Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex II: Summary of the information gathered from ECOSTAT andMonitoring WG on the national lake biological methods ......................................41Annex III: River biological assessment methods from Waterview Database(2004)...........................................................................................................................43Annex IV: Analysis of lake biological monitoring methods (Intercalibrationmetadata at 14/01/2004).............................................................................................45Chlorophyll ..........................................................................................................45Phytoplankton ......................................................................................................49Phytobenthos........................................................................................................53Macrophytes.........................................................................................................57Benthic invertebrates ...........................................................................................61Fish.......................................................................................................................64Annex V: Analysis of river biological monitoring methods...................................69Phytoplankton ......................................................................................................69Phytobenthos........................................................................................................69Macrophytes.........................................................................................................73Benthic invertebrates ...........................................................................................75A. Summary of the national assessment methods for rivers using benthicinvertebrates......................................................................................75B. Comparative analysis .........................................................................84Fish.......................................................................................................................93Annex VI: Standardization process and CEN standards relevant to the WFD.103A. The standardization process..........................................................................103B. Published CEN standards relevant to the implementation of the WFD and theintercalibration process ..................................................................................105Annex VII: WFD classification and intercalibration requirements....................107Annex VIII: Compatibility of the national classification methods with WFDrequirements.............................................................................................................109Annex IX: WFD Common Metric ..........................................................................111Annex X: Summary of the national biological assessment methods for lakes(WFD Intercalibration metadata January 2004)..................................................115Annex XI: Harmonisation drafting group members............................................1234
Background and purpose of the document1. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires (Annex V 1.3.6) that standardsmethods are used for the monitoring of water quality elements: ‘Methods used for themonitoring of type parameters shall conform to the international standards listedbelow or such other national or international standards which will ensure theprovision of data of an equivalent scientific quality and comparability’.2. In the context of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)Intercalibration Working Group (WG), a common issue raised by lake and riverexperts was the lack of comparability of national biological assessment systems due todifferent sampling and analytical procedures, and use of different metrics for theassessment of the degree of impact due to the same pressure. This resulted in a strongrecommendation from these networks of experts for the harmonisation of thesemethodologies and the possible identification of common metrics.3. Thus, in the workshop of the WFD-CIS Intercalibration WG, in March 2003 at theJRC, Ispra, it was decided to initiate a task on the review of the needs forharmonisation of the freshwater biological methods, under the WFD-CIS WG 2AECOSTAT. The first contacts and presentation of this activity was at the meeting ofthe WG 2A in October 2003 at the JRC, Ispra.4. The report from this task will support the Geographic Intercalibration Groups(GIGs) in the intercalibration exercise by providing a concise overview of theavailable methods to be considered as potential candidates for common metrics. Thiscan be applied for the harmonised assessment of the water bodies belonging to theintercalibration network. Furthermore, it identifies the need for the development ofnew methods or the further harmonisation and standardisation of existing methodsand proposes a procedure to link WFD relevant groups with Comité Européen deNormalisation (CEN) working group elaborating biological and ecological assessmentmethods.5. The overall objectives of this task are 1) to make an overview and comparison ofthe national biological methods currently in use in EU countries; 2) to evaluate theirapplicability in the assessment of the ecological quality of inland surface waters (lakesand rivers) as required by the WFD; 3) to evaluate their suitability for use as common5
Page 1 and 2: Institute for Environment and Susta
Page 3: CONTENTSBackground and purpose of t
Page 7 and 8: States and candidate countries. Inf
Page 9 and 10: classification, each of these being
Page 11 and 12: BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: PHYTOPL
Page 13 and 14: indicators, species lists, frequenc
Page 15 and 16: 53. The identification and enumerat
Page 17 and 18: 64. In general, this technique is t
Page 19 and 20: RIVER BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: F
Page 21 and 22: 84. The development of specific sta
Page 23 and 24: practice guides for identification
Page 25 and 26: 100. The information received from
Page 27 and 28: Evaluation of the suitability of cu
Page 29 and 30: group should update its primary fin
Page 31 and 32: ReferencesAFNOR (Association Franç
Page 33 and 34: EN ISO 8689-2 Water quality - Biolo
Page 35 and 36: Lazaridou-Dimitriadou, M., C. Kouko
Page 37 and 38: Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver, 1949.
Page 39: Annex I: Composition of the Geograp
Page 43 and 44: Annex III: River biological assessm
Page 45 and 46: Annex IV: Analysis of lake biologic
Page 47 and 48: Number of sampling stations10080%60
Page 49 and 50: IT 90% acetone spectrophotometricPT
Page 51 and 52: 10. The sampling depth and volume s
Page 53 and 54: PTESFIIE5667-2/98 Romanianstandardi
Page 55 and 56:
Sampling stations%1008060402001 2-1
Page 57 and 58:
MACROPHYTES16. The aquatic Macrophy
Page 59 and 60:
Plants sampled per GIG1008060%40Eme
Page 61 and 62:
NO qualitativ method species number
Page 63 and 64:
indicators, species lists, frequenc
Page 65 and 66:
26. The sampling frequency is varia
Page 67:
CEN/TC 230/WG 2/ TG 4 N28, 2 nd wor
Page 70 and 71:
programs are based only on the diat
Page 72 and 73:
21. Some countries like France, Est
Page 74 and 75:
Table 1. European methods for monit
Page 76 and 77:
countries also covers Non-EU Member
Page 78 and 79:
49. The Danish Stream Fauna Index i
Page 80 and 81:
Hungary58. Since 2002 a modificatio
Page 82 and 83:
Acidification Index, based on the s
Page 84 and 85:
Identification is predominantly to
Page 86 and 87:
size of the net range between 250 t
Page 88 and 89:
water bug genus (Aphelocheirus) and
Page 90 and 91:
Table 5. Common abundance classific
Page 92 and 93:
108. Process Assessment focuses on
Page 94 and 95:
Austria120. MuLFA: Ecological Integ
Page 96 and 97:
Sweden126. Swedish fish Index: Appe
Page 98 and 99:
ut comparisons have been made with
Page 100 and 101:
seasons for sampling are summer and
Page 102 and 103:
102
Page 104 and 105:
Consultation open to ECOSTAT &inter
Page 106 and 107:
Table 1. List of European standards
Page 108 and 109:
108
Page 110 and 111:
development of typologySweden Yes,
Page 112 and 113:
one or other option depends on the
Page 114 and 115:
114
Page 116 and 117:
• An integrated holistic evaluati
Page 118 and 119:
• Phytoplankton: Yes; Clorophyll
Page 120 and 121:
• Macroalgae: No• Benthic inver
Page 122 and 123:
• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae:
Page 124:
Mission of the JRCThe mission of th
show all

Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?