1 / 30

PROJECT : EVK1-2001-00034 PROGRAMME : EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY : EESD-2000-1.7

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE. PROJECT : EVK1-2001-00034 PROGRAMME : EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY : EESD-2000-1.7. WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE.

oistin
Download Presentation

PROJECT : EVK1-2001-00034 PROGRAMME : EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY : EESD-2000-1.7

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE PROJECT : EVK1-2001-00034 PROGRAMME : EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY : EESD-2000-1.7

  2. WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE STAndardisation of River Classifications: Framework method for calibrating different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive

  3. THE “WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE” (WFD) The Water Framework Directive requires that: Each member State shall divide the ecological quality ratio scale for their monitoring system for each surface water category into five classes ranging from high ecological status by assigning a numerical value to each of the boundaries between the classes.* * Annex 5 Section 1.4.1 Paragraph (iii)

  4. TAXONOMIC GROUPS TO BE USED MACRO-INVERTEBRATES DIATOMS MACROPHYTES FISH RIVER CORRIDORS

  5. STAR COUNTRIES SWEDEN UK DENMARK HOLLAND FRANCE CZECH REPUBLIC GERMANY (X2) CEN NAS COUNTRIES AUSTRIA PORTUGAL ITALY GREECE

  6. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF STAR • Inter-calibration of European methodologies • Improved quality control throughout Europe • Better quantification of errors in Europe • Integration of multi-source ecological data • Complementarity and redundancy of data sources • Cost effective monitoring

  7. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 1) Which methods/organism groups best indicate impacts which stressors? 2) Which methods can be used on which spatial scale? 3) Which methods/organisms are best suited for early and late warnings? 4) How are different assessment methods affected by errors? 5) How can 'signal' be distinguished from 'noise'? 6) How can data from different assessment methods be compared/standardised? 7) What elements of assessments should be, and what must, be standardised? 8) What assessment protocols are most cost-effective 9) How can information from different taxonomic groups and habitat surveys be inter-calibrated into a unified assessment of Ecological Status?

  8. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 1) Which methods/organism groups best indicate impacts which stressors? 2) Which methods can be used on which spatial scale? 3) Which methods/organisms are best suited for early and late warnings? 4) How are different assessment methods affected by errors? 5) How can 'signal' be distinguished from 'noise'? 6) How can data from different assessment methods be compared/standardised? 7) What elements of assessments should be, and what must, be standardised? 8) What assessment protocols are most cost-effective 9) How can information from different taxonomic groups and habitat surveys be inter-calibrated into a unified assessment of Ecological Status?

  9. THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

  10. THE FIFTEEN WORK-PACKAGES 1 Co-ordination 2 Project homepage 3 Review 4 Acquisition of existing data 5 Selecting sampling sites 6 Sampling workshops 7 Sampling core stream types 1 and 2 8 Sampling additional stream types 9 Audit of performance 10 Project database 11 Linking invertebrate methods 12 Linking organism groups 13 Linkage of databases 14 Recommendations for standardisation 15 Decision support system

  11. INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS (1) The Water Framework Directive (1.4.1) requires compatibility of biological monitoring results. Member States and the European Commission shall: (iv) Facilitate intercalibration (v) Identify sites in each eco-region to form an inter- calibration network (vi) Monitor the network and use the results to set class boundaries for their monitoring systems (vii) Prepare (within four years) a register of sites in the intercalibration network (viii) Complete the intercalibration exercise within another 18 months (ix) With the European Commission, publish the results of the intercalibration exercise within another six months

  12. INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS (2) • The STAR Project will assist the inter-calibration exercise in the following respects; • Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the standard protocol established in FP5 Project AQEM • Sampling workshops to compare faunal lists obtained and errors associated with six national sampling protocols • Audit of performance and analysis of sample variation associated with selected national protocols • The establishment of error models associated with the allocation of sites to classes of ecological status in a range of Member States

  13. THE STREAM TYPES Core stream type 1 Small, shallow, upland streams Core stream type 2 Medium-sized, lowland streams Additional stream types Specific new stream types, characteristic of the individual member States

  14. THE STREAM TYPES Core stream type 1 Small, shallow, upland streams Core stream type 2 Medium-sized, lowland streams Additional stream types Specific new stream types, characteristic of the individual member States

  15. THE STRESS TYPES Reference sites – no significant stresses • Three categories of stress • Organic • Toxic (including acidification) • Habitat degradation Four categories of Ecological Status

  16. THE STRESS TYPES Reference sites – no significant stresses • Three categories of stress • Organic • Toxic (including acidification) • Habitat degradation Four categories of Ecological Status

  17. CORE SITE SAMPLING MACRO-INVERTEBRATES Eighty-eight sampling sites Two national protocols per site Two seasons’ samples (spring & autumn) Three hundred and eighty four samples

  18. ADDITIONAL SITE SAMPLING MACRO-INVERTEBRATES Nine stream types Ninety-four sampling sites Two national protocols at most sites Two seasons’ samples (spring & autumn) Three hundred and thirty four samples

  19. Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the AQEMprotocol EBEOSWA HOLLAND NORDIC SWEDEN RIVPACS GB AQEM IBE ITALY IBGN FRANCE Photo: Cécile Ardouin, WWF-France

  20. OTHER SAMPLE AND SURVEY TYPES Phytobenthos : 150 summer samples Macrophytes : 150 summer surveys Fish : 150 summer samples RHS (or similar) : 150 summer surveys

  21. Sampling workshops PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITY Day 1 Arrival Day 2 Meeting Day 3 River Habitat Training Day 4 River Habitat Training Day 5 Diatom/Invertebrate training Day 6 Replicate sampling Day 7 Replicate samplng Day 8 Departure

  22. Sampling workshops TRAINERS River Corridor: Marc Naura (EA) Hugh Dawson (CEH) Diatoms Martyn Kelly (Bowburn Cons.) PARTICIPANTS All partners Individuals under-taking sampling/survey

  23. Sampling workshops • TWO WORKSHOPS • METZ – FRANCE (SPRING 2001) 8 SITES • DORSET – ENGLAND (AUTUMN 2001) 7 SITE • FIFTEEN SAMPLING SITES • SIX METHODS AQEM RIVPACS NORDIC • IBGN IBE EBEOSWA • FOUR METHODS PER SITE • THREE REPLICATE SAMPLES PER METHOD PER SITE • 180 SAMPLES

  24. Audit of performance (1) Sampling variation Measurement errors Identification errors Sorting bias

  25. Error models RIVPACS III+ uncertainty simulation model comparing two samples Sample 1 O/E = 0.94 (X) Sample 2 O/E = 0.75 (X) Difference = - 0.19 Two-sided p = 0.030

  26. LINKING OF DATABASES The key question to be addressed is: How can information derived from different taxonomic groups and habitat surveys be inter-calibrated in order to provide an integrated assessment of the Ecological Status of rivers? NO A PRIORI CONCLUSIONS AT THIS STAGE

  27. Operational outputs Decision Support System To provide practical guidance to managers on the application of monitoring programmes necessary to meet the terms and objectives of the Water Framework Directive CEN Standard To advise the CEN on the drafting of a European Standard for the collection, analysis, integration, inter-calibration and interpretation of multi-source ecological data for assessing the Ecological Status of streams and rivers

  28. STAR OUTPUTS 1) Data reviews 2) Data-bases 3) Operational models 4) Decision support system 5) A standard European protocol for multi-source assessment of the Ecological Status of streams and rivers 6) Conferences 7) Reports 8) Scientific publications

  29. STAR OUTPUTS STAR OUTPUTS 1) Data reviews 2) Data-bases 3) Operational models 4) Decision support system 5) A standard European protocol for multi-source assessment of the Ecological Status of streams and rivers 6) Conferences 7) Reports 8) Scientific publications

  30. OPPORTUNITIES FOR NAS PARTNERS TRAIT ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT OF VARIATION IN THE COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF ECOLOGICAL DATA EXTENSION OF TOXIC STREAM STUDIES INCLUSION OF PHYTOPLANKTON SAMPLING EARLY DETECTION OF STRESS

More Related