Typology and Intercalibration Typology System Need for a single typological framework ? In general yes, but impossible with regard to time scale Use of system A ? no Use of System B ? Which version ? Most MS have abiotic typology (obligatory factors as minimum)) Important: range of size, altitude, latitude etc WRc suggestion is supported as approach (grouping of MS)

Typology and Intercalibration Selection of Types How many types and sites should be included ? as much as possible; sites are recommended covering high to moderate status, not focus on the border

Typology and Intercalibration Selection of Types Considerations to select types all ecoregions should be covered WRc proposal is suggested in principle all important pressures should be covered all biological elements should be included in principle data of current monitoring programmes should be used for selection

Typology and Intercalibration Selection of Types Suggestions for possible types WRc draft proposal is recommended in principle as good starting point for further discussion (14 types for rivers) STAR project are also very helpful

HMWB and Intercalibration Legal Requirements (1) HMWB - what is the reference ? => II 1.3 ii: MEP is the reference as defined in Annex V, table 1.2.5 HMWB in context with types => V 1.2.5: Comparison with closest comparable surface water water type defines MEP HMWB in context with categories => V 1.1.5: Quality elements applicable to hmwb shall be those applicable to the 4 natural surface water categories

HMWB and Intercalibration Legal Requirements (2) HMWB in context with intercalibration V 1.4.1 i: In applying the procedure set out below to hmwb, references to ecological status should be constructed as references to ecological potential What is the procedure ? [a] EQRs have to be used (ii) [b] Classification has to be done (iii) [c] Boundaries for classification: high/good and good/moderate (iii) [d] Monitoring system shall be applied to those sites which are both in the ecoregion and of a surface water body type (vi)

HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (1) 1. Example: Wide shallow river changed to a lake (caused by weir) category has been changed type has been changed (i.e. shallow lake) MEP = at HES or below 2. Example: Wide shallow river changed to a wide shallow river with dykes (i.e. without oxbow lakes) category and type have not been changed GES can not be met by mitigation measures MEP = at GES or below

HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (2) 3. Example: Wide shallow river changed to a narrow deep river category has not been changed type has been changed MEP = at HES or below

HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (3) Consequences The categories and types of natural water bodies and hmw bodies are in general identical Biological assessment methods are identical Intercalibration of natural waters covers the aspects of hmwb - chosen boundaries are valid for hmwb MEP is normally below HES, but deviation GES and GEP is identical Sometimes hmwb intercalibration could be useful, if hmwb is the dominating water body within a type

HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (3) Consequences Examples of artificial and hmw bodies that could be included

HMWB and Intercalibration Provisionally Identification until 2004 Problems