PROJECT :EVK PROGRAMME:EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY:EESD WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

STAndardisation of River Classifications: Framework method for calibrating different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to be developed for the Water Framework Directive WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

THE “WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE” (WFD ) The Water Framework Directive requires that: Each member State shall divide the ecological quality ratio scale for their monitoring system for each surface water category into five classes ranging from high ecological status by assigning a numerical value to each of the boundaries between the classes.* * Annex 5 Section Paragraph (iii)

TAXONOMIC GROUPS TO BE USED MACRO-INVERTEBRATES DIATOMS MACROPHYTES FISH RIVER CORRIDORS

STAR COUNTRIES SWEDEN DENMARK AUSTRIA GERMANY (X2) HOLLAND GREECE FRANCE ITALY PORTUGAL UK CZECH REPUBLIC CEN NAS COUNTRIES

GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF STAR  Inter-calibration of European methodologies  Improved quality control throughout Europe  Better quantification of errors in Europe  Integration of multi-source ecological data  Complementarity and redundancy of data sources  Cost effective monitoring

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 2) Which methods can be used on which spatial scale? 1) Which methods/organism groups best indicate impacts which stressors? 3) Which methods/organisms are best suited for early and late warnings? 4) How are different assessment methods affected by errors? 5) How can 'signal' be distinguished from 'noise'? 6) How can data from different assessment methods be compared/standardised? 7) What elements of assessments should be, and what must, be standardised? 8) What assessment protocols are most cost-effective 9) How can information from different taxonomic groups and habitat surveys be inter-calibrated into a unified assessment of Ecological Status?

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 2) Which methods can be used on which spatial scale? 1) Which methods/organism groups best indicate impacts which stressors? 3) Which methods/organisms are best suited for early and late warnings? 4) How are different assessment methods affected by errors? 5) How can 'signal' be distinguished from 'noise'? 6) How can data from different assessment methods be compared/standardised? 7) What elements of assessments should be, and what must, be standardised? 8) What assessment protocols are most cost-effective 9) How can information from different taxonomic groups and habitat surveys be inter-calibrated into a unified assessment of Ecological Status?

THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

1Co-ordination 2Project homepage 3Review 4Acquisition of existing data 5Selecting sampling sites 6Sampling workshops 7Sampling core stream types 1 and 2 8Sampling additional stream types 9Audit of performance 10Project database 11Linking invertebrate methods 12Linking organism groups 13Linkage of databases 14Recommendations for standardisation 15Decision support system THE FIFTEEN WORK-PACKAGES

The Water Framework Directive (1.4.1) requires compatibility of biological monitoring results. Member States and the European Commission shall: (iv) Facilitate intercalibration (v) Identify sites in each eco-region to form an inter- calibration network (vi) Monitor the network and use the results to set class boundaries for their monitoring systems (vii) Prepare (within four years) a register of sites in the intercalibration network (viii) Complete the intercalibration exercise within another 18 months (ix) With the European Commission, publish the results of the intercalibration exercise within another six months INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS (1)

The STAR Project will assist the inter-calibration exercise in the following respects; Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the standard protocol established in FP5 Project AQEM Sampling workshops to compare faunal lists obtained and errors associated with six national sampling protocols Audit of performance and analysis of sample variation associated with selected national protocols The establishment of error models associated with the allocation of sites to classes of ecological status in a range of Member States INTER-CALIBRATION OF SAMPLING METHODS (2)

THE STREAM TYPES Core stream type 1 Small, shallow, upland streams Core stream type 2 Medium-sized, lowland streams Additional stream types Specific new stream types, characteristic of the individual member States

THE STREAM TYPES Core stream type 1 Small, shallow, upland streams Core stream type 2 Medium-sized, lowland streams Additional stream types Specific new stream types, characteristic of the individual member States

THE STRESS TYPES Reference sites – no significant stresses Three categories of stress Organic Toxic (including acidification) Habitat degradation Four categories of Ecological Status

THE STRESS TYPES Reference sites – no significant stresses Three categories of stress Organic Toxic (including acidification) Habitat degradation Four categories of Ecological Status

CORE SITE SAMPLING MACRO-INVERTEBRATES Eighty-eight sampling sites Two national protocols per site Two seasons’ samples (spring & autumn) Three hundred and eighty four samples

ADDITIONAL SITE SAMPLING MACRO-INVERTEBRATES Nine stream types Two national protocols at most sites Two seasons’ samples (spring & autumn) Three hundred and thirty four samples Ninety-four sampling sites

Comparisons of selected national sampling protocols with the AQEM protocol AQEM RIVPACS GB IBGN FRANCE Photo: Cécile Ardouin, WWF-France IBE ITALY NORDIC SWEDEN EBEOSWA HOLLAND

OTHER SAMPLE AND SURVEY TYPES Phytobenthos:150 summer samples Fish:150 summer samples RHS (or similar) :150 summer surveys Macrophytes:150 summer surveys

PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITY Day 1 Arrival Day 2 Meeting Day 3 River Habitat Training Day 4 River Habitat Training Day 5 Diatom/Invertebrate training Day 6 Replicate sampling Day 7 Replicate samplng Day 8 Departure Sampling workshops

TRAINERS River Corridor:Marc Naura (EA) Hugh Dawson (CEH) DiatomsMartyn Kelly (Bowburn Cons.) PARTICIPANTS All partners Individuals under-taking sampling/survey Sampling workshops

TWO WORKSHOPS METZ – FRANCE (SPRING 2001)8 SITES DORSET – ENGLAND(AUTUMN 2001)7 SITE Sampling workshops FIFTEEN SAMPLING SITES SIX METHODS AQEM RIVPACS NORDIC IBGN IBE EBEOSWA FOUR METHODS PER SITE THREE REPLICATE SAMPLES PER METHOD PER SITE 180 SAMPLES

Sampling variation Audit of performance (1) Measurement errors Sorting bias Identification errors

RIVPACS III+ uncertainty simulation model comparing two samples Sample 1 O/E = 0.94 (X) Sample 2 O/E = 0.75 (X) Difference = Two-sided p = Error models

The key question to be addressed is: LINKING OF DATABASES How can information derived from different taxonomic groups and habitat surveys be inter- calibrated in order to provide an integrated assessment of the Ecological Status of rivers? NO A PRIORI CONCLUSIONS AT THIS STAGE

Decision Support System To provide practical guidance to managers on the application of monitoring programmes necessary to meet the terms and objectives of the Water Framework Directive Operational outputs CEN Standard To advise the CEN on the drafting of a European Standard for the collection, analysis, integration, inter-calibration and interpretation of multi-source ecological data for assessing the Ecological Status of streams and rivers

2) Data-bases 1) Data reviews 3) Operational models 4) Decision support system 5) A standard European protocol for multi-source assessment of the Ecological Status of streams and rivers 6) Conferences 7) Reports 8) Scientific publications STAR OUTPUTS

STAR OUTPUTS 2) Data-bases 1) Data reviews 3) Operational models 4) Decision support system 5) A standard European protocol for multi-source assessment of the Ecological Status of streams and rivers 6) Conferences 7) Reports 8) Scientific publications STAR OUTPUTS

OPPORTUNITIES FOR NAS PARTNERS TRAIT ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT OF VARIATION IN THE COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF ECOLOGICAL DATA EXTENSION OF TOXIC STREAM STUDIES EARLY DETECTION OF STRESS INCLUSION OF PHYTOPLANKTON SAMPLING