SoE Guidance – Biological reporting sheets

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Event, date: Reporting of SoE biology, Author: Jannicke Moe (NIVA) 1 Agenda item 2: Practical information for reporting of State-of-Environment.
Advertisements

Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund Estimation of uncertainty in status class assessment for Wel waterbodies Jannicke.
Invertebrate Standards in Rivers Paul Logan. Existing CEN standards relating to the ecological assessment of freshwaters - TG1 - invertebrates Quality.
PROJECT :EVK PROGRAMME:EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY:EESD WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE.
Anne Lyche Solheim, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway Workshop on ”In situ trialing for ecological and chemical studies in support of.
1 Drafting group on State of the Environment and Trends under WG D on Reporting 4 th meeting, 1 September 2006 EEA Copenhagen.
Anne Lyche Solheim (NIVA/JRC) – team leader for ETC Water Joint NRC Freshwater and SoE drafting group meeting EEA Copenhagen – 3 rd October 2007 SoE Guidance.
Presented by Sandra Poikane EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Biological indicators of lakes and rivers and the Intercalibration.
WG 2A ECOSTAT 4-5 MARCH 2004 Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods Progress Report Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso Joint Research Centre.
WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods Status Report AC Cardoso and A Solimini Harmonisation Task Team: JRC.
Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators in rivers and lakes Anne Lyche Solheim and Jannicke Moe, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre.
CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERS AND LAKES
1 Joint Drafting Group on State of the Environment and Eionet Workshop 13/14 November 2006 EEA Copenhagen.
EFFECT OF AGGREGATION METHODS ON ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Paul Latour Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management CIS WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
11 juni 2007 Ecological classification in the Netherlands1 Diederik van der Molen Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management CIS workshop.
Northern GIG Intercalibration of lake macrophytes Seppo Hellsten, Nigel Willby, Geoff Phillips, Frauke Ecke, Marit Mjelde, Deirdre Tierney.
Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment in Lapland1 Classification and monitoring of the surface waters of Finland National.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
Corina Carpentier AquaLife Workshop, Kiel, Germany 2nd June 2010
Agenda item 5: Discussion of next steps
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
NE ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP (NEA GIG)
Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods
Intercalibration Results 2006
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
Results of the metadata analysis Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) March 4-5 , 2004, Ispra, Italy Peeter Nõges Anna-Stiina.
CW-TW Intercalibration results
Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre on Water
ALPINE RIVER GIG Update: Macroinvertebrates Phytobenthos.
Progress on Intercalibration COAST GIGs
GEP vs. GES.
RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG
Summary of the activities of the Central/Baltic River GIG
EU Water Framework Directive
Lakes - Central GIG progress report July 2004
Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress
EEA - EMMA Workshop November 20-21, 2006 EEA, Copenhagen
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
One-out-all-out and other indicators
Intercalibration : a “WFD compliant” boundary comparing procedure
The normal balance of ingredients
REFCOND Workshop Uppsala, May 2001
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT State of play in the intercalibration exercise Water Directors Meeting, November 2005.
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
EEA State of Environment WISE Maps and Graphs, examples
Workshop on WFD Article 8 reporting tools and WISE GIS
Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, team-leader for freshwater in ETC/W
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
ECOSTAT, JRC April 2007 MEDiterranean RIVers GIG Report
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
ECOSTAT, Stresa, Italy, October 2005
Typology and classification of coastal waters in Estonia
WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002
EU Water Framework Directive
3rd meeting, 8 March 2006 EEA Copenhagen
Streamlining of monitoring and reporting under WFD, Nitrates Directive and EEA's SoE –concept paper DG Environment.
Conservation Guidance Concept Form
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso
Working Group D Reporting, Brussels 31 March – 1 April 2008
WG A ECOSTAT Draft Mandate
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
EU Water Framework Directive
Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
Relationships for Broad & Intercalibration Types Geoff Phillips
Deriving river TP standards from lake standards
Presentation transcript:

SoE Guidance – Biological reporting sheets Sheet 5: Benthic invertebrates in rivers Sheet 6: Phytoplankton in lakes Sheet 7: Macrophytes in lakes

Status for intercalibration of classification systems New sheet? Red circles: Missing elements in rivers: Macrophytes and fish Missing elements in lakes: Macroinvertebrates, phytobenthos and fish Sheet 5 Sheet 6 Sheet 7

General characteristics: Why biological data and how will data be used? Develop a European picture of ecological status of water bodies and identify potential problem areas at the European level WFD-requirements (Annex V) Added value for other directives (Habitat) Well suited to monitor progress in reaching good ecological status in an overall European perspective How will reported data be used? Time-series of common metrics and derived national indices aggregated at country level and at water body type level within a country Proportion of water bodies within each country with increases, decreases or no changes over time of the common metric or derived national indices Summaries of classification results at the national level

General characteristics (to be reported only once): Information on sites and class boundaries Unique site code and link to associated physico-chemical site, if not the same site for biological data – see SOER sheet ”Geographic information” Reference conditions (reference value) for the common metric or derived national metrics for each site or for the type to which the site belongs Methodological explanation of the metric reported If national metrics are used, the conversion factor or correlation equation (including r2) between the national metric and the common metric is requested Values of national class boundaries for the metric reported (absolute values and EQR): H/G, G/M, M/P, P/B Type data for water body (size, depth, altitude, alkalinity, water colour) – see SOER sheet STA_CHA_PRE for details Proxy pressure information – see SOER sheet STA_CHA_PRE for details

General characteristics: When and What data should be reported? Annually, if metric measured every year In the year the data become available (every 2 years, 3 years or 6 years) What data should be reported? For each site and date of sampling: Date of sampling Value of common metric or correlated national metric National classification result (EQR) For the first reporting of the metric: Time-series of the metric (to be reported only once, but can be re-submitted if errors are found and corrected by the country)

What metrics should be reported? Element / Reporting sheet code Metrics / determinands Benthic invertebrates in rivers / BIO_INV_RV Integrated common metric (ICMi) or national metric intercalibrated against ICM Phytoplankton in lakes / BIO_PHY_LK Chlorophyll a, Total phytoplankton biomass % Cyanobacteria (bluegreens) Macrophytes in lakes / BIO_AQU_LK Macrophyte depth limit

Specific characteristics: Benthic invertebrates in rivers ICMi (Integrated Common Metric used for intercalibration) (STAR-project) or national metrics based on sensitive and tolerant taxa, abundance and species diversity ICMi explanation and soft-ware: Explanation: Buffagni et al. 2006. Hydrobiologia 566: 357-364 + 379-399 Software: Buffagni, A. and C. Belfiore (2006). ICMeasy 1.0. Intercalibration Common Metrics and Index Easy calculation. CNR-IRSA and UniTuscia-DECOS, Rome, Italy, August 2006. Buffagni A. & C. Belfiore 2007. ICMeasy 1.2: A Software for the Intercalibration Common Metrics and Index easy calculation. User guide. Notiziario dei Metodi Analitici, CNR-IRSA Marzo 2007(1): (in press). Conversion factor or correlation equation including r2 for the relationship between the ICMi and the national metric should be reported

Specific characteristics Phytoplankton in lakes (1) Chlorophyll a in mg/L, extraction method should be given (aceton, methanol, ethanol), refer to CEN standard Total biomass in mg/L or mm3/m3 (CEN standard under development) Cyanobacteria (bluegreens) biomass or % of total biomass: Only genera increasing with eutrophication should be included (Microcystis, Anabaena, Planktothrix etc., full list of relevant taxa will be included in annex to reporting sheet) Future revisions: Common metrics or national metrics intercalibrated against the common metric

Specific characteristics Phytoplankton in lakes (2) Aggregation of data before reporting: Temporal aggregation: annual and summer (June-Sept) average values Spatial aggregation: Integrated values for euphotic zone of the lake water body (euphotic zone ~secchi depth x 2.5) and/or surface sample (1 m depth) Additional data requested: Depth of euphotic zone (m) Mean depth of thermocline during summer stratification (only in stratified lakes) (m) Number of samples used to calculate the annual or summer average values Median and standard deviation of values of determinands

Specific characteristics: Macrophytes in lakes Macrophyte depth limit (m), i.e. maximum depth where macrophytes are observed Number of monitoring sites / sub-sites used to calculate the depth limit Detailed description of macrophyte survey method (refer to CEN standard currently under development) Future revisions: Common metrics or national metrics intercalibrated against the common metric The earlier proposed determinand: macrophyte coverage have been taken out because this determinand does not respond to pressure in any uniform way (unimodal response curve for eutrophication, multiple stable states in shallow lakes, high macrophyte cover is beneficial to birds and wild-life, so potential conflict between WFD and Habitat Dir)

More biological elements? Benthic algae in rivers (diatoms) can be added as a new reporting sheet, since this element is currently intercalibrated in most GIGs; common metrics have been developed and national metrics have been tested against this common metric Other elements must wait untill further development and intercalibration of classification systems