1. CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting 27 + 28.10.2003 in Brussels
Guidance Document on
Ecological Classification Presentation of the Results of the 2nd Working Group Meeting October in Ispra/I
UK/D WGL CIS 2A
SCG Meeting in Brussels

2. Purpose of the Guidance
The purpose is to provide guidance on how the Directive’s ecological classification schemes should work. For this purpose
==> all biological, hydromorphological, physico chemical and chemical elements must be taken into account
==> all water categories (rivers, lakes etc) have to be considered not only for natural but also for artificial and heavily modified water bodies
The overall guidance paper is based mainly on REFCOND, COAST, HMWB and MONITORING guidance documents !

3. Development of the Guidance
A 1st draft was produced by D/UK lead countries on the basis of the outcome of a drafting group meeting held on 3rd June 2003 in Brussels
A 2nd draft based on the outcome of the 1st ECOSTAT Working Group meeting on 1st July 2003 in Brussels
A 3rd draft based on the outcome of a drafting group meeting on 10th – 11th September in Brussels
A 4th draft recommended for SCG was prepared during the 2nd ECOSTAT Working Group meeting on 15th – 17th October 2003 in Ispra

4. What are the main Issues ?
The overall approach has to clarify:
The Roles of the Quality Elements in the Ecological Classification (Stepwise Approach)
The Roles of the General Physico-chemical Quality Elements in the Ecological Classification of Good and Moderate Status/Potential
The Roles of Parameters indicative for Quality Elements
The Achievement of adequate Confidence and Precision

5. Quality Elements
and Parameters

6. Tables Annex V Sections 1.1 and 1.2
Groups of
Quality Elements
Examples of
indicative Parameters
General physico-chemical elements
Oxygenation conditions
COD, BOD, DO
Non-priority specific pollutants
Copper discharged in significant quantities
Copper in water, biota or sediment
Hydromorphological
elements
Hydrological regime
Quantity, dynamics
Biological
elements
Composition & abundance
of benthic invertebrate fauna
Composition, abundance

7. Biological Quality Elements and Parameters
Biological Quality Parameters
Elements
Aquatic flora* composition & abundance
Phytoplankton composition, abundance & blooms
Benthic invertebrates composition, abundance, sensitive taxa & diversity
Fish composition, abundance, sensitive taxa & age structure
* Macrophytes & phytobenthos

8. Status classification Results for the element phytobenthos
Results for individual parameters of the element phytobenthos that have a general sensitivity to a range of pressures
Element Level
Parameter Level
Status classification
Results for the element phytobenthos
Combine parameters (e.g. by averaging)
Result for water body
One-out, all-out
Relationship between
Biological Quality Elements
and Indicator Parameters
and their Use
in Classification Decisions
Results for individual parameters (metrics) of the element macroinvertebrates, grouped according to the pressure to which they are sensitive
Acidification
Changes to hydrology
Organic enrichment
Results for each group of macroinvertebrate parameters responsive to a different type of pressure
Combine parameters (e.g. by averaging)
Result for the element macroinvertebrates
One-out, all-out if signals from groups are strong enough

9. the Ecological Classification
Stepwise Approach for
the Ecological Classification

10. Classify as high status
Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements meet reference conditions?
Yes
Do the physico-chemical conditions meet high status?
Do the hydro-morphological conditions meet high status?
Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements deviate only slightly from reference condition values?
Yes
Classify as good status
Do the physico-chemical conditions (a) ensure ecosystem functioning and (b) meet the EQSs for specific pollutants? No
Classify as moderate status
Classify on the basis of the biological deviation from reference conditions
Is the deviation moderate?
Yes No
Relative roles of biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements in ecological status classification
Classify as poor status
Is the deviation major?
Yes
Greater
Classify as bad status
Greater

11. Do the hydromorphological conditions meet MEP?
Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements meet MEP?
MEP is met, classify as good and above potential
Yes
Yes
Do the physico-chemical conditions meet MEP?
Yes No No No
Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements deviate only slightly from MEP?
Do the physico-chemical conditions (a) ensure ecosystem functioning and (b) meet the EQSs for specific pollutants?
Classify as good and above potential
Yes
Yes No No
Classify on the basis of the biological deviation from MEP
Yes
Is the deviation moderate?
Classify as moderate potential
Classify as poor potential
Is the deviation major?
Yes
Greater
Relative roles of biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical quality elements in ecological potential classification
Classify as bad potential
Greater

12. Checking Procedure

13. What can dictate the status class of a water body?
High Status
Good status
Moderate Status
Poor Status
Bad Status
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Physico-chemistry
Physico-chemistry
Hydro-morphology

14. Physico-chemical quality elements
Specific pollutants
(e.g. metals)
General physico-chemical quality elements (e.g. nutrients)
Not in excess of the standards set in accordance with the procedure detailed in section 1.2.6
Do not exceed the levels or ranges established to ensure the functioning of the ecosystem and the achievement of the good status values for the biological quality elements

15. General Physico-chemical Quality Elements
Type-specific ranges and levels have to be established by MS
The ranges and levels must be taken into account when assigning water bodies to the high and good ecological status class and the maximum and good ecological potential class

16. Concern
Limits set for the general physico-chemical quality elements could result in classification as moderate status even where no biological impacts

17. Working Group’s Proposed Solution
Use a checking procedure to test whether the limits set for a type are either:
(a) MORE STRINGENT than required; or
(b) INSUFFICIENTLY STRINGENT
to protect the biology

18. Checking Procedure if the
Level or Range has been
Exceeded but the Biology
is Good or Better

19. Checking Procedure 2 if the Level or Range has not been Exceeded but the Biology is Worse than Good

20. Review the level or range, and revise, if appropriate
Learning process
Is there evidence of a mismatch between the monitoring results for biology and physico-chemistry
Yes
Is this because the biological methods are not sufficiently sensitive? No
Review the level or range, and revise, if appropriate

21. Mismatches
Refinement of levels or ranges for physico-chemical quality elements
Improvements in biological methods
Time
e.g. delay in biological response

22. Summary of how
the Middle Box works

23. Confidence and Precision

24. high
good
100
mod
100% probability
class is GOOD
poor
bad

25. Every estimate made from monitoring will have some error

26. Range of
uncertainty

27. 100 % sure status is good
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad

28. 100 % sure status is worse than good
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad

29. High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad