1 / 30

Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies

Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies. Workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies Brussels, 25/26 September 2003. Birgit Vogel Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management - Vienna birgit.vogel@bmlfuw.gv.at. CONTENT = PROCEDURE.

sbeck
Download Presentation

Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies

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. Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies Workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies Brussels, 25/26 September 2003 Birgit Vogel Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management - Vienna birgit.vogel@bmlfuw.gv.at

  2. CONTENT = PROCEDURE • Typology process • System B (macrozoobenthos, phytobenthos, fish) • Identification of Water Bodies • Following EC Guidance • Step 1: Basic delineation • Based on typology using saprobic basic conditions • Step 2: Detailed status delineation • First approaches

  3. surface water CATEGORIESlake, river etc. BASICDELINEATION surface water TYPES Sub-Divisionphysical characteristics REFINEMENT DETAILED DELINEATION NOTHeavily modified Heavily modified Sub-DivisionSTATUS classespressures, impacts

  4. BASIC DELINEATION BASIC DELINEATIONSTEP 1 TYPOLOGY

  5. River Typology – System B • step 1 - a priori approach „abiotic“ typology • step 2 - a posteriori approach biological check (all biological elements) • step 3 - final definition of river typesaccording to the results of step 2 • IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES

  6. WFD-Annex XI: Zoogeographic Regions , Illies (1978)

  7. Carpa- thians Central Mountains Alps Hungarian Plains Balcan Ecoregions of Austria Moog, Nesemann & Ofenböck (2001); Österr. Wasser- & Abfallwirtschaft Jg. 53, Heft 7/8 a priori approach: expert consensus, geo-ecological criteria

  8. Descriptors • ecoregionAlps, Central Midlands, Hungarian Plains, Dinaric West-Balcan • altitude5 classes: <200, 200-500, 500-800, 800-1500, >1500 m • catchment area6 classes: 10-100, 100-500, 500-1.000, 1.000-2.500, 2.500-10.000, >10.000 • geology4 classes: calcareous, crystaline, Flysch & Helveticum, tertiar and quartar Sediments • stream order (1-9) • flow regime • 42 ecological river landscape-types

  9. Top down result • 17 Aquatic landscape Units + 9 Large Rivers • parameters of system A • ecoregion • catchment area • altitude • geology • additional parameters • flow regime • stream order • river landscape types

  10. Combining top-down and bottom-up approach A posteriori - Approach Distribution of Benthic Invertebrate Species Multivariate Benthic Community Analysis A priori - Approach Ecoregions River-Landscape-Types Aquatic Landscape Units Bioregions

  11. Austrian River typology - Biological check Macroinvertebrates - Phytobenthos -Fish • Abiotic typology proved to be also valid for the aquatic community • Only minor changes were needed (splitting, combining) • highest differentiation is needed for macrozoobenthos

  12. Typology Result Ecoregions nach ILLIES  26 abiotic basic types 17 type regions and 9 large rivers  biological check ---> 15 Bioregions + Donau, Rhein, large alpine rivers, March/Thaya

  13. BASIC DELINEATION BASIC DELINEATION:STEP 2TOWARDS WATER BODIES

  14. TOWARDS WATER BODIES • Biological check of abiotic types finished. Adaptations performed. • Therefore: Typology in Austria finalised (each type proven by abiotic factors and biology) • Sound basis for water body delineation • Zoom into longitudinal detail of typology • Digital crossover of • Basic saprobic conditions • Altitude classes • Catchment size classes FOR EACH BIOREGION

  15. Basic saprobic conditions

  16. Result Basic Delineation Example: Lower Austria Differentiation using basicsaprobic conditions

  17. TOWARDS WATER BODIES • Result: Integrated parameters containing manifold information • Abiotic parameters (slope, sediment structure) • Biological aspects (basic trophic level, organic pollution and corresponding oxygen demand).

  18. TOWARDS WATER BODIES PRODUCT = BASIC WATER BODIES • Map which illustrates changes of basic types over longitudinal extend • Maximum length of water bodies illustrated - defined by natural conditions • Basic number of sections (no further changes)

  19. TOWARDS WATER BODIES • Types clearly differentiated from each other • therefore qualitive objective clear for each type • Result confirms that the criteria correctly reflect the bioregions • Sound basis for detailed delineation (status/pressures/impacts) and • later aggregation process • similar basic characteristics • plus similar pressures/impacts

  20. DETAILED DELINEATION DETAILED DELINEATION:WATER BODIES BASED ON STATUS

  21. DEFINITION-PROCESS DETAILED DELINEATION • Objective: Status assessments are used for final identification of water bodies • Main aspect: Identification of significant pressuresand impacts on ecological status

  22. DETAILED DELINEATION • Based on Basic Delineation • Step-wise definition process • Increasing information on pressures and impacts will refine the identification of water bodies • Present data are used • Continuous up-date of information and refinement of delineation until first River Basin Management Plan • Preliminary Identification of water bodies

  23. INTERACTIONS MONITORINGsampling stations Ecological Status IdentificationWATER BODIES

  24. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS Detailed status assessment Monitoring network: many sampling stations Aggregation of similar water bodies leads to reduction of sampling stations Many small water bodies • Un-detailed pressure/impact identification (pressures might not be identified, good status) • Low number of sampling stations? • Assessment of impacts • Low/merged number of water bodies brings not necessarily reduction of sampling stations along • Degradation not identified? Few large water bodies

  25. DETAILED DELINEATION pressures High status Bad status Good status water body 1 water body 3 water body 2 • Manageable approach: Water body must clearly be defined by a status class • What is the most dominant factor (status) within a water body?

  26. Szenario pressure pressure WB1 pressure Good status pressure Good status pressure Not dominant pressure pressure pressure pressures (dominant)/ good status (z.B. <certain % of length) Good status / pressures WB1 WB2 Degradation??

  27. Szenario pressure Good status pressure dominant Good status (dominant) / pressure (<certain%) WB1

  28. Example Danube

  29. SUMMARY • Manageable approach and efficient • Question for „reasonable“ number of water bodies • Most dominant factors within surface water system • Aggregation of WBs – Reduction of sampling stations!! • Similarities based on types of basic delineation and same pressures • Number of basic delineation = unchanged • Number of detailed delineation = flexible; changes • stepwise refinement

  30. CONCLUSION • Basic delineation finished end of 2003 for whole Austria • Detailed delineation performed during 2004 as a first step • Refined with growing monitoring/status information Workshop on Identification of Water Bodies using status criteria next week (2 catchments)

More Related