PROJECT : EVK1-2001-00034

PROGRAMME : EESD-ESD-3

THEMATIC PRIORITY : EESD-2000-1.7

WATER FRAMEWORKDIRECTIVE

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

WATER FRAMEWORKDIRECTIVE

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)

TAXONOMIC GROUPS TO BE USED

MACRO-INVERTEBRATES

DIATOMS

MACROPHYTES

FISH

RIVER CORRIDORS

STAR COUNTRIES

SWEDEN

DENMARK

AUSTRIA

GERMANY (X2)

HOLLAND

GREECE

FRANCE

ITALYPORTUGAL

UK

CZECH REPUBLIC

CEN NASCOUNTRIES

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

SPECIFICOBJECTIVES

2) Which methods can be used on which spatial scale?

1) Which methods/organism groups best indicate impacts which stressors?

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?

SPECIFICOBJECTIVES

2) Which methods can be used on which spatial scale?

1) Which methods/organism groups best indicate impacts which stressors?

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?

error high

moderateerror

error low2 /

THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

1 Co-ordination2 Project homepage3 Review4 Acquisition of existing data5 Selecting sampling sites6 Sampling workshops7 Sampling core stream types 1 and 28 Sampling additional stream types9 Audit of performance 10 Project database 11 Linking invertebrate methods 12 Linking organism groups13 Linkage of databases14 Recommendations for standardisation15 Decision support system

THE FIFTEENWORK-PACKAGES

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

INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS (1)

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

INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS (2)

THE STREAMTYPES

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

THE STREAMTYPES

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

THE STRESSTYPES

Reference sites – no significant stresses

Three categories of stress• Organic• Toxic (including acidification)• Habitat degradation

Four categories of Ecological Status

THE STRESSTYPES

Reference sites – no significant stresses

Three categories of stress• Organic• Toxic (including acidification)• Habitat degradation

Four categories of Ecological Status

CORE SITE SAMPLINGMACRO-INVERTEBRATES

Eighty-eight sampling sites

Two national protocols per site

Two seasons’ samples (spring & autumn)

Three hundred and eighty four samples

ADDITIONAL SITE SAMPLINGMACRO-INVERTEBRATES

Nine stream types

Two national protocols at most sites

Two seasons’ samples (spring & autumn)

Three hundred and thirty four samples

Ninety-four sampling sites

Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the AQEM protocol

AQEMRIVPACS

GB

IBGNFRANCE

Photo: Cécile Ardouin, WWF-France

IBEITALY

NORDICSWEDEN

EBEOSWA

HOLLAND

OTHER SAMPLE AND SURVEY TYPES

Phytobenthos : 150 summer samples

Fish : 150 summer samples

RHS (or similar) : 150 summer surveys

Macrophytes : 150 summer surveys

PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITYDay 1 ArrivalDay 2 MeetingDay 3 River Habitat TrainingDay 4 River Habitat TrainingDay 5 Diatom/Invertebrate trainingDay 6 Replicate samplingDay 7 Replicate samplngDay 8 Departure

Samplingworkshops

TRAINERSRiver Corridor: Marc Naura (EA)

Hugh Dawson (CEH)

Diatoms Martyn Kelly (Bowburn Cons.)

PARTICIPANTS

All partners

Individuals under-taking sampling/survey

Samplingworkshops

TWO WORKSHOPS

• METZ – FRANCE (SPRING 2001) 8 SITES

• DORSET – ENGLAND (AUTUMN 2001) 7 SITE

Samplingworkshops

• FIFTEEN SAMPLING SITES

• SIX METHODS AQEM RIVPACS NORDIC IBGN IBE EBEOSWA

• FOUR METHODS PER SITE

• THREE REPLICATE SAMPLES PER METHOD PER SITE

• 180 SAMPLES

Sampling variation

Audit of performance (1)

Measurement errors

Sorting bias Identification errors

RIVPACS III+ uncertainty simulation model comparing two

samples

0.10.0-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5

100

50

0

Difference in O/E (sample 2 minus sample 1)

differenceLine of no

simulationsNo. of

differences < 098.5% of simulated

1.5% > 0

0.55 0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15

0

100

200

%Prob -->

Band -->

29.7 69.0 1.3

c b a

simulationsNo. of

X

1.151.000.850.700.55

200

100

0

simulationsNo. of

0.0 84.915.1

c b a

%Prob -->

Band -->

X

Sample 1

O/E = 0.94 (X)

Sample 2

O/E = 0.75 (X) Difference = - 0.19

Two-sided p = 0.030

Error models

The key question to be addressed is:

LINKING OF DATABASES

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

Decision Support SystemTo provide practical guidance to managers on the application of monitoring programmes necessary to meet the terms and objectives of the Water Framework Directive

Operational outputs

CEN StandardTo 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

2) Data-bases

1) Data reviews

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

STAR

OUTPUTS

STAR

OUTPUTS

2) Data-bases

1) Data reviews

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

STAR

OUTPUTS

OPPORTUNITIES FOR NAS PARTNERS

TRAIT ANALYSIS

ASSESSMENT OF VARIATION IN THE COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF ECOLOGICAL DATA

EXTENSION OF TOXIC STREAM STUDIES

EARLY DETECTION OF STRESS

INCLUSION OF PHYTOPLANKTON SAMPLING