1. Water Resource managemtn and Landmark Legislation: The Clean Water Act The Water Framework Directive

2. U1-m4-s2 Aquatic systems  Supply goods and services  Long term degradation  Multiple pressures and impacts  Threaten their stability and quality  A need to better characterise and protect aquatic habitats  Implement effective legislation and management plans  Integrated “holistic” management  The future  Water resources and climate change

3. U1-m4-s3 MAN AND WATER SHARE A LONG AND CLOSE ASSOCIATION

4. U1-m4-s4 Commerce,Industry, Energy production Transport Spiritual and religious importance Rio Ganges, Índia Agriculture - irrigation

5. Os ecossistemas aquáticos atraiam-nós

6. U1-m4-s6 Ecosystems goods and services Direct Services supply., transport, recreation, fisheries Indirect services Flood prevention, recycling of nutrients, genetic resources, maintenance of wetlands “Services - Existence” allow the permanence of habitats, their ecosystems and species

7. Water is the the most threatened natural resource on the planet The sustainable integrated management of water will be one of the most important areas of 21st century world politics

8. U1-m4-s8 Water resource management is EXTREMELY complex  Multiple uses  Multiple demands  Multiple conflicts  Multiple interests  Multiple impacts over multiple spatial scales  Costs!

9. U1-m4-s9 Diffuse pollution, changes in land use, soil loss Urbanisation Industrial and domestic discharge Draining of wetlands

10. U1-m4-s10  Changes in land use  Deforestation  Habitat destruction  Erosion of sediments  Changes in nutrient flux  Destruction of riparian habitats  Channelisation of streams and rivers

11. U1-m4-s11 Artificialisation of surface water bodies  Urbanisation  Longitudinal, lateral and vertical connectivity  Disturbance of water cycle  Decrease in  biodiversity  Ecosystem quality  Sustainable goods and services

12. U1-m4-s12 There are multiple influences that interact to shape the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems Analyses tend to be made from catchment level downwards

13. U1-m4-s13 There are multiple influences that interact to shape the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems and communities organism Habitat Pressures Physical condition or fitness Availability of food Predators Heredity Aquatic organism or community Competition

14. Need for effective, integrated, sustainable aquatic resource management and planning

15. U1-m4-s15 An integrated approach…. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS MAINTAIN ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING SOCIO-ECONOMICS, STAKEHOLDERS, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION AND SERVICES, HABITATS, CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

16. U1-m4-s16 The Clean Water Act (CWA - USA)  1948 - Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  1972 – reorganized and expanded in 1972 - CWA.  Subsequent amendments  245 pages!!!  Basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the US waters and regulating quality standards for surface waters  rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters.  “The objective…………to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

17. U1-m4-s17 Policy of the CWA 1. Discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; 2. Wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983; 3. Discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; 4. Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works; 5. Area wide treatment management planning processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State; 6. A major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone and the oceans; and 7. Programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

18. U1-m4-s18 THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD) What it’s all about……………. briefly

19. U1-m4-s19 Why is the WFD so important?  Legislates to  Promote sustainable water consumption.  Obligate public involvement in the elaboration of River Basin Management Plans  Protect the aquatic environment and associated wetlands:  Establish monitoring programmes  Ecological monitoring  Prevent further deterioration  Protect and enhance status  Maintain “good” ecological status  mitigate the effects of floods and drought. An excellent framework for developing biomonitoring programmes (but the WFD is not perfect)

20. U1-m4-s20 “The WFD is intended to cover all water bodies in Europe, and is therefore a very wide-ranging legislative tool. Although it will contribute to freshwater conservation, it is intended primarily for the management of the water environment. It is therefore appropriate that, in contrast to the Habitats Directive, the needs of people and wildlife are balanced. …The European Environment Agency (2006) encourages the view that economic development and wildlife conservation are compatible. Moreover, wise use of aquatic resources must recognize the important ecosystem goods and services they provide.” HATTON-ELLIS (2008). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Water Framework Directive. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18: 111–116

21. U1-m4-s21 WFD – primary objective  An environmental approach  Basin level management of aquatic resources  River Basin Management Plans  record the current status of water bodies within the river basin district;  Programmes of measures to meet the objectives;  Reporting mechanism to the Commission and the public  Environmental objectives  Achieve "good status" for all waters by 2015  Ecological monitoring, evaluation and classification of surface water bodies  Public participation  An economic perspective  The gradual payment of the real cost of services provided by water  Implement the “Polluter pays” principal

22. U1-m4-s22 WFD  Protect and enhance the quality of  surface freshwater  lakes, streams, rivers, highly modified or artificial water bodies  Ecological status/potential  Chemical status  Groundwaters  Chemical status  Groundwater dependant ecosystems  Estuaries  Coastal waters  one mile from low-water

23. U1-m4-s23 The Water Framework Directive SSustainable management of aquatic resources AA “holistic” approach AA spatial framework instead of an administrative framework. RRiver Basin District nnatural geographical and hydrological unit an analysis of its characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater an economic analysis of water use bbiological elements & support elements AAssess ecosystem status of surface water bodies pprogramme of measures

24. U1-m4-s24 The Water Framework Directive - WFD Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy 23 October 2000 “Water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such.” “Waters in the Community are under increasing pressure from the continuous growth in demand for sufficient quantities of good quality water for all purposes. On 10 November 1995, the European Environment Agency in its report “Environment in the European Union – 1995” presented an updated state of the environment report, confirming the need for action to protect Community waters in qualitative as well as in quantitative terms.”

25. U1-m4-s25

26. U1-m4-s26  Transposed into national law (Portugal)  Lei n.º 58/2005, de 29 de Dezembro  “A lei de água”

27. U1-m4-s27 River Basin Management Planning Process

28. U1-m4-s28 “in preparing its policy on the environment, the Community is to take account of available scientific and technical data, environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community, and the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions as well as the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action.” “WFD reflects strongly the history behind current European freshwater ecological monitoring methods. Dating back to the late nineteenth century, major European countries such as Germany, France, Belgium and Great Britain underwent considerable periods of industrialisation and development, concomitant with substantial environmental degradation, …. Further, major trans-national European rivers such as the Rhine carry wastes of these activities across political boundaries, forcing neighbouring countries to collaborate or at least work in parallel in implementing monitoring programmes and remedial measures..” Hughes SJ and Malmqvist B. (2005) Atlantic Island freshwater ecosystems: challenges and considerations following the EU Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia 544: 289-297. DOI 10.1007/s10750-005-1695-y

29. U1-m4-s29 Article 1 Establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which: a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems; b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources; c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances; d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.

30. U1-m4-s30 Annex II Characterisation WFD Ecoregions for rivers and lakes

31. U1-m4-s31 Annex II Characterisation System A Fixed Typology Descriptors Ecoregion Ecoregion on map A in Annex XI Type Altitude typology high: >800m high: >800m mid altitude: 200 to 800m mid altitude: 200 to 800m lowland:<200m lowland:<200m Size typology based on catchment area small: 10 – 100 km 2 small: 10 – 100 km 2 medium: >100 km 2 to 1000 km 2 medium: >100 km 2 to 1000 km 2 large: >1000 km 2 to 10 000 km 2 large: >1000 km 2 to 10 000 km 2 very large: > 10 000 km 2 very large: > 10 000 km 2 Geology calcareous calcareous siliceous siliceous organic organic

32. U1-m4-s32 System B Alternative Characteristics Physical and chemical factors that determine the characteristics of the river.......and hence the biological population structure and composition Obligatory Altitude Altitude Latitude Latitude Longitude Longitude Geology Geology Size Size Optional Distance from source Distance from source Energy of flow Energy of flow Mean water width Mean water width Mean water depth Mean water depth Mean water slope Mean water slope Form and shape of main river bed Form and shape of main river bed Flow category Flow category Valley shape Valley shape Transport of solids Transport of solids Acid neutralising capacity Acid neutralising capacity Mean substratum composition Mean substratum composition Chloride Chloride Air temperature range Air temperature range Mean air temperature Mean air temperature Precipitation Precipitation Annex II Characterisation

33. U1-m4-s33 System B (WFD, Annex II), morphoclimatic regions* and mineralization classes Combination of obligatory and optional factors http://dqa.inag.pt/dqa2002/port/docs_apoio/doc_nac/Manuais/Caracterizacao_rios.pdf Defining typology for Portugal NSNS Temperature Precipitation Flow Altitude Morphocliamtic regions Geology – mineralizationclasses

34. U1-m4-s34 Portugal continental - 12 tipologias

35. U1-m4-s35

36. U1-m4-s36 River Basin Districts

37. U1-m4-s37 WFD - typologies

38. U1-m4-s38 WFD – determining surface water status  Chemical status  determined by detecting concentrations of a range of pollutants identified as impacting the whole of Europe.  If levels of these pollutants are below the threshold values set, a “good chemical status” has been achieved.  Groundwater is subject to the additional criteria that its conductivity is not impeded, that it is not causing a deterioration of the ecological and chemical quality of surface waters, and that terrestrial ecosystems relying on groundwater are not impaired.  Ecological status  determined by identifying the types of fauna and flora that act as biological quality elements.  Support elements  “good ecological status" - composition of the four quality components of fish, invertebrates, plankton and aquatic plants is only slightly different from reference conditions.  Ecological potential  Artificial or significantly modified bodies of water,  quality goal is “good ecological potential“.  determined by identifying all human influences that could be removed without a significantly negative restriction on the body of water’s usage.

39. U1-m4-s39 Characterising and classifying surface water status  Determine typology  Rivers  Lakes  Transitional waters  Coastal waters  Artificial & heavily modified surface waterbodies  Quality elements for determining Ecological Status or Ecological Potential  Biological Quality Elements (BQE)  Hydromorphological support elements  Physicochemical support elements  5 quality classes  Ecological status  High, Good, Moderate, Poor & Bad  Ecological potential  Maximum, Good, Moderate, Poor & Bad  Chemical status  2 quality classes  Good or Failing to achieve Good

40. U1-m4-s40 Determining Ecological Status/Potential  Sampling Biological Elements  Protocols for collecting  Determine metrics based on measures or  Composition  Abundance  Diversity  Measure or assess support elements  Hidromorphological  PhysicochemicalPhytoplankton Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Macroinvertebrates Fish

41. U1-m4-s41 Quality elements to be used for the assessment of ecological status/potential based on the list in Annex V, 1.1, of the WFD

42. U1-m4-s42 Metrics used in Portugal - rivers Large Rivers? Metrics for macrophytes and fish under development

43. U1-m4-s43 Hydromorphological support elements - rivers

44. U1-m4-s44 Metrics used in Portugal - reservoirs “Zooplankton is crucial! Its omission in WFD lake monitoring is unwise” “As a matter of surprise to lake ecologists all over Europe, zooplankton is not considered a biological quality element in the European Water Framework Directive.” “Combined approaches to set reference conditions are more useful than single ones” “This also imposes unprecedented implications on the continuity of long-term monitoring subject, for instance, to climate change research.” Adapted from Zooplankton as indicators in lakes: a scientific-based plea for including zooplankton in the ecological quality assessment of lakes according to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD); by Erik Jeppesen et al. 2011, Hydrobiologia, DOI 10.1007/s10750-011-0831-0)

45. U1-m4-s45 Quality elements and parameters

46. U1-m4-s46 Determining ecological status Compare results of metrics with Reference Conditions (RC) Determine the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) EQRs have typically been derived from detailed statistical analysis of large ecological datasets. Used to set Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) that establish class boundaries

47. U1-m4-s47 The importance of Reference Conditions

48. U1-m4-s48 Determining ecological status Ecológical Status HighAzul GoodVerde ModerateAmarelo PoorLaranja BadVermelho Compare results of metrics with Reference Conditions (RC) Determine the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) Classify – Ecological Status High, Good, Moderate, Poor & Bad

49. U1-m4-s49 Classification of Surface Water Status One out all out

50. U1-m4-s50 Classification of status using biological elements

51. U1-m4-s51 One out all out

52. U1-m4-s52 Intercalibration

53. U1-m4-s53 Classification of surface water status  Primary constraints  interactions among management objectives,  time lines,  funding,  institutional constraints of participants.  Secondary constraints  survey design (geographic extent, sample size, use of existing data)  logistics (sampling period, sample shipping, information management, crew expertise, field training),  suite of ecological indicators selected (site-scale sampling design, field and laboratory protocols). Hughes RM & DV Peck (2008) Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics and reality. J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27(4): 837-859.

54. U1-m4-s54 Classification of surface water status  What about the gaps?  Spatially explicit Modelling methodology  Stochastic dynamic methodology (StDM)

55. U1-m4-s55 Ecological Potential  Ecological status – natural water bodies  Ecological potential – heavily modified or artificial water bodies  ‘Artificial water bodies’  created by human activity  a reservoir  ‘Heavily modified water bodies’ (HMWB)  a water body resulting from physical alterations by human activity, which substantially changes its hydrogeomorphological character, e.g. a harbour.  Maximum “ecological potential”  No reference conditions

56. U1-m4-s56 Classifiaction of Ecological Potential  EU Member States  Phytoplankton – classification of lakes & reservoirs  Is it wise to monitor ecological quality using a single Biological Quality Element? Classificação do potencial ecológico Código de cores Massas de água artificiais Massas de água fortemente modificadas Bom e superiorRiscas verdes e cinzentas clarasRiscas verdes e cinzentas escuras RazoávelRiscas amarelas e cinzentas clarasRiscas amarelas e cinzentas escuras MedíocreRiscas laranja e cinzentas claras daRiscas laranja e cinzentas escuras MauRiscas vermelhas e cinzentas clarasRiscas vermelhas e cinzentas escuras Table

57. U1-m4-s57 At least “Good” status for all types of water bodies by 2015

58. U1-m4-s58 WFD River Basin Management Planning

59. U1-m4-s59 Monitoring – classification - planning

60. U1-m4-s60 River Basin Managment Plans (RBMP)  River Basin District  Geographically - not politically defined management unit  Planning and management instrument  Basis for management support  Programme of measures  meet WFD environmental objectives  Protection & enhancement of environmental, social and economic factors  6 yearly cycle  Public Participation ORDENAMENTO

61. U1-m4-s61 Monitorização das Águas Interiores do Norte de Portugal  DQA  Planos de Gestão das Regiões Hidrográficas (PGRH)  Rios  171 locais de amostragem  6 tipologias  Albufeiras  15 locais de amostragem  2 tipologias

62. U1-m4-s62 River Basin Management Planning

63. U1-m4-s63 THE WFD IN DETAIL

64. U1-m4-s64 Excerpts from the WFD “It is necessary to develop an integrated Community policy on water.” “On 29 May 1995 the Commission adopted a communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the wise use and conservation of wetlands, which recognised the important functions they perform for the protection of water resources.” “Community policy on the environment is to contribute to pursuit of the objectives of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, in prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, ……..preventive action should be taken, environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay”

65. U1-m4-s65 “close cooperation and coherent action at Community, Member State and local level as well as on information, consultation and involvement of the public, including users.” “Further integration of protection and sustainable management of water into other Community policy areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and tourism is necessary.” “An effective and coherent water policy must take account of the vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems located near the coast and estuaries or in gulfs or relatively closed seas, as their equilibrium is strongly influenced by the quality of inland waters flowing into them.”

66. U1-m4-s66 “This Directive aims at maintaining and improving the aquatic environment in the Community. This purpose is primarily concerned with the quality of the waters concerned. Control of quantity is an ancillary element in securing good water quality and therefore measures on quantity…” “…quantitative status of a body of groundwater may have an impact on the ecological quality of surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems associated with that groundwater body.”

67. U1-m4-s67 “….Directive is to contribute to the progressive reduction of emissions of hazardous substances to water…” “Common principles are needed in order to coordinate Member States' efforts to improve the protection of Community waters …… to promote sustainable water use, to contribute to the control of transboundary water problems…..to protect aquatic ecosystems, and terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on them, ……………to safeguard and develop the potential uses of Community waters.” “Environmental objectives ……………..to ensure that good status of surface water and groundwater is achieved throughout the Community and that deterioration in the status of waters is prevented at Community level.”

68. U1-m4-s68 Member States should aim to achieve the objective of at least good water status by defining and implementing the necessary measures within integrated programmes of measures, taking into account existing Community requirements. In aiming to achieve the objectives set out in this Directive, and in establishing a programme of measures to that end, Member States may phase implementation of the programme of measures in order to spread the costs of implementation         

69. U1-m4-s69 “analyses of the characteristics of a river basin and the impacts of human activity as well as an economic analysis of water use. The development in water status should be monitored by Member States on a systematic and comparable basis …”

70. U1-m4-s70 “Undertake analyses of the characteristics of a river basin and the impacts of human activity as well as an economic analysis of water use. The development in water status should be monitored by Member States on a systematic and comparable basis throughout the Community.”

71. Setting up a Monitoring Programme Using the WFD as a guideline to developing biomonitoring programmes

72. U1-m4-s72 WHY DO WE NEED BIOMONITORING?

73. U1-m4-s73 Reasons for Monitoring Surface Waters  Monitoring information is needed for:  Classification of status of all water bodies or groups of water bodies.  To support risk assessment procedures.  Design of future monitoring programmes.  Assessment of long-term changes whose causes are both natural and anthropogenic.  Assessment of compliance with standards and objectives.  Estimation of pollution load transfers across international boundaries or into seas.  Assessing the efficacy of measures applied to water bodies designated as at risk.  Ascertaining formerly unidentified reasons for failure to achieve environmental objectives.  Assessing the impact of accidental pollution.  Use in inter-calibration exercises

74. U1-m4-s74 The WFD – provides an excellent framework  Which biological, physical and chemical parameters should be measured  How deviations from reference condition should be defined and enumerated  design of monitoring programmes  presentation of results  timetables for completion of different tasks  Recognises the importance of  Ecological factors  Hydrology  River continuity  Morphological conditions

75. U1-m4-s75 The WFD - an excellent general framework for Ecological Status classification and biomonitoring criteria and programme development  Development of typologically appropriate monitoring and assessment methods.  Ecological Status classification  Integration of different types of information on water bodies  Biological Quality Elements  Chemical  Physicochemical Quality Elements  Hydromorphological Quality Elements.

76. U1-m4-s76 The seven habits of highly effective monitoring programmes 1. Design the program around clear and compelling scientific questions.  Questions are crucial because they determine the variables measured, spatial extent of sampling, intensity and duration of the measurements, and, ultimately, the usefulness of the data. 2. Include review, feedback, and adaptation in the design.  The guiding questions may change over time, and the measurements should be designed to accommodate such changes.  “Are our questions still relevant and are the data still providing an answer?”  Capacity to adapt to changing questions and incorporate changing technology without losing the continuity of its core measurements. 3. Choose measurements carefully and with the future in mind.  Not every variable can be monitored.  Selected core measurements should be important as either basic measures of system function, indicators of change, or variables of particular human interest.  Monitoring change in a statistical population, measurements should be carefully chosen to provide a statistically representative sample of that population.  Measurements should be as inexpensive as possible because the cost of the program may determine its long- term sustainability. Lovett et al: Who needs environmental monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(5): 253–260

77. U1-m4-s77 The seven habits of highly effective monitoring programmes 4. Maintain quality and consistency of the data.  The best way to ensure that data will not be used is to compromise quality or to change measurement methods or collection sites repeatedly.  The confidence of future users of the data will depend entirely on the quality assurance program implemented at the outset.  Sample collections and measurements should be rigorous, repeatable, well documented, and employ accepted methods.  Methods should be changed only with great caution, and any changes should be recorded and accompanied by an extended period in which both the new and the old methods are used in parallel, to establish comparability. 5. Plan for long-term data accessibility and sample archiving.  Metadata should provide all the relevant details of collection, analysis, and data reduction. Raw data should be stored in an accessible form to allow new summaries or analyses if necessary. Raw data, metadata, and descriptions of procedures should be stored in multiple locations.  Data collected with public funding should be made available promptly to the public.  Policies of confidentiality, data ownership, and data hold-back times should be established at the outset. Archiving of soils, sediments, plant and animal material, and water and air samples provides an invaluable opportunity for re-analysis of these samples in the future. Lovett et al: Who needs environmental monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(5): 253–260

78. U1-m4-s78 The seven habits of highly effective monitoring programmes 6. Continually examine, interpret, and present the monitoring data.  The best way to catch errors or notice trends is for scientists and other concerned individuals to use the data rigorously and often.  Commit resources to managing data and evaluating, interpreting, and publishing results. These are crucial components of successful monitoring programs, but planning for them often receives low priority compared to actual data collection. 7. Include monitoring within an integrated research program.  An integrated program may include modeling, experimentation, and cross-site comparisons. This multi-faceted approach is the best way to ensure that the data are useful and, indeed, are used. Lovett et al: Who needs environmental monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(5): 253–260

79. U1-m4-s79 Annex II - Characterisation of surface water body types  SURFACE WATERS  Typology  Ecoregion  Fixed or alternative characterisation of surface water bodies Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Artificial or highly modified  Reference Conditions  Pressures and Impacts

80. U1-m4-s80 Establishing Typology - Annex II  Ecoregion  Fixed or alternative characterisation of surface water bodies

81. U1-m4-s81 Rivers

82. U1-m4-s82 Rivers

83. U1-m4-s83 Lakes

84. U1-m4-s84 Lakes

85. U1-m4-s85 Defining Reference conditions - Annex II  Defining Reference conditions US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

86. U1-m4-s86 Annex II - Identifying pressures and assessment of impact

87. U1-m4-s87 Annex V  Quality elements for the classification of ecological status  Normative definitions of ecological status classifications  Monitoring of ecological status and chemical status for surface waters  Classification and presentation of ecological status

88. U1-m4-s88 BQE – types of metrics that can be used.

89. U1-m4-s89 Bioassessment of Portuguese reservoirs using chironomid pupal exuviae

90. U1-m4-s90 THE WFD ISN’T PERFECT….

91. U1-m4-s91 DEFINING TYPOLOGY….

92. U1-m4-s92 Outdated Ecoregions WFD Ecoregions for rivers and lakes The outline made by J. Illies (1978) in Limnofauna Europaea (G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart) has been used as a basis for the WFD Ecoregions.

93. U1-m4-s93 LIMITED USE OF BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENTS FOR LENTIC SURFACE WATER BODIES

94. U1-m4-s94 Metrics used in Portugal - reservoirs “Zooplankton is crucial! Its omission in WFD lake monitoring is unwise” “As a matter of surprise to lake ecologists all over Europe, zooplankton is not considered a biological quality element in the European Water Framework Directive.” “Combined approaches to set reference conditions are more useful than single ones” “This also imposes unprecedented implications on the continuity of long-term monitoring subject, for instance, to climate change research.” Adapted from Zooplankton as indicators in lakes: a scientific-based plea for including zooplankton in the ecological quality assessment of lakes according to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD); by Erik Jeppesen et al. 2011, Hydrobiologia, DOI 10.1007/s10750-011-0831-0)

95. U1-m4-s95 ARE EQR’S EFFECTIVE AS MEASURES OF ECOLOGICAL QUALITY?

96. U1-m4-s96 What are the EQR’s really measuring?  EQRs have typically been derived from detailed statistical analysis of large ecological datasets,  used to set Environmental Quality Standards that establish class boundaries.  Are European environmental standards being erected on the basis of statistical distributions or ecological impacts?  Are the patterns real? HATTON-ELLIS (2008). The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Water Framework Directive. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18: 111–116

97. U1-m4-s97 CLIMATE CHANGE…..

98. U1-m4-s98 MEDITERRANEAN REGION: Reduced water availability, increased drought, severe biodiversity loss, increase in forest fires, reduced suitable cropping areas, increased summer energy demand, reduced hydropower Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-4.html Simulations based on a doubling in atmospheric CO 2 predict a 1.7– 7 ºC increase in air temperature by 2100 (IPCC, 2007).

99. U1-m4-s99 Future climate in Portugal  Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations  Clear upward trend  Significant warming in 21 st century  Temperature increase of 4-7ºC by 2100  Tipping point – 2200?

100. U1-m4-s100

101. U1-m4-s101 Widely accepted climate change scenarios (Europe)  More frequent droughts in summer, as well as flash-flooding,  uncontrolled discharges from urban areas to receiving water courses and estuaries.  Invasion by alien species  migration of species within the UK adapting to changing temperatures and flow regimes.  Lower flows, reduced velocities  higher water residence times in rivers and lakes  Enhance potential for toxic algal blooms and reduce dissolved oxygen levels.  Upland streams  increased dissolved organic carbon and colour levels, requiring action at water treatment plants to prevent toxic by-products entering public water supplies.  Storms that terminate drought periods will flush nutrients from urban and rural areas or generate acid pulses in acidified upland catchments.  Policy responses to climate change, such as the growth of bio-fuels or emission controls, will further impact freshwater quality. Whitehead et al (2009). A review of the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 54(1)

102. U1-m4-s102 Rivers & streams Function Decomposition, photosynthesis autochthonous & allochthonous input Function Decomposition, photosynthesis autochthonous & allochthonous input Reduced ecosystem services Changes in vegetation Riparian gallery structure and complexity Presence/expansion of exotics & Invasive species Changes in vegetation Riparian gallery structure and complexity Presence/expansion of exotics & Invasive species Biological elements Taxonomic and trait shifts Growth rates/metabolism Survival/ Extinction Microbial activity Biological elements Taxonomic and trait shifts Growth rates/metabolism Survival/ Extinction Microbial activity Flow Connectivity Recruitment Habitat heterogeneity Hydromorphology Sediment transport Flow Connectivity Recruitment Habitat heterogeneity Hydromorphology Sediment transport Physicochemical alterations Temperature DO Dilution of pollutants Physicochemical alterations Temperature DO Dilution of pollutants Shifts in biodiversity and ecosystem resilience

103. U1-m4-s103 Climate change and reference conditions

104. U1-m4-s104 Guidance document No. 24 “RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT IN A CHANGING CLIMATE” “Apart from exceptional circumstances, it is not expected that, within the timeframe of WFD implementation (i.e. up to 2027) and within the metrics used for status assessment, a climate change signal will be statistically distinguishable from the effects of other human pressures at a level requiring reclassification of sites.” Modelling…………….

105. U1-m4-s105