an ecologically reliable signal
in this ecotope.
In the Polyhaline-Intertidal, a nearly significant negative trend for AMBI
sedimentation is observed (p = 0.089). In this ecotope, the three diversity indicators show
small and consistent increases in quality. Therefore, the negative AMBI sedimentation trend
is not confirmed by the positive diversity indicator trends, and the AMBI sedimentation
probably does not give an ecologically reliable signal in this ecotope.
In the Dollard significant sedimentation pressure is present due to a considerable
amount of dredging and dumping in the neighbouring Eems area. In this water body, a small
and non-significant decrease of AMBI sedimention is observed, which would suggest a
higher benthic quality. The diversity indicators however show small and non-significant
decreases of the benthic quality. Again, in this case the AMBI sedimentation and diversity
signals are not consistent. Furthermore, no decrease of AMBI sedimentation is expected,
since the dredging and dumping activities probably remain at least at the same intensity
level.
In view of these three cases, the results of the AMBI sedimentation give insufficient
confidence in the sensitivity and correctness of this indicator. It is possible that the pressure
sedimentation, which can also occur naturally due to e.g. storms and tidal currents, does
not have very significant effects on marine benthos and therefore is difficult to detect using
the AMBI sedimentation. Therefore, AMBI sedimentation is not used in BEQI-2 in
transitional waters.

AMBI fisheries
In the Westerschelde fishing pressure has been reported by benthic experts to be small.
Therefore, the AMBI fisheries is not expected to be useful in the Westerschelde.
Furthermore, fisheries only occur in the subtidal ecotopes and not on the tidal flats. In the
Polyhaline-Subtidal, where significant negative diversity trends occur, a positive quality
trend for AMBI fisheries is observed, and these results are inconsistent.
In the Dollard, in the Mesohaline-Intertidal a small but very significant positive quality
trend is observed for AMBI fisheries. However, shrimp fisheries is only performed in the
Mesohaline-Subtidal and at the borders of the Mesohaline-Intertidal, and the benthos
sampling has been performed at the tidal flat where no fishing occurs. So, the observed
trend for AMBI fisheries cannot have been caused by a decrease of fishing activities and
can be considered to be a false positive result.
In conclusion, at this point the AMBI fisheries gives insufficient confidence in the
correctness of the results. Therefore, AMBI fisheries is not used in BEQI-2 for transitional
waters.

16


ITI
The Infaunal Trophic Index was tested using the ITI species classifications collected in a
database by Gittenberger & Van Loon, 2011. In the Polyhaline-Subtidal the ITI appeared to
give a significant negative quality trend (p = 0.0121). This trend correlated with the negative
trends of S and H. Since the AMBI review also showed a trend with a similar significance, it
was concluded that the use of the more often applied AMBI was preferable to the use of the
ITI.

Conclusions
It was concluded therefore that the AMBI is the best option for a sensitive/tolerant species
indicator for the Dutch transitional waters Westerschelde and the Dollard.

5.3 Correlation analysis
The results of the correlation analysis can essentially be described as follows:
Species richness results correlate strongly with Margalef results, with a correlation
coefficient ranging from 0.78 to 0.98 depending on the ecotope. This result shows that only
one of these two indicators has to be used in the BEQI-2 metric.
Species richness correlates less with the Shannon index, with correlation coefficients
ranging from 0.07 to 0.69. This result shows that, as expected, the Shannon index offers
additional relative abundance information compared with Species richness. Therefore, the
Shannon index will also be used in the BEQI-2 metric.
Species richness show a negative to low positive correlation with AMBI, ranging from -
0.15 to 0.33. This result shows that the AMBI offers clearly different information than
Species richness, and that combined use in the BEQI-2 metric is useful.
AMBI sedimentation, AMBI fisheries and the Simpson index are not discussed here
anymore in view of the unsatisfactory pressure and trend analyses results given above.

5.4 Final Selection of Indicators
The results from the paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 clearly show that the combination of the
indicators Species richness, Shannon and AMBI gives the most useful description of
changes of the benthic community in the Dutch transitional waters. With this combination,
both the number of species, their relative distribution and their quality is assessed which
appears to be a very logical metric design.

17

6. Calculation of national reference values


6.1 Reference setting method
a. Statistical method to estimate reference values
The basic assumption in the statistical reference setting procedure is that the highest
indicator value within an ecotope-dataset - which is not an outlier - is a usable estimation of
the average reference situation in the historical past. The indicator distributions (see Figure
5) have been analyzed in detail and show that the 99 percentiles of S and H are clearly not
outliers, and are statistically robust to use as reference values. For AMBI the theoretical
reference value of 0 is used, because: (a) the AMBI scale is well determined theoretically,
(b) in the Westerschelde and coastal waters AMBI(ref) = 0 is closely approximated by
measured data (c) this method is robust. In the Dollard the use of AMBI(ref) = 1 percentile
gave erroneously high AMBI-EQR results.

b. Bad values
For S, H and AMBI theoretical bad values can be determined well. Clearly, S(bad) and
H(bad) must be 0; in a really bad ecotope no species can survive. For the calculation of an
AMBI bad at least 1 species must survive so the ecotope must not be completely bad. It
was recently reported by Gittenberger & Van Loon (2011) that in the Dutch marine waters 3
common class V benthic species occur. This makes it theoretically possible to reach an
AMBI of 6 in Dutch marine waters. Therefore, an AMBI(bad) of 6 is used.

c. Water body or water type specific reference values
During the national implementation phase of BEQI-2, it will be attempted to establish
national type specific reference values for Transitional Waters. If the reference values for S,
H and AMBI would be too different, than water body specific reference values will be used
(as is already the case for BEQI-1).

6.2 Reference values
The reference setting methods described above result in the reference values listen in
Table 3.

Table 3: Reference values for the Westerschelde-MWTL data for BEQI-2.

Ecotope S ref S bad H ref H bad AMBI ref AMB bad
Meso-Inter 29.26 0 3.269 0 0 6
Meso-Sub 22.27 0 3.186 0 0 6
Poly-Inter 41.08 0 3.592 0 0 6
Poly-Sub 30.79 0 3.808 0 0 6
18

Figure 5: Indicator probability distributions of Species richness, Shannon and AMBI.







19

7. Calibration Method

7.1 BEQI-2 calibration method
Calibration is the transformation of an indicator value into an EQR value, using a formula
and a reference and bad value. Intercalibration is (a) the harmonization of reference and
bad values used by different countries for their national metrics, and (b) harmonization of
national class borders.
A remaining question in the design of the BEQI-2 was, if univariatie calibration (a
linear combination of univariately calibrated indicator EQR-values) was going to be used
(like in the IQI, DKI, NKI) or a multivariate calibration of indicators (like in the m-AMBI and
BAT). From the BEQI-review (Boon et al. 2011) it was concluded that the m-AMBI and BAT
mulitvariate calibration method is probably statistically and ecologically sound in view of its
scientific publications, but that this statistical method is not very transparant and not very
easy to automate. Therefore, we would like to use univariate calibration of indicator-EQR
values which gives comparable EQR results because (a) the calibration process is
straightforward and transparant, (b) the indicator-EQR results can be communicated very
well to water managers and policy makers and (c) the unvariate calculations can be
automated easily in the Dutch WFD ecology software QBWAT.
We therefore chose to use the following univariate model for the BEQI-2:


EQR (ecotope) = 1/3 * [S
ass
/ S
ref
] + 1/3 * [H
ass
/ H
ref
] + 1/3 * [(6 - AMBI
ass
) / 6]


According to expert judgement (see Table 5), a Good/Moderate and High/Good
class boundary of 0.58 and 0.78, respectively, applied to untransformed national BEQI-2
EQR values, give realistic BEQI-2 classification results. However, in our national
classification system we use equidistant class boundaries (High/Good boundary = 0.8,
Good/Moderate boundary = 0.6, Moderate/Poor boundary = 0.4 and Poor/Bad boundary =
0.2) since all other Dutch WFD metrics also use these. Therefore, we will apply a linear
transformation to our national class boundaries and national BEQI-2 EQR values, in order
to be able to use these preferred equidistant class boundaries, as shown in Table 1 below.
Since the national BEQI-2 EQR values will also be transformed, the BEQI-2 classification
results will remain exactly the same as those intercalibrated.

Table 1: Intercalibrated, untransformed and transformed national BEQI-2 class boundaries.

Class boundary \/
BEQI-2
Intercal.
PCM
a

BEQI-2
National
Untransformed
BEQI-2
National
Transformed
High/Good 0.747 0.78 0.8
Good/Moderate 0.565 0.58 0.6
Moderate/Poor Not defined 0.38 0.4
Poor/Bad Not defined 0.18 0.2
a) PCM = pseudo common metric, the average scores of other metrics than BEQI-2

For the WFD, in the end a water body assessment is necessary. This can be achieved
by combining the EQR-results of the different ecotopes in the water body using area based
weight factors. All area within a water body must be represented and assessed by the
ecotopes used. Example of combined WFD assessment of ecotopes:


EQR(waterbody) =
i
(EQR
i
* Area fraction
i
) i is ecotope number

20

7.2 Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI using Westerschelde data pools
In order to check if the results of the simple BEQI-2 univariate calibration is comparable with
the m-AMBI/BAT multivariate calibration, we performed two correlation studies:

a. Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI EQR results for 1 set of Westerschelde data pools
b. Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI EQR results for the ecotope-year averages of all
data from the Common Dataset of the NEAGIG transitional water intercalibration.

The results of these comparisons are given in this and the next Chapter.

Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI EQR values for Westerschelde data pools
For transitional waters, the BEQI-2 uses data pooling of small manual core samples (of
approx. 0.015 m
2
) to an area of approx. 0.1 m
2
. Due to this procedure, strongly improved
benthic signals and trend detection are obtained. Also, an averaging out of EQR differences
between BEQI-2 and m-AMBI is obtained, as is demonstrated in Figure 6.
The results of the comparative calculations of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI for 450 sample pools
(from all Westerschelde ecotopes) of 0.1 m
2
are shown in the figure below.




Figure 6: Comparison of BEQI-2 (on Y-
axis) with m-AMBI (on X-axis) results for
450 sample pools of 0.1 m
2
from the
Westerschelde (all 4 ecotopes) R
2
=
0.994.



The mean difference between the BEQI-2 and m-AMBI = -0.008; and R
2
= 0.994.
There is no difference between the correlation results for the 4 ecotopes. These results
show that comparability of EQR-results of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI using these data pools is
very good. The BEQI-2 results are on average 0.008 lower than the m-AMBI results, and
this difference can be considered small and negligible for the Westerschelde assessment.
21

7.3 Comparison of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI using the NEAGIG dataset
For the Westerschelde data pools, a very good correlation between the BEQI-2 and m-
AMBI is observed. However when BEQI-2 and m-AMBI are compared at the sample level
for the complete NEAGIG database, a significant variation is observed between these two
metrics. These variations are probably caused by the small sample sizes of the intertidal
samples in the NEAGIG database. We hypothesized that these significant differences
between the BEQI-2 and m-AMBI are averaged out at the data pool, ecotope and water
body level, as demonstrated for the Westerschelde data pools.
We tested this EQR averaging out hypothesis by determining the correlations
between BEQI-2 and m-AMBI waterbody-ecotope-year averages for all sample data in the
NEAGIG dataset (approx. 6000 records). The correlation between these EQR-values is
given for each water body separately in Figure 7. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this figure and statistical numbers:

a. For most water bodies, the correlation between the BEQI-2 and m-AMBI for the ecotope-
year averages is very good.
b. For a few water bodies, such as the Elbe and Weser, two clusters can be discriminated
which could be different ecotopes. It is expected that at the level of water body assessment,
these differences between (assumed) ecotopes will be averaged out also.
c. A few estuaries, such as the Bidassoa and the Mondego estuary show a little bit different
behavior. These differences cannot be explained immediately, but possibly will become
smaller if different ecotopes are averaged out in a water body assessment.
d. If all the water body-ecotope-year averages are combined in 1 statistical analysis, the
mean difference between the BEQI-2 and m-AMBI (determined with a paired t-test) is very
small, -0.009, but significant p-value = 0.008. This means that BEQI-2 EQR-values are on
average 0.009 lower than m-AMBI scores, which can be considered very small and
negligible in the overall water body assessment. The overall R
2
= 0.89.
In view of the very good comparability of the BEQI-2 and m-AMBI EQR-values at the
average ecotope-year level at which the BEQI-2 operates, we choose to use the BEQI-2
univarate calibration considering the advantages described in Chapter 7.1.




















Figure 7: Correlation of BEQI-2 and m-AMBI for ecotope-year values for the NEAGIG
database. Lines indicate a perfect correlation.

22

23


8. Pressure-Impact Analysis


8.1 Qualitative pressure-impact analysis
The WFD demands that the correct performance of selected indicators and metrics is
demonstrated using quantitative pressure-impact correlations. In these pressure-impact
correlations, all significant pressures have to be taken into account, because in large marine
water bodies, also in the Netherlands, usually a multi-pressure situation exists. A nice
example of how such a quantitative multi pressure-impact correlation can be performed is the
pressure-index method of Borja et al. (2011). In this method, the intensity of specific
pressures is scaled from 1 (low pressure), 2 (moderate pressure) and 3 (high pressure) or
blank (no pressure), and an average pressure index of the significant pressures is calculated.
From this study it appears that diversity indicators, such as species richness, Shannon,
Margalef and ES50 show a fairly good correlation with human pressures as quantified with
the pressure index (Borja et al., 2011) in five different types of estuaries in Western Europe.
These results suggest that the mentioned diversity indicators are probably also useful and
sufficiently reliable as human pressure indicators in Dutch estuaries (Boon et al. 2011).
As a first step a qualitative pressure-impact analysis is performed as follows:
a. A qualitative description of the human pressures in the Westerschelde and Eems Dollard
estuary is give. This description is based on the official Dutch WFD characterization
documents for these water bodies (Maas, 2009; Anoniem, 2009) which have been
supplemented with expert judgement.
b. The observed diversity indicator trends (especially the Shannon index (Borja et al., 2011)
are used as sufficiently reliable indicators for human pressure trends.
c. Observed trends for AMBI, AMBI-sedimentation and AMBI-fisheries are checked for their
correspondence with the diversity trends. If an AMBI trend does not correlate with a diversity
trend, it is considered not sufficiently reliable.

8.2 Qualitative description of human pressures
Westerschelde
In the WFD document for the Westerschelde a pressure list is added (Table 3.5 I in Maas,
2009) for the current situation. For each listed pressure, it is indicated if this pressure is
present, and if this pressure is substantial or small. The following signicant pressures are
reported in this document:
Chemical pressures: atmospheric deposition; transborder transport of PAHs, Cu, Zn and
Nitrogen. Especially in the mesohaline part of the Westerschelde, these chemical pressures
are expected to be larger than in the polyhaline part.
Physical pressures: dams and dykes for flood defence; maintainance of dams, dykes and
coastlines; dredging and dumping; sand suppletion. Apart from to the death of benthic
organisms which are removed or fully covered by sand; dredging, dumping and suppletion
lead to an increased sedimentation of sand and mud on benthic organisms in the area
nearby the dredging/dumping/suppletion area.
Fisheries are probably a minor pressure in the Westerschelde. In the Western part of the
polyhaline zone, fishing is prohibited because of the nearby lying Natura 2000 area (the
`Vlakte van Raan`).

24


Dollard
Macrozoobenthos has been routinely monitored in the Dollard, a major part of the Eems
Dollard, for two about decades.
The following significant pressures have been reported in the Eems Dollard WFD
report:
Chemical pressures: these are among others presented by a large sewage plant, 23
industrial waste water plants, dredging sludge related pollution, shipping related pollution (oil
and anti-fouling) and atmospheric deposition. In the last years the chemical pressures on the
Eems Dollard appear to increase. In 2006 a good chemical status was reported, while in
2007 and 2008 a bad status was reported. WFD measures to improve the chemical water
quality of the Eems Dollard have been planned.
Dredging and dumping: in view of many shipping activities a lot of dredging occurs, and
dumping is performed at 11 locations in the Eems Dollard. The dumped sludge is rapidly
dispersed in the Eems Dollard because of the high flow velocities. According to Jager
(personal communication, 2011) the sludge dumping site `Groote Gat`, and recently a new
dumping site, lead to signicant sedimentation in the Dollard region. It is therefore clear that
there is a relatively high sedimentation pressure in the Dollard. According to the WFD
document, the effects of the high concentrations of suspended matter on the benhos are not
yet clear. WFD measures have been planned to reduce the amount of suspended matter and
turbidity.
Hydromorphological pressures: the deepening of the shipping gully in the NederEems has
led to a shift of salinity zones and a smaller brackish zone. This has led to a reduction of
corresponding native brackish benthic communities.
Sand extraction for industrial use. This can locally damage or remove the benthos.
Fisheries (personal communications from Zwannette Jager and Dick As, 2011). Dutch
shrimp fisheries were performed occasionally in the past in summer and autum in the gullies
and at the borders of the tidal flats, but not on the tidal flats themselves. Therefore, since the
Dollard bentos sampling was performed on the tidal flats (Heringsplaat, it is unlikely that
effects of the shrimp fisheries on the benthos would be detected in the benthos monitoring.
The Dutch shrimp fisheries in the Dollard have been terminated a couple of years ago as a
nature compensation measure for the new Groningen seaports. German shrimp and mussel
fishers are still active in the German part of the Dollard, but probably also only in the gully
and at the borders of the tidal flats and not at the Heringsplaat. In conclusion, it is unlikely
that fisheries represents a significant pressure on the benthos at the Heringsplaat tidal flat.

8.3 Quantitative pressure-impact analysis in the Dutch Westerschelde ecotopes
Mesohaline-Intertidal and Polyhaline-Subtidal
Summary
The pressure sentitivity of the BEQI-2 indicators and metric design, which is very comparable
with the m-AMBI, has already been demonstrated in, at present, quite a number of
publications (Borja et al., 2011). These qualitative pressure analysis, and quantitative trend
analysis presented above, already make it very probable that the BEQI-2 is sensitive to
human pressures in the expected way. However, the European Commision expects that
member countries also validate the pressure sensitivity of their metric in their own water
bodies with a quantitative pressure impact analysis. It has been agreed on in the NEAGIG
benthos group that this quantitative pressure validation gives the best results at the water
body/ecotope level, and therefore must be performed at this specific level. The setup of this
pressure validation for the Westerschelde is described below.
For the marine benthos IC in TW, Joao Neto (Portugal) developed a quantitative
pressure score list based on the publication of Aubrey & Elliot 2006. In this score list,
pressures not relevant for benthos have been omitted. The results of this pressure index will
be reported by Borja and co-workers.
As a next step, in this paragraph a more detailed look is given at two ecotopes in
which a significant EQR trend has been found, namely the Mesohaline-Intertidal and the
25


Polyhaline-Subtidal. Since it is important for the intercalibration process to demonstrate
quantitative pressure-impact relationships, this was attempted for these two ecotopes.
For the Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope, significant quantitative pressure-impact (EQR)
relationships have been found for the parameters Dissolved Oxygen and Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen (DIN). In the Polyhaline-Subtidal, a significant correlation has been found between
the percentage of high dynamic literoral ecotope and the EQR.

Westerschelde Mesohaline-Intertidal
For the Westerschelde mesohaline-intertidal ecotope, a positive benthos quality trend has
been found (see Figure 10). It is assumed that this positive trend is mainly associated with
improved physic-chemical and/or chemical conditions, since at these relatively high intertidal
sampling sites the hydromorphological are pressures are probably relatively low, as
compared to the subtidal part.
Therefore, several chemical and physic-chemical trends were investigated for the
location Schaar van Ouden Doel, which lies at the border of the Netherlands and Belgium,
and can be regarded as a good indicator for the input of chemicals and physico-chemical
parameters in the Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope, because it is located at the starting point of
this ecotope.





Figure 8: EQR trend for
benthos in the ecotope
Mesohaline-Intertidal
using BEQI-2. Slope =
0.0107, r = 0.569,
significance p = 0.00040.




26


Priority pollutant pressures
For the period of 1990-2005, the compounds which exceeded the WFD quality standards
(annual average or MAC) more than 3 times were selected. These compounds are: Diuron
(13 exceedings), Pentachlorobenzene (7 exceedings) and Cadmium (8 exceedings). The
concentrations of these 3 compounds are plotted for the period 1990-2005 in Figures 9a, b
and c.



Figure 9a: Concentration of
Cadmium at Schaar van Ouden Doel

Cadmium shows a peak
concentration and 1998, and
furthermore an increasing trend in
the period from 2000 to 2005.

Figure 9b: Concentration of
Pentachlorobenzene at Schaar van
Ouden Doel

Pentachlorobenzene shows a
decreasing trend in the period of
2000 to 2005.

Figure 9c: Concentration of Diuron at
Schaar van Ouden Doel.

Diuron shows a decreasing trend
in the period from 2000 to 2005.

It appears that no consistent trends of priority pollutants can be observed based on these 3
compounds. Cadmium concentrations appear to be increasing in the period from 2000 to
2005, while the concentrations of diuron and pentachlorobenzene are decreasing in that
period. In the period of 1990 to 2000, the concentrations of diuron and pentachlorobenzene
are relatively high and exceed the EQS. Therefore, these trends of priority pollutants do not
correlate with the general picture of benthic EQR improvement in the period of 1990 to 2005.
According to several benthic experts in the Netherlands, heavy metals and organic
micropollutants (with the exception of Tributyl Tin) are unlikely to cause significant effects on
the quality of the benthic communities, because the amount of bioaccumulation is relatively
27


low at this low level of the food chain and macrozoobenthos usually live relatively short and
therefore toxic effects are unlikely to occur at the concentrations occurring in the
Westerschelde. The results shown above correspond with this expert knowledge.

Physico-chemical pressures
For the physic-chemical data, for the indicator Oxygen (summer values) and DIN (Dissolved
Inorganic Nitrogen, winter values) significant trends were found for the correlation between
these physic-chemical parameters and the EQR for the Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope.
For dissolved oxygen (see Figure 10), the importance of this parameter for the
benthic quality is well known: decreased oxygen concentrations have a direct impact on the
benthic quality. The correlation r = 0.586 and the correlation is significant (p = 0.017).




Figure 10: Correlation between Dissolved
Oxygen (measured at Schaar van Ouden
Doel; summer values) and benthos EQR
for the ecotope Mesohaline-Intertidal.
Slope = 0.066, r = 0.586, significance p =
0.017. This analysis was initially made
using 99/1 percentile reference values.




For Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN), the correlation (see Figure 11) with bentic
quality seems intuitively logical but the mechanism of action is probably less clear cut. In
principle, lower DIN concentrations leads to lower amount of eutriphication, and
consequently may lead to less fytoplankton detritus and less oxygen consumption.
Furthermore, it is possible that DIN could correlate with the concentration of detritus in
general (and consequently the biological oxygen demand in the water column) but this
hypothesis should be tested further.

28





Figure 11: Correlation between
DIN (measured at Schaar van
Ouden Doel) and benthos EQR
for the ecotope Mesohaline-
Intertidal. Significance p =
0.0010.



Hydrological pressures
It is assumed that the hydrological pressures (maximum flow velocity) are relatively low in the
Mesohaline-Intertidal, in view of the relatively high location in the intertidal resulting in
relatively short overflow times. According to Dick de Jong of RWS Zeeland, the amount of
low dynamic intertidal area has increased in the past decades in the Mesohaline-Intertidal,
indicating a lower maximum flow velocity. This possible decrease of hydrogical pressures
could also partly explain the improvement of the benthic quality in this ecotope.
These hydrological pressures are discussed in more detail for the following Polyhaline-
Subtidal ecotope.

Westerschelde Polyhaline-Subtidal
In this ecotope, a significant negative quality trend has been found, see Figure 12. It appears
that especially in 1994, 2002 and 2004 remarkable dips in the benthos quality occur, with a
relatively stable period of the benthic quality from 1996 till 2001.

Oxygen/DIN pressures
This ecotope is situated in the Western part of the Westerschelde, near the North Sea.
Conse-quently, in the polyhaline ecotopes the priority pollutants and nutrients are in principle
more diluted than in the mesohaline ecotopes. An illustration of this dilution effect is given in
the table below:

Table 4: dilution effect of DIN in the Westerschelde

Location DIN 1990 [mg/L]
Schaar van Ouden Doel (start of mesohaline) 7.97
Hanswert (end of mesohaline) 3.98
Terneuzen (start of polyhaline) 2.46
Vlissingen (end of polyhaline) 1.07




29


If the DIN data for the locations Terneuzen and Vlissingen are studied in more detail,
the following table can be made:

Table 5: trends of DIN at two locations in the Westerschelde

Location/year 1989 1990 1991 2009 2010 2011
DIN [mg/L]
Terneuzen
3.05 2.46 1.66 1.99 1.62 1.75
DIN [mg/L]
Vlissingen
1.50 1.07 0.76 1.05 0.93 0.97


It appears that the DIN has dropped strongly in the beginning of the 90s, among
others due a different habour sludge disposal regime and the implementation of sewage
purification plants. Afterwords, the DIN seems to have stabilized in this polyhaline ecotope
and is presumably limited by diffuse and marine inputs. When the DIN concentrations from
e.g. 1991 are compared with Figure 11, it seems quite likely that these DIN concentrations,
and probably correlated dissolved oxygen content, will not be a limiting factor for the quality
of the benthos. Furthermore, the apparent decrease of DIN in the beginning of the 90s
should have caused an improvement of the benthic EQR, while a benthic deterioration has
been measured in that period. Both arguments suggest that DIN and oxygen are probably
not determining pressures in this ecotope.

Priority pollutants pressures
Related to this dilution effect for nutrients, the concentrations of priority pollutants are even
less likely to cause negative effects on the benthos quality, since priority pollutants probably
are not correlated to the improvement of the benthic EQR in the Mesohaline-Intertidal.
This then leaves physical pressures, especially hydrological and related salinity
pressures, as the most likely causes of the significant negative quality trend which is
observed in this ecotope. According to several experts, fisheries is not a significant physical
pressure in the Westerschelde.




Figure 12: EQR trend for benthos in
the ecotope Polyhaline-Subtidal using
BEQI-2.
Correlation coefficient = -0.632;
Significance p = 0.0087.



30


Hydrological pressures
The occurance of hydrological pressures has been discussed with Dick de Jong,
hydromorphological and ecological expert of RWS in the Delta area. According to the Marine
Ecotope Classification system (Bouma et al., 2005), developed by RWS for the Delta marine
waters (including the Westerschelde), the maximum flow velocity is a very important ecotope
factor. Benthos can live well in ecotopes with relatively low maximum flow velocities
(preferably <0.65 m/s, maximum of 0.8 m/s). These ecotopes are refered to as low
dynamic. In the so-called high dynamic ecotopes, most benthos species are flushed away
and there is practically no benthos present in these areas. Note that the extreme maximum
flow velocities are ecologically more relevant than the average flow velocities. The relative
and absolute amounts of low-dynamic and high-dynamic ecotopes are probably a useful
measure of the maximum flow velocities which occur in the tidal and subtidal areas.
Ideally, the maximum flow velocity which occurs in an ecotope-year is the most useful
measure of the hydrological pressure on an ecotope. It appears however (surprisingly!) that
there is a lack of measured data on flow velocities in ecotopes. Therefore, for this
intercalibration pressure-impact exercise the percentage of low and high-dynamic ecotopes
is used as a proxy indicator for the maximum flow velocity (see Figure 2.4 in Van den Bergh
et al., 2003).
The percentage of low-dynamic litoral area has been decreasing since approx. 1920,
and in the period of 1980 to 2000 a slight exponential decrease seems to be observed in this
process. The percentages of low- and high-dynamic litoral area were extrapolated to the
individual years for the period 1990-2005. In Figure 13, the correlation between the
percentage of high-dynamic litoral area (as as proxy indicator for the maximum flow velocity)
and the EQR of the Polyhaline-Subtidal ecotope are shown.




Figure 13: Correlation between the
percentage of high-dynamic litoral
ecotope in the Westerschelde
(mostly polyhaline ecotope; derived
from Van den Bergh et al. 2003,
figure 2.4) and the EQR of the
Polyhaline-Subtidal ecotope. R =
0.632, p = 0.0087.



This figure shows that there is a significant correlation between the amount of high
dynamic litoral area in the Westerschelde used as proxy of the maximum flow velocity, and
the EQR measured in the Polyhaline-Subtidal ecotope. This result supports the expert
knowledge that flow velocity is an important pressure on the benthic quality (Bouma et al.,
2005). Note: the EQR-values and trends of the Westerschelde and the Dollard will be
calculated during the national implementation of the intercalibrated and harmonized BEQI-2,
using the appropriate ecotope area weight factors.


31


9. Validation of BEQI-2 with expert judgement
In Table 6 a comparison is given of expert judgement of several Dutch marine water bodies
compared with BEQI-2 EQR-values and classifications. A similar method was used for the
Dutch WFD background document for fytoplankton (Van den Berg & Pot, 2007).
Table 5: expert judgement of several Dutch marine water bodies and untransformed national
BEQI-2 EQR values.

Table 6: Expert judgement of the BEQI-2 classifications. The expert judgements were given
without prior knowledge of the BEQI-2 scores.

Expert >
Water body \/
RD DdJ BEQI-2
EQR
BEQI-2
Class
a

Distance
from G/M
boundary
Westerschelde
Mesohaline-Intertidal
Good 0.68 Good +0.1
Westerschelde
Polyhaline-Subtidal
Slightly
moderate
0.49 Moderate -0.09
Eems Dollard Moderate 0.48 Moderate -0.1
Waddenzee Reasonable 0.655 Good +0.075
Coastal zone
a) A Good/Moderate boundary of 0.58 is proposed for BEQI-2 based on this expert judgement
b) Expert judgement on the coastal zone has to be added in near future.

We still have to find an independent marine benthos scientist to give a blind expert
judgement on the benthic quality of the Dutch coastal zone. Since the coastal zone five WFD
water bodies are distinguished (Zeeuwse kust, Noordelijke Deltakust, Hollandse Kust,
Waddenkust and Eems Dollard kust), and since there is a lack of clear quantitative pressure
data in these regions, it is probably not an easy task to give an expert judgement on the
benthic quality of these regions. In the Marine Strategy project and other RWS marine
projects, new efforts are currently made to quantify human pressures on the open coastal
waters and this will probably also improve our knowledge of the pressures and the benthic
quality of the coastal WFD waters discussed here. However, since we already have expert
judgement on three important Dutch transitional and coastal water bodies, we trust that the
G/M class border of 0.58 is realistic and will not be influenced by additional expert judgement
on the coastal waters.
See Chapter 5.1 for information on the use a linearly transformed national BEQI-2
class borders and EQR values.
32


10. References
Anoniem, Brondocument t.b.v. KRW beheerplan waterlichaam overgangswater Eems-
Dollard, 26 november 2009, RWS Waterdienst in collaboration with the German water
authorities, in Dutch and German.

Anonymous, Guidance on the Intercalibration Process 2008-2011, ReportEcostat,version
7.0, 18 nov 2009.

Anonymous, 2008, WFD intercalibration technical report, Part 3 Coastal and Transitional
Waters, Section 2 Benthic Invertabrates, EU report.

Anonymous, Ecostat, IC Guidance Annex V: Definition of comparability criteria for setting
class boundaries, version 5.0, 14 sept 2010.

Anoniem, 2007, MER Verruiming Vaargeul, www.VNSC.eu.

Aurelie Aubry, M. Elliott, The use of environmental integrative indicators to assess
seabed disturbance in estuaries and coasts: Application to the Humber Estuary, UK, Marine
Pollution Bulletin 53 (2006) 175185

E. van den Bergh et al., Studierapport natuurontwikkelingsmaatregelen ten behoeve van de
Ontwikkelingsschets 2010 voor het Schelde-estuarium, Hoofdstuk 2. Ecologische doelen
voor het Schelde-estuarium, Werkdocument/RIKZ/OS/2003.825x, in Dutch.

A. Boon, A. Gittenberger and W.M.G.M. van Loon, Review of marine benthic indicators and
metrics for the WFD and design of an optimized BEQI, Report, Deltares, 2011.

A. Borja & J. Mader, 2006, Instructions for the use of the AMBI Index software (version 4.0),
manual.

A. Borja et al., Response of single benthic metrics and multi-metric methods to
anthropogenic pressure gradients, in five distinct European coastal and transitional
ecosystems, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2011.

A. Borja and B.G. Tunberg, Assessing benthic health in stressed subtropical estuaries,
eastern Florida, USA using AMBI and M-AMBI, Ecological indicators 11 (2011) 295-303.

H. Bouma, D.J. de Jong, F. Twisk and K. Wolfstein, A Dutch Ecotope System for Coastal
Waters (ZES.1), Report RIKZ/2005.024.

A. Gittenberger and W.M.G.M. van Loon, A list of common marine benthic species in the
Netherlands, Report & Database, 2011.

G. Van Hoey, J. Drent, T. Ysebaert and P. Herman, 2007, The Benthic Ecosystem Quality
Index (BEQI), intercalibration and assessment of Dutch coastal and transitional waters for
the Water Framework Directive, Final report, NIOO.

H. Maas, Brondocument Westerschelde, RWS Waterdienst, 2009 (in Dutch).

G. Spronk, 1994. Invloed van slibontrekking Beneden Zeeschelde op de waterkwaliteit op de
Belgisch-Nederlandse grens. Report, RIKZ/AB/94.883X.



33


Appendix 1: BEQI-2 results for the Dollard
Since the Dollard data are not an official part of the intercalibration process, they are briefly
reported in this appendix as additional and supportive information for the Westerschelde
results.
Benthos data have been collected by drs. R. Dekker and co-workers from the NIOZ
(Netherlands Institute for Sea Research) from 1991 until now, and represent a consistently
sampled and analyzed benthos dataset.
In the analyzed period of 1991 2007, 2040 samples were taken in the ecotope
Mesohaline-Intertidal in the Dollard region; 1020 in spring and 1020 in autumn. The sample
sizes are as follows: 1745 samples of 0.009 m
2
; 249 samples of 0.018 m
2
and 2040 of 0.027
m
2
. These samples are all located on three transects; transect codes HERPT1110,
HERPT1111 and HERPT1112 (HERPT = Heringplaat; an intertidal sandflat).
Reference values for the Dollard ecotope Mesohaline-Intertidal were taken from the
Westerschelde Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope. It is a Dutch WFD principle to use the same
reference values per national water type, in this case O2 (Overgangswater, Transitional
water). Since the autumn benthos data are preferred for the BEQI-2 assessment, the autumn
reference values of the Westerschelde Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope are suitable to apply to
the autumn benthos data of the Dollard Mesohaline-Intertidal ecotope.

Table 7: reference values used for the Dollard, obtained from the Westerschelde
Mesohaline-Intertidal-Autumn.

Ecotope Season S ref S bad H ref H bad AMBI
ref
AMBI
bad
Mesohaline-
Intertidal
Autumn 29.26 0 3.269 0 0 6

The trends of S, H and AMBI are shown in Figure 12 and Table 8. It appears very
cleary that for Species Richness and AMBI indicators signifcant negative quality trends are
observed in both seasons. For Shannon a quality decrease can be observed but is not
significant. In autumn a nearly significant BEQI-2 quality trend (p = 0.10) is observed. The
signficance of the autumn trend is slightly larger than for the spring trend, which confirms the
choice to use autumn data for the BEQI-2 assessment. These results show that the benthic
quality of the Dollard region appears to be declining. This correlates with the pressure
information from the Dutch Eems Dollard water body brondocument (Anoniem, 2009).

Table 8: Significant indicator trends observed in the Dollard region, ecotope Mesohaline-
Intertidal, Autumn samples. The trends for spring samples are similar.

Water body Ecotope Season Indicator Slope p value
Eems Dollard
a
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI 0.0101 0.00085
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI review 0.00812 0.0085
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI sediment. -0.0055 0.013
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn AMBI fisheries -0.037 0.000017
Mesohaline-Intertidal Autumn ITI 0.0168 0.000075