Rivers Intercalibration Phase 2 Key Cross-GIG activities 2008-2011  Refining Reference Conditions  Intercalibrating Large River Ecological Status  Initial.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bioassessment and biomonitoring: some general principles.
Advertisements

Invertebrate Standards in Rivers Paul Logan. Existing CEN standards relating to the ecological assessment of freshwaters - TG1 - invertebrates Quality.
Anne Lyche Solheim, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway Workshop on ”In situ trialing for ecological and chemical studies in support of.
Mats Wallin Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Environmental Assessment Catarina Johansson Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Development.
The Biological Condition Gradient and Tiered Aquatic Life Uses: With Applications in the State of Maine United States Environmental Protection Agency Tiered.
ECOSTAT meeting – Ispra (IT), July of 14 CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration.
Intercalibration Guidance: update Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Presented by Sandra Poikane EC Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Biological indicators of lakes and rivers and the Intercalibration.
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
1 Intercalibration in the Eastern Continental Region 1 Dr. Ursula Schmedtje International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies Workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies Brussels, 25/26 September 2003 Birgit Vogel Austrian.
Lakes Intercalibration Results - July 2006 Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Finnish Environment Institute Seppo Rekolainen REBECCA News in March 2005.
Böhmer, J. Birk, S., Schöll, F. Intercalibration of large river assessment methods.
ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 River GIGs: Future intercalibration needs/plans Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Working Group A ECOSTAT Intercalibration Progress Coast GIGs JRC, Ispra, Italy, March 2005 Dave Jowett, Environment Agency (England and Wales), Coast.
Framework for the intercalibration process  Must be simple  Aiming to identify and resolve big inconsistencies with the normative definitions and big.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration CB GIG River Macroinvertebrates Final Report ECOSTAT June 2011 Isabel Pardo Roger Owen.
Intercalibration Option 3 results: what is acceptable and what is not ? Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Comparability of the results of the intercalibration exercise – MS sharing the same method Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 2 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) – 3+4 July 2006, Stresa (IT) Eastern Continental GIG Draft final report on the results of.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
FI: Ansa Pilke and Liisa Lepisto, Finnish Environment Institute NO: Dag Rosland, Norwegian National Pollution Control Authority Anne Lyche Solheim, Norwegian.
Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment in Lapland1 Classification and monitoring of the surface waters of Finland National.
Effective Experimental Design (Quantitative)
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
Alan Hildrew Martin Pusch Klement Tockner
GEP vs. GES.
River GIGs: Future intercalibration needs/plans Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
RIVER GIG reports to ECOSTAT Central Baltic Rivers GIG
SoE Guidance – Biological reporting sheets
Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
Intercalibration of Opportunistic Algae Blooms
Intercalibration : a “WFD compliant” boundary comparing procedure
The normal balance of ingredients
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
WFD – CIS Working group A ECOSTAT
Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW
ECOSTAT, JRC April 2007 MEDiterranean RIVers GIG Report
confidence in classification
Rivers X-GIG phytobenthos intercalibration
WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
River groups with extension
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
WG A ECOSTAT Intercalibration guidance : Annexes III, V, VI
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, 22 Febraury 2006 Progress Report.
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
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.
Intercalibration round 2: finalisation and open technical issues – RIVERS ECOSTAT October 2012.
Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
Defining Reference Conditions Setting Class Boundaries
Working Group on Reference Conditions
Multiple Pressures nutrient boundary setting
Guidance on establishing nutrient concentrations to support good ecological status Introduction and overview Martyn Kelly.
Joint REFCOND and Intercalibration Meeting
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

Rivers Intercalibration Phase 2 Key Cross-GIG activities  Refining Reference Conditions  Intercalibrating Large River Ecological Status  Initial scoping meeting Lyon May 2008 Roger Owen Jean-Gabriel Wasson John Murray-Bligh

Reference conditions We need to:  Stabilise the concepts  Harmonise the criteria (QE, GIGs)  Quantify the thresholds : search for "no effect" thresholds  Produce a common procedure Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Reference conditions : the present situation  Mix of quantitative criteria and "qualitative" evaluation  Mix of:  Driving forces (land cover),  Pressures (dams, effluents)  Stressors (chemical parameters)  Is the relationship maintained in different human and natural contexts ?  Reference Thresholds based on expert judgement  What underlying concepts ? Data ?  Same criteria for all QE ? all types ? Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Pressure - response relationship The relationship between the driving forces and the biological response is dependent upon the natural and human context Driving forces (Agricultural land cover) Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

FRANCE Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

NORWAY Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Pressures - responses relationships In this case, a very low biological impact can be observed with a medium level of pressures. Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Consequences for reference criteria (1)  The relationship between agricultural land cover and biological impact is highly dependent of the structure of the landscape  The relationship is poorly predictive, and cannot be easily extrapolated  Can be used as a first "filter" to select "candidate" REF sites  The relationship with artificial/urban land cover is much more reliable (REBECCA results).  Can be a valid reference criterion Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Consequences for reference criteria (2)  A very low level of pressures corresponds always to a very low biological impact : valid reference criteria.  The reverse is not always true : a very low biological impact can be encountered also with a medium level of pressures  We should not reject all the sites with a low to medium level of pressures  The validation must be done at the "stressors" level (i.e. abiotic parameters)  This supports the GIG's practical approach based on "reference" and "rejection" threshold  This could apply also to the Urban land- cover indicator Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Consequences for reference criteria (3)  The relationships between the "stressors" (i.e. abiotic parameters) and the biology is NOT dependent upon the human context.  Can we find the threshold corresponding to the beginning of the biological impact : "no-impact threshold“?  But it can vary according to the natural typology. Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

No-impact threshold : myth or reality ? ? What happens here ? Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

No-impact threshold : is there a conceptual model ? About 100 experts.. Allan, Barbour, Cormier, Gerritsen, Hawkins, Hughues, Karr, Larsen, Mc Cormick, Mc Intyre, Rankin, Wang, Yoder… About 100 experts.. Allan, Barbour, Cormier, Gerritsen, Hawkins, Hughues, Karr, Larsen, Mc Cormick, Mc Intyre, Rankin, Wang, Yoder… Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Biological Condition Increasing Effect of Disturbance [Stressor gradient] LowHigh 1 Native or natural condition 2 Minimal loss of species; some density changes may occur 3 Some replacement of sensitive-rare species; functions fully maintained 4 Some sensitive species maintained; altered distributions; functions largely maintained 5 6 Tolerant species show increasing dominance; sensitive species are rare; functions altered Severe alteration of structure and function Natural Degraded Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

No impact threshold ICMi vs BOD5 All CB types, France Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Large rivers - Main issues  Deep rivers in scope (non-wadeable)?  Reference values  Almost no large rivers exist in reference condition (>5000 Km 2 ?)  IC typology limited to rivers <10,000 Km 2 and reference values probably not applicable  Sampling methods  Shallow water sampling methods are inappropriate for deep waters (non- wading depth)  Survey/sampling costs could be high Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Defining reference values  Consider heavily modified and natural rivers  Check reference screening criteria for large rivers  Investigate alternative approaches for defining reference values/EQRs:  Option: Define the G/M boundary based on physico-chemistry and hydromorphology then biological community Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Large Rivers Typology  Can we define realistic reference values for EQRs (new typology?)  IC Phase 1: Some MS included deep rivers in intercalibration of RC-5 (large lowland rivers on mixed geology, km 2 ).  Are reference values for shallow water samples appropriate for deep water methods for any BQE? Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Loss of sinuosity (from historical reference) Coût écologique Sinuosité H/G Boundary Reference From Wasson et al Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Sampling  Sampling large rivers can be expensive  Consider use of other information to supplement biological data  e.g. measure of lateral freedom space in river types that should have multiple channels Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Sampling  Investigate sampling methods for deep and large rivers  Identify the biological communities that best reflect the ecological quality of large rivers  Fish (already done in Fish IC?)  Invertebrates  Phytobenthos & diatoms  Others: (eg.Riparian vegetation?) Intercalibration Phase : Rivers

Proposed working strategy  River Steering Group provides a unified approach across all GIGs and biological quality elements (also communicate with lakes GIGs)  Intercalibration of large rivers will be undertaken by existing BQE groups of experts working across GIGs  First step are 2 papers with outline proposals (Nov 08); also a questionnaire to collect information about existing data and methods for all BQEs from all river GIGs – (ready now)  All river GIG meeting to agree detailed work programme Spring 2009