PROJECT :EVK1-2001-00034 PROGRAMME:EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY:EESD-2000-1.7 WATER FRAMEWORK...
-
Upload
mae-blankenship -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of PROJECT :EVK1-2001-00034 PROGRAMME:EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY:EESD-2000-1.7 WATER FRAMEWORK...
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