Ecological Status Classification of Surface Waters

1
Ecological Status Classification of Surface
Waters SWAP Meeting A Challenge for
Implementation of the Water Framework
Directive Murray, N. Eisenreich, S. Heiskanen,
AS van de Bund, W Cardoso, AC
2
Outline

• Ecological status in the Water Framework
  Directive
• State of the art in monitoring classification
  of ecological status in MS
• Setting the management goals Problems of WFD
  Intercalibration

3
Ecological Status in WFD

• Needs to be determined using BIOLOGICAL quality
  elements
• Biological status is the basis for classification
• Ecological classification sets the managements
  goals for RBMP
• border between good and moderate is determined
  through intercalibration

4
Surface Water Status

• Determined by poorer of chemical and ecological
  status
• Chemical status concentrations of specific
  pollutants not exceeding specified levels
• Ecological status expression of the quality of
  the structure and functioning of aquatic
  ecosystems

5
Quality Elements for Ecological Status
Biological Quality Elements
6
Biological quality elements
Rivers Lakes Estuaries Coastal
waters Phytoplankton X
X X Macrophytes X X
X X Zoobenthos X X
X X Fish X
X X
7
Assessment of Ecological Status
Reference value
Biological quality elements
8
To assess ecological status you need

• Typology (A or B)
• Type-specific reference conditions (for all QE)
• Monitoring programmes (including all QE)
• which parameters to monitor?
• agreement about class boundaries

9
Interpretation of Normative Definitions

• What are slight, moderate, major and
  severe deviations?
• Need for equal level of ambition in WFD
  implementation intercalibration

10
Quantifying ecological status problem of errors
11
Quality elements in national classification
systems for rivers (REFCOND data from 15
countries)
12
Compatibility of river methods with WFD (REFCOND
data from 15 countries)
13
Normative definitions of ecological status
classification
(nearly) totally undisturbed slight
alterations moderate alterations major
alterations severe alterations
14
Selection of intercalibration sites
15
Intercalibration should include

• Rivers, lakes, coastal waters from all ecoregions
• different quality elements for rivers
• macroinvertebrates
• fish
• aquatic flora (macrophytes, diatoms)

16
Requirements for intercalibration

• Selection of intercalibration sites
• agreement on class boundaries
• Data
• Intercalibration exercise
• Data from different quality elements
• comparable sampling methods
• knowledge of sources of error

17
Surface water status in WFD

• Needs to be determined by poorer of chemical and
  ecological status
• Chemical status concentrations of specific
  pollutants not exceeding specified levels
• Ecological status Ecological Quality Ratio based
  on biological indicator values related to
  reference conditions

18
Ecological Status in WFD

• Needs to be assessed using BIOLOGICAL quality
  elements
• Ecological classification sets the managements
  goals for River Basin Plans
• Intercalibration sets the quality criteria for
  restoration targets of water bodies

19
Ecological Status Assessment

• Following steps Information required
• Characterization of surface water types
• Type-specific reference conditions (for all QE)
• Biological monitoring data available (all QE)
• Classification of EQR (for all QE)
• Agreement of the normative definitions slight,
  moderate, major and severe deviations from
  minimally disturbed conditions - intercalibration

20
Characterization of surface water types

• Need to have sufficiently large types to enable
  reporting intercalibration
• Large types may not be ecologically relevant ?
  Difficult to establish reference conditions
• Requires a network of reference sites, where
  biological data available for testing typology
  based on morphological physical factors

21
Challenge of Reference conditions

• Several potential methods available
• Spatial reference sites, historical data,
  predictive modelling, stressor-response
  trajectories (curve fitting ), paleoecology,
  expert judgement, etc.
• Problems with biological data availability,
  quality comparability, and high initial costs
  of some methods
• Comparisons of different methods required (may
  not always lead to same results)
• Need to agree on definitions of totally, or
  nearly, undisturbed conditions (what is
  considered pristine?)

22
Setting the Reference Values ofbiological
quality elements
1. Spatially derived Reference conditions
similar water body types
23
Setting the Reference Values ofbiological
quality elements (2)
2. Pressure-response relationships
Observed or modeled range of change
Biological indicator value
Modeled Reference conditions
Environmental pressure value
24
Setting the Reference Values ofBiological
Quality Elements (3)
3. Hindcasting based on statistical models
Observed range of change
Biological indicator value
Hindcasted Reference conditions
Time before significant human impact (?)
Time (decades, centuries?)
25
Challenge of Classification

• Agreement of WFD normative definitions slight,
  moderate, major and severe deviations from
  totally, or nearly, undisturbed conditions
• Statistical errors related to variability in
  reference conditions and in biological data need
  to be estimated and considered
• Indicators have different responses to different
  pressures ? indicator-stress relationships need
  to be established

26
Problem of Errors in Setting the Class Boundaries

• Natural variability of reference values will
  influence the setting of the borders for EQR
  scale
• Selection of a narrow range (e.g. 95 CI of the
  data) may result in higher probability to
  misclassify sites in lower class
• Selecting a wider range (e.g. 10th percentile)
  may result in higher probability to classify
  sites too high (I.e. impact is not detected)

Johnson, R., 2001
27
Different Indices - Different EQR scales
28
Challenge of Intercalibration

• WFD requires intercalibration of the Member
  States Ecological Quality assessment systems in
  2006.
• Objective is to compare and harmonize EQR class
  boundaries between Member States within the same
  ecoregion
• Selection of Intercalibration sites should be
  carried out in 2003
• Harmonised typology required
• Scarcity of biological data may hamper progress
  of intercalibration process, especially selection
  of sites

29
Inter-calibration of the EQR Scale
Environmental pressure
30
Setting the yard stick
Biotic quality indicator
31
Looking ahead Research needs for FP6 Ecological
Water Quality Indicators

• Develop new indicators and indicator metrics for
  cost efficient monitoring and reliable assessment
  
• Develop practical reliable methods to establish
  reference conditions
• Develop integrated biological indices to assess
  functional health of aquatic ecosystems
• Develop indicators to allow detection of
  ecosystem alteration due to large scale
  (climatic) vs. local anthropogenic changes

32
Looking ahead Needs for FP6

• Need for a long term initiative for development
  and harmonization of the ecological quality
  classification
• Good data is needed on biological quality
  elements and their responses on pressures
• European scale initiative on harmonized
  biological data collection on surface waters
  would yield
• Added value for development and comparability of
  assessment methods required by WFD
• possibility to test scientific hypothesis on
  ecological responses and changes across large
  spatial (Europe) and temporal scales (e.g.
  climate change)

33
European Centre for Ecological Water Quality and
Intercalibration

• FP6 Launching a Long-term/ permanent, scientific
  and technical focal point for comparison,
  intercalibration, and harmonisation of ecological
  assessment systems
• Initiative taken during WFD Common Implementation
  Strategy Work in 2001
• Preparations carried out by JRC-IES/ IMW-unit

34
Justification

• First intercalibration in 2005-6 may be
  incomplete due to
• Monitoring systems not ready
• Insufficient biological monitoring data
• New assessment methods will evolve
• Monitoring systems of the new Member States need
  to be harmonised

35
Mission

• Scientific and technical platform for the
  organisation of the intercalibration exercise(s).
  
• Harmonisation of the national ecological quality
  assessment systems in EU and in Candidate
  Countries