WS Training Materials, Feb 2012, Activiti 3 2, Shkodra, I part ... - RENA

The European Union’s Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) 

Regional Environmental Network 

for Accession 

(RENA) 

MONITORING OF ECOLOGICAL 

STATUS, INTERCALIBRATION AND 

COORDINATION OF CRITERIA FOR 

GOOD STATUS OF WATER BODIES 

3.2 – Water Management 

Shkodra, Albania 

(28 February – 1 March 2012) 

This project is funded by 

the European Union 

A project implemented by a 

Consortium led by Hulla & Co. 

Human Dynamics KG

RENA Working Group 3: Cross-Border Cooperation and Multilateral Agreements 

Sub-group 3.2: Water Management 

FOURTH TRAINING OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SUB-GROUP 

MONITORING OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS, INTERCALIBRATION AND 

COORDINATION OF CRITERIA FOR GOOD STATUS OF WATER BODIES 

28 February – 1 March 2012, Shkodra, Albania 

Background 

The activity on Water Management is one of the 19 RENA activities and one of the four activities under WG3. All 

activities under WG3 are related to and focus on cross-border cooperation. 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which encompasses cross-border co-operation in itself, is a piece of 

legislation acting as a framework for the organisation of training. The capacity building programme is constructed 

in such a way that all major steps related to the preparation of a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) in 

accordance with the WFD are covered. It is foreseen that during the period 2011 and 2012 the training will 

include six two/three-days workshops, each related to the separate steps of the RBMP preparation. Three pilot 

sites have been selected for training: the Drin river basin, the Drina river sub-basin and Neretva river basin. 

Article 8 of the Directive establishes the requirements for the monitoring of surface water status, groundwater 

status and protected areas. Monitoring programmes are required to establish a coherent and comprehensive 

overview of water status within each river basin district. The development of ecological assessment and 

classification systems is one of the most important and technically challenging parts of the implementation of the 

WFD. Having established the criteria for the classification of water bodies it is essential to establish an integrated 

monitoring programme that embraces the physical, chemical and biological data needed to assess the status of 

surface and groundwater bodies in each river basin district. The essence of intercalibration is to ensure that the 

high-good and the good-moderate boundaries in all Member States’ assessment methods for biological quality 

elements correspond to comparable levels of ecosystem alteration. 

The above-mentioned elements of the WFD are the focus of this training. 

Objectives of the Workshop: 

Wider Objective: Create a forum of officials from the candidate and potential candidate countries to exchange 

experience on issues of transboundary relevance, including transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU 

legislation on water quality and management. 

Specific Objective: Strengthen knowledge and cooperation on the WFD related monitoring role, requirements for 

the design and implementation of monitoring programmes for surface and groundwater; intercalibration and 

coordination of criteria for good status of water bodies.. 

Expected Results of the Workshop 

• Improved capacity of the ministries and related institutions for the WFD related monitoring, intercalibration 

and coordination of criteria for good status of water bodies. 

• Experience of the monitoring, good status classification and intercalibration related issues in MS and 

Western Balkan countries and Turkey exchanged. 

This project is funded by the European Union 

1

Agenda 

DAY 1: 28 February 2012 (Tuesday) 

Topic: Monitoring programmes under the WFD 

Chair: Daiva Semėnienė 

Venue: Grand Hotel Europa, 2nd of April Square, Shkodra, ALBANIA 

Start Finish Topic Speaker Sub topic/Content 

09:00 09:30 Registration, coffee 

09:30 10:00 Welcome. Introduction. 

Objectives of the workshop 

10:00 11:00 Elements and challenges of 

proper monitoring. Types of the 

WFD monitoring 

11:00 11:30 Coffee break 

11:30 12: 30 Parameters and quality elements 

of the WFD monitoring 

12:30 13:30 Lunch 

Antoine Avignon, the EU Delegation 

to Albania 

Skender Hasa and Engjellushe Cali, 

Ministry of Environment, Forestry and 

Water Administration, Albania 

Daiva Semėnienė, Key Expert, RENA 

Stephan von Keitz, RENA water expert 

Simonas Valatka, RENA water expert 

Stephan von Keitz, RENA water expert 

Simonas Valatka, RENA water expert 

• Short overview of WFD requirements on monitoring 

• Surveillance, operational, investigative monitoring 

• Surface water and groundwater monitoring 

• Quality elements used for surveillance monitoring, 

• Biological quality elements used for monitoring 

significant pressures, 

• Monitoring of priority substances and certain other 

pollutants in water, 

• Monitoring of sediment and/or biota etc. 

13:30 15:00 Work in four groups All participants guided by key experts • Participants are divided in four groups to work on the 

practical exercises, related to the WFD monitoring in: 

o Albania 

o Bosnia and Herzegovina 

o Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244/99) 

o Montenegro 


2


15:30 17:00 Work in four groups All participants guided by key experts • Participants are divided in four groups to work on the 

practical exercises, related to the WFD monitoring in 

o Croatia 

o fYR of Macedonia 

o Serbia 

o Turkey 

19:00 Dinner 

DAY 2: 29 February 2012 (Wednesday) 


09:00 11:00 Plenary session 

Discussion of results 

Topic : Classification of ecological status and the intercalibration process 



11:30 12:40 The ecological status and 

ecological potential in the WFD 

Questions 

12:40 13:40 Lunch 

13:40 15:00 Intercalibration of assessment 

methods 

Questions 

15:00 15:30 Coffee Break 

All participants, RENA water experts • Groups present their results on each eight countries in 

plenary session 

Stephan von Keitz, RENA water expert • How to derive the ecological status and potential 

• The role of the general physico-chemical quality 

elements in the ecological classification of good and 

moderate status/potential 

• Stepwise approach for the ecological classification 

• Presentation of monitoring results and mapping of the 

ecological status and ecological potential 

Simonas Valatka, RENA water expert • Assessment of water status in the WFD 

• The intercalibration exercise 

• The intercalibration register of sites 

• Organisation of the work 

• Results of the intercalibration exercise 


3

Topic : Lessons learned from experiences from Germany, Lithuania and Croatia 


15:30 16:00 Experience of monitoring and Stephan von Keitz, RENA water expert • Overview of German monitoring and classification 

classification of ecological status in 

of ecological status systems 

Germany 

16:00 16:30 Experience of monitoring and 

classification of ecological status in 

Lithuania 

16:30 18:00 Site visit to Shkodra lake 

19:00 Dinner 

• Lessons learned, outlook 

Daiva Semėnienė, RENA key expert • Overview of Lithuanian monitoring and 

classification of ecological status systems 

• Lessons learned, outlook 

DAY 3, morning: 1 March 2012 (Thursday) 

Topic : Lessons learned from experiences from Germany, Lithuania and Croatia 



09:00 10:00 Draft River Basin Management Danko Biondić, Croatian Waters • Steps after the Twinning Project 

Plan of Croatia 

10:00 10:15 Public participation in the RBMP 

preparation 

10:15 11:20 Overview of Croatian Monitoring 

and Classification of Ecological 

Status Systems 


11:45 12:00 Information on Shkodra lake 

quality status 

12:00 12:30 Discussion. Finalisation of the training 

12:30 13:30 Lunch 

Dunja Barisić, Ministry of Regional 

Development, Forestry and Water 

Management 

• Lessons learned 

• Brief information on public participation during the 

RBMPs preparation process in Croatia 


Dagmar Šurmanović, Croatian Waters • Steps after the Twinning Project 


Dr. Anila Neziri, University of Shkodra, 

faculty of Natural Sciences, Department 

of Biochemistry 

• Brief information on Shkodra lake status and main 

pressures after the site visit 


4

RENA, 28 February – 1 March 2012 Shkodra, Albania 

DAY 1 

MONITORING OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS, 

INTERCALIBRATION AND COORDINATION OF CRITERIA 

FOR GOOD STATUS OF WATER BODIES 

Regional Environmental Network for Accession 

Regional Training under Working Group 3.2 – Water Management

RENA Water Management sub-group 

MONITORING OF ECOLOGICAL 

STATUS, INTERCALIBRATION AND 

COORDINATION OF CRITERIA FOR 

GOOD STATUS OF WATER BODIES 

Shkodra, 28 February – 1 March 2012 

This Project is funded by the European Union 

Project implemented by Human Dynamics 

Consortium 

Four RENA Working Groups: 

Strategic 

Planning 

and 

Investments 

. 

Climate 

Change 

Crossborder 

Cooperation 

and 

Multilateral 

Agreements 

Implementa 

tion and 

Enforcemen 

t 



Consortium 

WG 3 - Cross-border Cooperation and 

Multilateral Environmental Agreements: 

1. Nature Protection 

2. Water Management 

3. Environmental Impact Assessment / Strategic 

Environmental Assessment (EIA/SEA) 

4. Multilateral Environmental Agreements – gap 

assessment 



Consortium 

1

Capacity building programme is based on: 

Accession - 

WFD 

requirements 

Water 

management 

sub-group 

plan 

Cross-border 

activities 

Capacity 

building 

activities 



Consortium 

Implementation of capacity building programme. 

Pilot sites 

Drin river basin 

Drina river sub-basin 

Neretva river basin 



Consortium 

Planned trainings 

1. Basic measures: the role of the WFD. No pilot 8-10 March 2011, 

case needed Istanbul 

2. River Basin District characterisation. Drin river 

basin 

26-27 September 2011, 

Podgorica 

3. Heavily modified water bodies and new 

modifications. 

4. Monitoring of ecological status, 

intercalibration and coordination of criteria 

for good status of water bodies. 

5. Development of the Programme of Measures 

and measures related to Article 9. 

6. WFD derogations and public participation, as 

well as stakeholder involvement. 


Drina river 

sub-basin 

Drin river 

basin 

Drina river 

sub-basin 

Neretva 

river basin 

29 Nov – 1 Dec 2011, 

Belgrade 

28 February – 1 March 

2012 

21-23 May 2012, 

Podgorica 

17-19 October 2012, 

Mostar or Zagreb 


Consortium 

2

Objectives of today’s workshop: 

• Strengthen knowledge and cooperation on the 

WFD related monitoring role; 

requirements for the design and implementation of 

monitoring programmes for surface and 

groundwaters; 

intercalibration and coordination of criteria for 

good status of water bodies. 

• Improve capacity in the ministries and related 

institutions on the above issues. 

• Exchange experiences on the above issues in the EU 

MS and Western Balkan countries and Turkey. 



Consortium 

Source of pictures: AQUAMONEY 

(copyright protected) 



Consortium 

8 

Water Framework Directive implementation 

EU member states: 

Transposit 

ion 

RBD 

characteri 

sation 

Monitoring 

program 

Program of 

measures, 

RBMP 

Good 

status 

achieved 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 

Administr 

ative 

structure 

Schedule for 

preparation 

of PoM 

Presentation 

of problems 

to public 

Implementa 

tion of the 

PoM 

9 



Consortium 

3

AGENDA for today (28 February 2012 

09:30 – 10:00 Welcome, introduction, objectives of the workshop 

10:00 – 11:00 Elements and challenges of proper monitoring. Types of the WFD 

monitoring. 

11:00 –11:30 Coffee 

11:30 – 12:30 Parametersand quality elements of the WFD monitoring 

12:30 –13:30 Lunch 

13:30 – 15:00 Work in groups. Practical exercise on the monitoring systems in 

Albania, BiH, Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244/99) and Montenegro 

15:00 –15:30 Coffee 

15:30 – 17:00 Work in groups. Practical exercise on the monitoring systems in 

Croatia, fYR of Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey 



Consortium 

Thank you! 

And good luck! 



Consortium 





Elements and challenges of proper 

monitoring. Types of the WFD 

monitoring 

Dr. Simonas Valatka, Lithuania 

Dr. Stephan von Keitz, Germany 



Consortium 

4

Idea of the WFD-Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Quality less than good 

Measures 

Good Status 



Consortium 

Why monitor 



Consortium 

Different kind of water problems 

Damage of aquatic organism 

Endangering of drinking water supply 

Food health because of polluted fish 

Disposal of polluted sediments 

Objective of monitoring: 

Knowledge of problems in every water body 



Consortium 

5



Consortium 


Step 1: Typology 

• Ecoregion 

• Catchment size 

• Geology, Morphology 


Consortium 

Step 2: Delineation of Water Bodies 

• Change in case of new category (river / lake / transitional water) 

• Change of type (Geology/ altitute etc.) 

• significant pressure 

necessary for 

• risk assessment and 

• design of operational monitoring 



Consortium 

6

Step 3: 

Pressure and impact analysis 

Estimation of achieving good ecological status 

Likely Good ecological and chemical status in 2012 

achieved; 

surveillance monitoring 

unclear 

Not likely 

Estimation of the ecological and/or chemical status 

not possible due to lack of data; 

operative monitoring 

Good status can most probable not be achieved till 

2012; 

operative monitoring 



Consortium 

Pressure and impact analysis: 

Physico-chemical substances (German approach) 

Component 

Temperature (max) 

oxigen 

chloride 

Threshold 

> 21,5 °C (trout-region) 

> 28 °C (barbe-region) 

< 5 mg/l 

> 200 mg/l 

pH < 5 und > 9 

ammonium (90-Perzentil) 

Total nitrogen (90-Perzentil) 

total phosphorus (90-Perzentil) 

> 0,6 mg/l 

> 11,3 mg/l 

> 0,3 mg/l 

Wastewater from UWWTP 

> 10 % (MNQ) 



Consortium 

Pressure and impact anaysis: 

Hydromorphological assessment 

Poor conditions 

good conditions 



Consortium 

7

Results of pressure and impact analysis, Germany 



Consortium 

Results of pressure and impact analysis, EU-wide 

■ = 'at risk', ■ = 'insufficient data', ■ = 'not at risk‘ 

On average 30% of surface water bodies in EU have been identified as 

being not at risk of failing to achieve the environmental objectives by 2015. 


Consortium 


Selection of monitoring quality elements 

biological quality elements: 

− macrozoobenthos 

− macrophytes & phytobenthos 

− phytoplankton 

− fish ecological 

basic physico-chemical 

status 

quality elements 

hydromorphological quality 

supportive 

elements 

hazardous substances 

priority substances 


chemical 

status 


Consortium 

8

Results Monitoring surface waters Germany 



Consortium 

Monitoring under WFD 

Shift from chemical parameters (concentrations) to 

ecological status (biological quality elements) 

Monitoring is a cross-cutting activity within the WFD 

Important interrelationships with other Articles and 

Annexes of the Directive: 

− 

− 

− 

Analysis of pressures and impacts 

Classification of the status of water bodies 

Programme of measures 



Consortium 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env /wfd/libraryl=/framework_directive/guidance_docu 

ments 



Consortium 

9

Monitoring 

Monitoring results shall be used for: 

− water body status assessment; 

− development of programme of measures 

− assessment of effectiveness of programme of 

measures 

Surface water status: 

− ecological status assessment = biological QE + 

hydromorphological QE + physico- chemical QE 

− chemical status assessment = specific pollutants 



Consortium 

General considerations 

Monitoring shall provide a coherent and 

comprehensive overview of water status within 

each RBD and must permit the classification of all 

water bodies; 

Not all the quality elements (for surface waters) and 

chemical parameters (for groundwater) have to be 

monitored every year at every station; 



Consortium 

General considerations 

Monitoring stations are not needed in each water body 

- ensure that enough individual water bodies of each 

water body type are monitored 

it is necessary to group ‘similar’ water bodies and to 

select appropriate representative sites for the 

determination of ecological status: 

− similar hydrological,geomorphological, 

geographical or trophic conditions 

− similar catchment impacts or land-uses 



Consortium 

10

WFD monitoring framework 

ARTICLE 8 

• surface w ater monitoring 

(ecological and chemical status, and ecological potential) 

• groundw ater monitoring (quantitative and chemical status) 

• protected areas (specifications in related legislation: drinking w ater, 

habitats, zones of species protection) 

ANNEX V.1 – SURFACE WATER STATUS 

• quality elements for the classification of the ecological status 

• normative definitions of the ecological status classifications 

• monitoring of ecological and chemical status 

classification and presentation 

ANNEX V.2 – GROUNDWATER STATUS 

• quantitative status 

• monitoring of quantitative status 

• chemical status and groundw ater chemical monitoring 

classification and presentation 



Consortium 

Use of monitoring information (SW1) 

The classification of statusof all water bodies; 

Supplementing and validating the Annex II risk 

assessment procedure; 

The assessment of long-term changes in natural 

conditions; 

The assessment of long-term changes resulting 

from widespread anthropogenic activity; 

The efficient and effective design of future 

monitoring programmes; 



Consortium 


Estimating pollutants loads transferred across 

internationalboundaries or discharging intoseas; 

Assessing changes in status of those bodies 

identified as being at risk in response to the 

application of measures for improvement or 

prevention of deterioration; 

Ascertaining causes of water bodies failing to 

achieve environmental objectives where the reason 

for failure has notbeenidentified; 



Consortium 

11


Ascertaining the magnitude and impacts of 

accidental pollution; 

Use in the intercalibrationexercise; 

Assessing compliance with the standards and 

objectivesof ProtectedAreas; 

Quantifying reference conditions for surface water 

bodies. 



Consortium 



Consortium 

WFD monitoring types 

Surveillance monitoring– all parameters 

− trends and overview 

− includes monitoring at reference sites 

Operational monitoring – specific parameters 

− pressures and risks 

Investigative monitoring 

− cause and solutions (where reasons are unknown) 



Consortium 

12

Surveillance monitoring objectives 

supplementing and validating the impact 

assessment procedure detailed in WFD Annex II; 

the assessment of long-term changes in natural 

conditions 

the assessment of long-term changes resulting from 

widespread anthropogenic activity; 

the efficient and effective design of future 

monitoring programmes. 



Consortium 

Example from Ireland 



Consortium 

Operational monitoring objectives 

establish the status of those bodies identified as 

being at risk of failing to meet their environmental 

objectives(water bodies at risk) 

assess any changes in the status of water bodies at 

risk resulting from the programmes of measures. 



Consortium 

13

Example from Ireland 



Consortium 

Investigative monitoring objectives 

where the reason for any exceedances is 

unknown; 

where surveillance monitoring indicates that the 

objectives set under Article 4 for a body of water 

are not likely to be achieved and operational 

monitoring has not already been established 

to ascertain the magnitude and impacts of 

accidental pollution 



Consortium 


Shall provide information for: 

− establishment of a programme of measures for the 

achievement of the environmental objectives and 

− Develop specific measures necessary to remedy the 

effects of accidental pollution. 

Screening and risk assessment methods: 

− to assist in development of focused POMs and 

− pinpoint pollution sources to enable more accurate 

positioning primary monitoring sites for the definition of 

status. 



Consortium 

14


Targeted purposes 

Applied research 

Specially designed programs 

Typically more intensive spatially and temporally 



Consortium 

Groundwater monitoring 

Closely linked to WFD Annex II analysis: initial 

characterisation and further characterisation 



Consortium 



Consortium 

15

GW surveillance monitoring 

supplement and validate the assessments of risks 

of failing to achieve: 

− good groundwater status; 

− any relevant Protected Area objectives; 

− the trend reversal objective 

contribute to the assessment of significant longterm 

trends resulting from changes in natural 

conditions and anthropogenic activity. 



Consortium 

GW operational monitoring 

Provides monitoring data needed: 

− to classify bodies at risk as either poor or ‘good’ 

status 

− to establish the presence of significant upward 

trends in pollutants 

Operational monitoring programmes must be designed on the 

basis of the characterisation and risk assessment as refined by 

the data from the surveillance monitoring programmes. 



Consortium 



Consortium 

16

Use of monitoring information (GW1) 

Assessment of quantitative status of all 

groundwater bodies or groupsof bodies; 

Estimating the direction and rate of flow in 

groundwater bodies that cross Member States 

boundaries; 

Supplementing and validating the impact 

assessment procedure; 



Consortium 

Use of monitoring information (GW2) 

Use in the assessment of long term trends (changes 

in natural conditions and through anthropogenic 

activity); 

Establishing the chemical status of all groundwater 

bodiesor groupsof bodiesdetermined tobe at risk; 

Establishing the presence of significant and 

sustained upwards trends in the concentrations of 

pollutants; 

Assessing the reversal of such trends in the 


concentrationof pollutants in groundwater. 

Consortium 


WFD monitoring in EU 

Surface waters ~57,000 stations : 

~26,000 surveillance 

~ 41,000 operational 

Groundwaters ~51,000 stations: 

~ 31,000 surveillance 

~ 20,000 operational 

~30,000 groundwater 

level monitoring 



Consortium 

17

WFD monitoring in EU 

Monitoring stations per surface water category: 

− Rivers 75% 

− Lakes 13% 

− Coastal waters 10% 

− Transitional waters 2% 



Consortium 

Number of monitoring stations 

Number of stations per country: 

− UK 12,807 stations; 

− Italy 8,311 stations 

− Germany 6,688 stations 

Density of stations per 1,000 km2: 

− UK 52 stations 

− Ireland 44 stations 

− Sweden 5 stations 



Consortium 


Use of models 

Comprehensive models require big amounts of 

good quality data (scrap in – scrap out); 

Models can assist in designing programmes of 

measures: 

− source appointment (urban discharges of diffused 

agricultural pollution); 

− change in concentration of nutrients in rivers due 

improved waste water treatment; 

Modelling cannot replace monitoring of biological 



Consortium 

18

Dec. 2000 

Dec. 2003 

Dec. 2004 

Dec. 2006 

Dec 2008 

Dec. 2009 

Dec. 2012 

Dec. 2015 

Dec 2021 

Dec 2027 

Implementation timetable WFD 

Entry into force 

National legislation 

Status and Risk assessment 

Plans for monitoring 

Draft management plan, public consultation started 

Programme of measures and river basin 

management plans 

programme of measures implemented 

„good status“ 

Second management cycle 

Third management cycle 



Consortium 

WFD monitoring challenges 



Consortium 


Challenges 

Shift in concept 

Resistance to new roles and methods 

Acceptance of roles and responsibilities 

Reporting requirements and structures 

Difficulty agreeing on criteria & thresholds 

Establishing “status”classification criteria 

Aggressive schedule 

Resources (human and technical) 

……. 


Consortium 

19





Parameters and quality elements of the 






Consortium 

Selection of monitoring quality elements 

biological quality elements: 

− macrozoobenthos 

− macrophytes & phytobenthos 

− phytoplankton 

− fish ecological 

basic physico-chemical 

status 


hydromorphological quality 

supportive 

elements 

hazardous substances 

priority substances 


chemical 

status 


Consortium 

Monitoring parameters 

SURFACE WATERS – QUALITY CRITERIA 

• biological (plankton, macrophytes, benthos, fishes) 

• hydromorphological (hydrology, morphology) 

• physico-chemical (nutrients, salinity, pH, oxygen balance, pollutants) 

•specific pollutants 

GROUNDWATER – QUALITY CRITERIA 

• quantitative status (groundw ater levels) 

• chemical status (conductivity, pollutant concentrations) 

• interactions w ith associated aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems 

(community standards and threshold values established by Member States) 



Consortium 

20

Guidance on monitoring 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env /wfd/libraryl=/framework_directive/guidance_documents 



Consortium 

Quality elements (QE) Rivers 



Consortium 

Biological QE 



Consortium 

21



Consortium 

Macroinvertebrates 

Measured parameters: composition, abundance, 

diversity, and presence of sensitive taxa. 

Mainly developed to detect organic pollution or 

acidity, can be modified to detect full range of 

impacts. 

This QE is best developed in EU and it is 

recommended as one of the key elements for 

monitoring 



Consortium 


Main advantages: 

− Currently most common 

biological indicator used for 

ecological classification 

− Existing classification 

systems in place 

− Possibility of adapting 

existing systems to 

incorporate requirements of 

WFD. 

− Less variable than 

physicochemical elements 


Main disadvantages: 

− Methods require adaptation 

to meet WFD requirements 

− Require specialist expertise 

to identify to species 

− High substrate-related 

spatial variability and high 

temporal variability 

− Time consuming and 

expensive 

− Less useful in deep rivers 

(difficult to sample) 


Consortium 

22



Consortium 

Fish QE 

Measured parameters: composition and 

abundance, sensitive species diversity, age structure 

Can be used to detect habitat and morphological 

changes, acidification and eutrophication 

It is recommended as one of the key elements for 

monitoring for habitat andmorphological changes. 

Further work required for assessing the impact of 

pollution on fish populations. 



Consortium 

Main advantages: 

− Existing river classification 

systems in place 

− Possibility of adapting 

existing classification 

systems to incorporate 

requirements of WFD 

− indicators of accidental 

pollution 

Fish QE 

Main disadvantages: 

− Requires specialist 

sampling equipment 

− High mobility 

− Horizontal and vertical 

distribution patterns 

(differs between species) 



Consortium 

23

Macrophytes, 

phytoplankton and 

phytobenthos 



Consortium 

Macrophytes 

Mainly used to detect eutrophication, river 

dynamics including hydropower effects 

Not commonly used in EU 

Lack of information for comparison to reference 

Under certain hydrologicalconditions this QE is not 

suitable 

In good conditions it can give a robust assessment 

Easy to sample and identify 



Consortium 

Macrophytes 

most relevant for assessing the impacts of: 

− eutrophication in small to medium-sized rivers 

− high flows and flow variation associated with 

hydropower effects and of stream maintenance 

not widely used in large, deep river systems or in more 

shallow rivers subject to wide flow variations (e.g. 

impacted by melting snow) 

can absent in streams in dense forested areas. 



Consortium 

24

Phytobenthos 

Mainly used as an indicator of productivity. Can be 

used to detect eutrophication, acidification, river 

dynamics. 

Lack in information for comparison to reference 

Difficult to sample in deep rivers 

High substrate related spatial variability 

High seasonal variation 

Requires specialist expertise for species identification 



Consortium 

Phytoplankton 

Not routinely used in river quality assessment in EU 

Not generally present in fast flowing rivers 

High variability requires frequent sampling 

Difficult to establish dose /response relationships 

due to flow-related variability 

Only recommended for large, slow flowing rivers 



Consortium 

Hydromorphological QE 



Consortium 

25


Quantity and dynamics of water flow 

− Historical flows, modelled flows, real-time flow, current 

velocity 

− Simple to monitor using in-situ flow gauging stations in 

small rivers. Greater effort required for large rivers 

− Key supporting parameter for interpretation 

Connection to groundwater bodies: 

− 

− 

Measurement of groundwater height (boreholes) and river 

flow 

Only relevant under certain conditions when groundwater 

plays a major role in water balance. Can not be commonly 

used. 



Consortium 

River continuity: 


− Survey to determine location and type of structures and 

abstraction sites/volumes, provision for fish passage 

− Very relevant for some species. One extensive survey is 

sufficient (once in 5-6 years) 

River depth and width variation: 

− River cross section, flow 

− Used to detect impact on biota from changing flows and 

habitat availability 

− Not applicable for all rivers e.g. rivers with high natural 

variation. 

− Sampling can be simple using observation and measurement 



Consortium 


Structure and substrate of the river bed: 

− Cross section, particle size 

− Determines impact on biota from changing habitat 

availability 

− Essential for interpreting the biological quality 

elements and possibility of sediment accumulation 

Structure of the riparianzone: 

− Length, width, species present, continuity, ground 

cover 

− Applicability depends on the shape, size etc. of the 

riparian zone. 



Consortium 

26

Key physico-chemical indicators 

Thermal conditions – responds to inflows, water 

releases, industrial discharges; 

Oxygenation conditions - reflects organic pollution, 

industrial discharges.O2 changes due to respiration; 

Salinity - reflects agricultural runoff, industrial 

discharges; 

Nutrients (TP, TN, NO3 + NO2, NH4) high applicability 

in rivers 

Acidification status (pH, alcalinity) low applicability in 

rivers 



Consortium 

QE Lakes 



Consortium 

Key biological indicators in lakes 

Phytoplankton diversity, abundance and biomass 

− Chlorophyll-a concentrations as indicator of biomass 

Litoral vegetation 

− function as sieve for inorganic nutrients and 

dissolved organic matter 

− affected by changes in hydrological regime 

Fish composition, abundance and structure 

− useful indicators of long-term ecological impacts 



Consortium 

27

Key hydromorphological indicators in 

lakes 

quantity and dynamics of flow (greatly influenced 

by water abstraction and diversion) 

lake morphology (surface area to depth ratio) – 

indicates potential for colonisation by literal flora 



Consortium 

Key physico-chemical indicators in 

lakes 

temperature and oxygen are key elements for the 

determination of stratification/mixing regimes 

nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) including 

dissolved and particulate and organic and inorganic 

forms; 

silicate (Si-SiO3) may be a useful indicator of 

potential growth of diatoms 



Consortium 

QE Coastal waters 



Consortium 

28

Specific pollutants 

Used to determine chemical status of water bodies 



Consortium 

Guidance on monitoring of specific 

pollutants 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env /wfd/libraryl=/framework_directive/guidance_documents 



Consortium 

Specific synthetic pollutants 

Decision 2455/2001/EC - the “first list” of priority 

substances to become Annex X of the WFD 

Directive 2008/105/EC on Environmental Quality 

Standards. Annex II replaced the “first list” 

− 33 priority substances as Annex X of the Water 

Framework Directive 

− possibility of applying EQS for sediment and biota, 

instead of those for water 



Consortium 

29

Priority substances, further changes 

The Commission reviewed the 2008/105/EC Priority 

Substances Directive list and in 2012 put forward a 

proposal for amendment: 

− 15 additional priority substances, 6 of them 

designated as priority hazardous substances; 

− stricter EQS for 4 existing priority substances; 

− slightly revised EQS for 3 priority substances; 

− designation of 2 existing priority substances as priority 

hazardous substances; 

− introduction of biota standards for several substances 



Consortium 

Priority substances 

Traditionally monitored in water 

Evolving trends – sediment and biota monitoring 



Consortium 

P = preferred matrix 

O = optional matrix. 

N = not recommended 

n.a. = not applicable 



Consortium 

30

Quality elements and minimum 

required frequency 



Consortium 










Consortium 

Bosnia 

and 

Issues 

Herzegov FYR of 

Albania ina Croatia Macedonia Kosovo Montenegro Serbia Turkey 

How many 

2 2 2 1 3 4 

ecoregions in the 

country 

How many types 

(rivers) 

7 1 

(Prespa) 

5 9 67 for 

Turkey 

How many w ater 

bodies 

Average size of 

the w ater body 

Not yet 17 

(Prespa) 


Apr 45 

(Drini Bar 

river 

basin) 

Not yet 

Buyuk 

Mendere 

s 66 

Not yet Not yet Not yet 25000/66 

Buyuk 

Mendere 

s 

Not yet Apr 15 

(Drini Bar 


Consortium 

Not yet 70% 

Buyuk 

31

Issues 

Surveillance - # of 

stations 

Albania 

Bosnia 

and 

Herzegov 

ina Croatia 

FYR of 

Macedonia Kosovo Montenegro Serbia Turkey 

Operational - # of 

stations 

Marcoinvertebrate 

monitoring - # of 

stations 

Fish monitoring - 

# of stations 

Macrophytes/ 

phytobenthos 


stations 

Phytoplankton 


stations 

Hydromorphology This Project is funded by the European Union 

assessment - # of 

stations 


Consortium 

32

RENA, 28 February – 1 March 2012 Shkodra, Albania 

DAY 2 

MONITORING OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS, 

INTERCALIBRATION AND COORDINATION OF CRITERIA 

FOR GOOD STATUS OF WATER BODIES 

Regional Environmental Network for Accession 

Regional Training under Working Group 3.2 – Water Management

RENA Workshop 

Monitoring acc. to Water 


Development of the German 

typology of surface waters and 

definition of reference conditions 

Stephan von Keitz 

Shkodra, Feburary 2012 




The typology of surface waters 

For about 100 years (classification of lakes) 

Idea: to classify the large variety of natural water 

bodies to more simple and applicable units 

From individual water bodies to the idea of types: 

Lowland streams, Mountain streams …, 

Sandy streams, Gravel bed streams … 

Now essential part of the philosophy of the WFD 





Why is typology so important 

Base for most of the further steps: 

Definiton of type-specific reference conditions 

Development of type-specific assessment systems 

Designation of water bodies 

Type-specific sensitivity against different stressors 

Program of measures has to care for type-specific 

features of water bodies 


1




WFD - Annex II: 

System A or System B 

Same obligatory factors are used in both (geographic 

position, altitude, size, geology) 

System A prescribes categories for these factors, and 

ecoregions for the spatial aggregation of the types 

=> types remain rough and often do not reflect reality 

System B has no prescriptions, permits additional factors; 

=> types more flexible, reflect reality 





Methodological approaches 

Top down approach 

Abiotic 

features 

Expert 

opinions 


Similarity 

analyses 

Biocoenoses, 

e. g. MZB 

Bottom up approach 




Example: Stream typology Germany 

Philosophy: 

„as many types as necessary, as few as possible“ 

scientifically sound and politically reasonable 

simple approach (start: top down, validation: bottom up) 

biologically meaningful 

System B 


2


Parameters 



Obligatory parameters: 

- Ecoregion (Illies 1978) 

- Geology (Ca, Si, Org) 

- Size 

basin size classes 

10 - 100 km² 

100 - 1 000 km² 

1 000 - 10 000 km² 

> 10 000 km² 

Optional parameters: 

- Sub-ecoregions (aquatic landscapes): 

more differentiated geology 

(granite, moraines…) 

valley form 

slope 

- dominant substratum (river 

bed material) 

(acc. System A) 

(acc. System B) 

Clearly a „B-typology“. 





Step 1: “Ecoregions” Illies (1978) 

3 Ecoregions: 

4: Alps 

9: Lower 

Mountains 

14: Lowlands 





Step 2: Sub-ecoregions 

about 40 ‚aquatic 

landscape units ‘ 

(=sub-ecoregions) 

homogeneous regions 

for certain stream 

types 

based on geomorphology 


3




Step 3: Biological validation 

Biocoenotic analysis of 

whole Germany 

(ecoregions) 

Biocoenotic analysis of 

several 1000 data sets up 

to now (best available 

sites, most of them 

preclassified as „very 

good“ or „good ecological 

status“) 



NMS_EPTCOM_gen_total_20.11.2002; Stress: 0,285 

Lowlands 



„non-metric 

multidimensional 

scaling“ 

(NMS) 

Achse 2: 32,0 % 

Ökoregion 

Alpen 

Voralpen 

Mittelgebirge 

Tief land 

Lower Mountains/ 

(Pre)Alpine area 

Ordination 

diagram: 

similiar data 

sets (sites) are 

close together, 

different data 

sets are apart 

Achse 1: 41,8 % 



Product I: Typology and Types 



Table of 25 biocoenotic 

relevant stream types 

for Germany 


4




Product I: Typology and Types 

25 stream types: 

4 types for the Alps and the Alpine 

foothills 

8 types for the Central highlands 

9 types for the Central lowlands 

4 „Ecoregion-independent“ types 





Product II: Map of stream types (GIS) 

depiction of stream types as 

digital map 

base: WFD-relevant river 

network 

short description of the types 

(„passports“) serve as a 

legend for the map 







5





Common stream type of the Ecoregion 4 Alps: 

Type 1: Alpine streams (95 %) 

Common stream type of the Ecoregion 9 (8) 

Central Highlands: 

Type 5: Small coarse substrate dominated 

siliceous highland rivers (28 %) 

Common stream type of the Ecoregion 14 

Central plain: 

Type 14: Small sand dominated lowland rivers 

(28 %) 


Product RENA Workshop III: Type descriptions as passports 



Morphological features: 

„... very distinct stream ty pe... , winding to 

meandering in unregular arches in a U-shaped 

valley, ... naturally most deep cut stream ty pe. 

Water of ten cloudy due to natural erosion of f ine 

minerally particles f rom the bottom (clay, loam, 

loess).“ 

Biocoenoses: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos: 

„... aquatic f lora only rarely to be f ound due to 

cloudy water. Mainly f loat leaf plants occuring e. g. 

Potamogeton pectinatus...“ 

Remarks: 

„... nowaday s almost completely destroy ed, 

due to intense land use in f ertile loess 

areas.“ 

Substratum: „... dominant f ine minerally 

Available in English: 

particles (clay, loam, loess), organic materials 

www.wasserblick.net or the HR 

rarely to be f ound, of ten aggregations of particles 

to slab, marl ...“ 

Shkodra, Feburary 2012 Twinning website 




Reference conditions 

comparable to high ecological status, 

(= no or only minimum deviance from undisturbed 

conditions in hydromorphology, water qualiy and 

biocoenoses) 

starting point of assessment! 

Basis 

1. best available surface waters 

2. modelling, reconstruction 

3. historical data 


combinations 

6




Criteria for reference conditions (AQEMconsortium 2002, REFCOND 

toolbox) 

Land use : Influence of urbanisation, land use and forest management 

should be as low as possible 

Morphology and stream habitats 

Floodplain at reference site: natural climax vegetation, 

extensive forests 

no migration barriers, dams 

no removal of woody 

bank vegetation 

no bank and bed fixation 





2. Historical data: example River Ems 1850-2000 

Taxon 1850 – 1900 1932/33 1988 - 2000 

Unionidae 

Unio crassus 

Unio pictorum 

Unio tumidus 

Anodonta cygnea 

Pseudanodonta complanata 

Electrogena affinis 

Heptageniidae Electrogena lateralis 

Kageronia fuscogrisea 

Heptagenia flava 

Heptagenia longicauda 

Heptagenia sulphurea 

Isogenus nubecula 

Diura bicaudata 

Plecoptera Isoperla obscura 

Isoperla spec. 2 

Siphonoperla torrentium 

Brachyptera monilicornis 

Amphinemura sulcicollis 

Nemoura spec. 

Unio pictorum 

Pseudanodonta complanata 


Heptagenia flava 

Isopteryx spec. 

Chloroperla spec. 

Taeniopteryx nebulosa 

Protonemura spec. 

Nemoura spec. 

Leuctra spec. 


Unio crassus 

Anodonta cygnea 


Nemoura cinerea 


3. Historical data: River Sieg, 1822 



Sandy habitats at the stream 

margins: 

Ephemera danica 

several Leptoceridae 

Wood accumulations: 

Macronychus quadrituberculatus 

Potamophilus acuminatus 

Stenelmis canaliculata 

Abandoned channels and 

floodplain ponds: 

Siphlonurus aestivalis 

Several Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, 

Gyrinidae 


7




Costs and time needed 

typology acc. to System B: some months / 0 € (national 

experts) 

map of aquatic landscapes (sub-ecoregions): 3 years / 75,000 € 

(private company) 

!!! hint: map was too detailed, can be developed much faster / 

~ 40,000 € 

biocoenotic validation: ongoing process since 4 years / ~ 60,000 € 

(scientific institute) 

!!! hint: data can be collected within the monitoring 

GIS map of stream types: 1 year / 60,000 € (private company) 

passports: some months / 0 € (national experts) 





Examples of stream typologies from neighbor countries 

usually System B was chosen 

in medium sized and large 

countries number of types 

varies between 20–30 





Thank you for your attention! 


8





Intercalibration of 

assessment methods 




Consortium 

WFD Annex V (1.4) 

Legal requirements 

….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 to bad ecological status, as defined in Section 

1.2, by assigning a numerical value to each of the boundaries between 

the classes. The value for the boundary between the classes of high 

and good status, and the value for the boundary between good and 

moderate status shall be established through the intercalibration 

exercise. 



Consortium 

Purpose of Intercalibration 

To ensure comparable ecological quality 

assessment systems and harmonised ecological 

quality criteria for surface waters in the Member 

States. 

= harmonised approach to define “good 

ecological status” (WFD objective) 

The WFD intercalibration as does not concern the 

monitoring systems themselves, nor the 

biological methods, but the classification results 



Consortium 

9



Consortium 

Intercalibration 

Intercalibration is carried out under the 

umbrella of Common Implementation 

Strategy (CIS) Working Group A - Ecological 

Status (ECOSTAT): 

− responsible for evaluating the results of the 

intercalibration exercise 

− making recommendations to the Strategic 

Co-ordination Group or WFD Committee 



Consortium 


Planned in WFD as a single excercise in 2004- 

2006 

Objectives only partially met – WFD monitoring 

systems were not yet in place 

Second intercalibration exercise in 2008-2011 



Consortium 

10

Guidance documents 



Consortium 


One of the key actions identified by the WFD: 

− European benchmarking; 

− 

− 

shall to ensure that good ecological status 

represents the same level of ecological quality 

everywhere in Europe; 

consistency and comparability in the 

classification results of the MS monitoring systems 

for biological quality elements. 



Consortium 


boundries 

Agree on ecological quality criteria for good quality sites 

Agree on numerical Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) 

values for two quality class boundaries (high/good and 

good/moderate) 



Consortium 

11


- consistent with the WFD generic description of 

these boundaries; 

- comparable to the boundaries proposed by 

other 

This Project 

MS. 

is funded by the European Union 


Consortium 

Geographic Intercalibration Groups 

Geographical Intercalibration Groups 

(GIGs) 

Member States comprising rivers GIGs 

Northern Finland - Ireland - Norway - Sweden - 

United Kingdom 

Central/Baltic Austria - Belgium - Czech Republic - 

Denmark - Estonia - France - Germany - 

Ireland - Italy - Latvia – Lithuania - 

Netherlands - Poland - Slovenia - Slovakia - 

Spain - Sweden - Luxemburg - United 

Kingdom 

Alpine Austria - France - Germany - Italy - 

Slovenia – Spain 

Eastern Continental (ICPDR) Austria - Bulgaria - Czech Republic - 

Greece – Hungary - Romania - Slovakia – 

Slovenia 


Consortium 

Mediterranean This Project is funded by the European Union Cyprus - France - Greece - Italy - Malta - 

Portugal - Slovenia - Spain 

Central/ Baltic 

Geographic 


Group 



Consortium 

12

Geographic 

intercalibration 

groups: 

Central/ 

Baltic GIG 

Northern 

GIG 



Consortium 

1 st ruond of intercalibration 

Implemented in 2004-2006 

Results summarised in Commission decision 

2008/915/EC 

Intercalibrated class boundaries established 

within Geographic intercalibration groups for 

certain types and quality elements (not all). 



Consortium 



Consortium 

13

Ecological quality ratio (EQR) 

results of the intercalibration exercise are 

expressed as Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs) 



Consortium 

EQR special cases 

Some indicators do not continuously decrease with 

anthropogenic pressure to minimum value of 0. 

Transformation to establish EQR scale from 0 (bad 

quality) to 1 (reference conditions), 

− E.g. phytoplankton biomass expressed as chlorophyll-a or 

biovolume low values at reference conditions, increasing 

with pressure : 

EQR = [reference value]/[measured value] 

EQR = [log(reference value)]/[log(measured value)] 



Consortium 

Gaps after the first round 

Transitional waters were not intercalibrated at all; 

Quality elements missing for other water 

categories, (e.g. fish and macrophytes for rivers, 

and macroinvertebrates and phytobenthos for 

lakes); 

results did not cover the full biological quality 

element (BQE) (e.g. phytoplankton in lakes and 

coastal waters; macroalgae and angiosperms in 

some coastal GIGs) 



Consortium 

14

Gaps after the first round 

doubt on the degree of comparability achieved; 

gaps in the coverage of water body types and 

pressures; 

lack of comparability in the application of criteria 

for setting reference conditions and class 

boundaries. 



Consortium 

Intercalibration phase 2 

The aim of the second phase is to close these 

gaps and improve the comparability of the results 

in time for the second RBMPs 2015 

Any biological quality elements that have not 

been intercalibrated or not fully intercalibrated in 

the first phase (for example, phytoplankton) 

should be fully intercalibrated in Phase 2 



Consortium 

Intercalibration phase 2 

Priority given to the quality elements for which 

intercalibration has not been completed 

Check if the results for BQEs that have been 

intercalibrated in Phase 1 are in agreement with 

the criteria defined the new guidance. 



Consortium 

15

Practical implementation 

Intercalibration exercise is undertaken within 

Geographical Intercalibration Groups (not 

ecoregions); 

Within each GIG 'common intercalibration types‘ 

are selected for intercalibration based on factors 

described in the WFD (Annex II, 1.2). 

− cover main surface water types; 

− MS need to identify which national types 

correspond to the common intercalibration types 



Consortium 


intercalibration exercise is focused on 

combinations: 

− common intercalibration types, 

− biological quality elements and 

− specific pressures or specific combinations of 

pressures. 

selection of these combinations should cover the 

major pressures occurring in the GIG. 



Consortium 


Agreement and validation (cross GIG/BQE level 

)of the: 

− common intercalibration types, 

− pressures acting upon them, 

− the definition of reference conditions, 

− and the criteria for assessing the comparability of 

G/H, M/G status boundaries 



Consortium 

16


3 options 

1. Same data acquisition and same numerical 

evaluation: 

− intercalibration concentrates on the harmonisation of 

reference conditions and class boundary 

comparison/setting; 

2. Different data acquisition and numerical evaluation: 

− development of common metrics for intercalibration; 

3. Similar data acquisition but different numerical 

evaluation : 

− direct comparisons (pairwise differences of national 

assessment results). 


Consortium 


Intercalibration exercise demonstrates that G/H 

G/M class boundaries represent a comparable 

level of anthropogenic alteration to the biological 

quality element 


boundries 



Consortium 

WFD compliance 

Only methods meeting the requirements of the WFD 

can be intercalibrated; 

Partial intercalibration for parameter level methods 

possible; 

For some very rare of unique types may not be 

possible to translate the intercalibration results to a 

specific type; 

COM Decision will in principle only include the 

results of the full intercalibration at the BQE level. 



Consortium 

17


Obligations of MS after completion of the 

intercalibration exercise: 

− to translate the results of the intercalibration 

exercise into their national classification systems; 

− to set the boundaries between high and good 

status and between good and moderate status for 

their national types. 



Consortium 

Indicative parameters 



Consortium 

Near-natural reference conditions 

common high-good 

or good-moderate 

boundary 

intercalibration by 

using sites 

impacted by a 

similar level 



Consortium 

18

Summary of tasks 

1. Description of national assessment method; 

2. Demonstration of applicability of national 

method to common IC type, coverage of 

pressure-impact relationship and of similarity 

of assessment concept of national method with 

those of other countries in the GIG; 

3. Compilation of groups with similar assessment 

methods, and evaluation of “outlying” 

methods; 

4. Evaluation of national method descriptions 

with regard to numerical evaluation; 



Consortium 

Summary of tasks (cont.) 

5. Evaluation of national method descriptions 

with regard to data acquisition; 

6. Providing required data for the intercalibration 

dataset; 

7. Establishment of a common data base for the 

needs of the Intercalibration (common taxa 

names and codes, description of types, 

reference criteria and conditions, pressures 

etc.); 

8. Selection of most appropriate intercalibration 

option 



Consortium 

Summary of tasks (cont.) 

9. Check of “IC feasibility” and evaluation of “outlying” 

methods; 

10. Definition and application of reference 

conditions/benchmark criteria, and description of 

intercalibration type specific reference/benchmark 

communities; 

11. Performance of comparability analysis (if boundaries 

set individually) or execution of Boundary Setting 

Protocol (if boundaries set jointly). 



Consortium 

19


No data available 

Countries that do not have data / 

assessment methods already available, or 

do not actively participate in the 

intercalibration exercise: 

− need to agree with the outcome of the IC 

exercise 

− harmonize their assessment methods, 

taking into account the results of the 

exercise, when their data/methods become 

available. 


Consortium 

The Status of surface and groundwater bodies in 

Hessen/Germany acc. to WFD-Monitoring 

- ecological and chemical status of Surface Water 

- quantitative and qualitative status of Groundwater 

Dr. Stephan von Keitz 

Deputy Water Director of Hessen 

Monitoring Program 

Design of surveillance monitoring 

• 13 Monitoring sites 

• Catchment sizes up to about 2.500 km 2 

65 

20

Monitoring 

Programs 

Design of operational monitoring 

Chemical and 

physico-chemical elements 

Pesticides 

Specific pollutants 

Example: heavy metals, PAH, PCB, DBT 

241 Monitoring sites 



66 

Way from existing to new monitoring strategy 

What 

Where 

Only the relevant parameters (see pressures) 

Not neccessarily in every water body 

How different frequencies 

P[mg/l] Ortho-Phosphate in the river Emsbach 2010 

0.700 

0.600 

0.500 

0.400 

Average P[mg/l] 

0.300 

0.200 

0.100 

0.000 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

67 

Impact Analysis 

Significant water management issues 

1. Nutrients (Eutrophication) 

2. Bio-degradable organic pollutants 

(Indicator Saprobity) 

3. Synthetic organic compounds and heavy 

metals 

4. Salt, chloride (almost only Basins Werra and 

Fulda) 

5. Hydro-morphological alterations 

68 

21

Impact – Specific Pollutants: Pesticides 

Pesticides 

Parameter 

Dimension 

Quality standard 

(VO-WRRL) 

Mecoprop (MCPP) µg/l 0,1 

Dichlorprop (2,4-DP) µg/l 0,1 

MCPA µg/l 0,1 

Bentazon µg/l 0,1 

n-Chloridazon µg/l 0,1 

Terbutylazin µg/l 0,5 

Monolinuron µg/l 0,1 

Dimethoat µg/l 0,1 

Metolachlor µg/l 0,2 

Metazachlor µg/l 0,4 

Chlortoluron µg/l 0,4 

Methabenzthiazuron µg/l 2,0 

Heavy metals 

Arsenic mg/kg 40 

Chrome mg/kg 320 

Copper mg/kg 160 

Zinc mg/kg 800 

Synthetic organics 

Polychlorinated biphenyl 

(BCB) 28, 52, 101, 118, 

138, 153, 180 

µg/kg each case 20 

Dibutyltin (DBT) µg/kg 100 

Triphenyltin (TPT) µg/kg 20 

69 

Impact Analysis – 

Eutrophication 

Ortho-Phosphate-P 

critical value: 70 μg/l = 0,07 ppm 

70 

Example: 

Diclofenac is a Rheumatism- 

Pharmaceutical which damages the 

renal of fish already in very low 

concentration 

(proposed critical value in surfacewater: 

0,0001 mg/l = 0,1 μg/l) 

71 

22

Point sources 

Diffuse sources 

air-pollution 

industrial 

direct dischargers 

erosion (soil) 

rain water separate 

sewage 

leaching (dissolved nutrients) 

drainage 

groundwater 

combined sewer system 

municipal 

treatment plants 

72 

Final effluent discharge points of 

municipal wastewater treatment plants 

(740) 

Degree of purification 

COD 

BOD5 

TN 

TP 

Size classes (PT) 

Location and 

size classes UWWTP: 

Municipal treatment plants in order of size classes 

according to German Wastewater Ordinance 

EW means total number of inhabitants and population 

equivalents (PT) 

73 

Biological Quality Components WFD 

nutrient pollution 

organic pollution 

longitudinal 

connectivity 

structure 

74 

23

Reference conditions 

Example: area of trout in highland streams reference fish 

species: brown trout, bullhead and Lampetra planeri 

75 

Monitoring – Current Status (2004 – 2011) 

Σ 4.855 investigations 

Macroinvertebrates Fishes Diatoms Macrophytes Phytoplancton 

500 

Number of Investigations 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Year of Investigation 

76 

Monitoring – Current Costs (2004 – 2011) 

Σ 1.1 million 

700 

600 

costs [in thousand €] 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 


Fishes Diatoms Macrophytes Phytoplancton 

77 

24

Results Biology – Diatoms 

© M. Werum 

WRRL Hessen – river basin management plan & programme of measures78 

Results Biology – Diatoms 

Assessment Diatoms 

Ecological Status 

bad 

poor 

moderate 

good 

high 

Waterbody [%] 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

145 

199 

54 

About 85 % of the 

water bodies imply 

the requirement for 

minimizing the 

stressor caused by 

nutrients 

Result will be compared to 

concentration of 

phosphorus before 

planning of measures 

Planning of measures 

waste water treatment & 

diffuse sources of pollution 

0% 

7 


Results Biology – Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

Part Organic Pollution 

Ecological status 

Organic pollution 

80 

WRRL Hessen – river basin management plan & programme of measures 

25


Part- Water Quality 

Proportion of organic 

polluted sections in a 

water body 

> 30% 

> 5 - 30% 

> 0 - 5% 

0% 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

135 

63 

At least in a third of 

the water bodies 

there is the need to 

reduce the organic 

pollution 

Waterbody [%] 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

16 

189 

10% 

0% 



Total Assessment-397 WB 



Total Assessment 

Assessment 


Ecological Status 

bad 

poor 

moderate 

good 

high 

Waterbody [%] 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

89 

104 

117 

In nearly 80 % of the 

water bodies there 

is a demand for 

improvement the 

structure 

20% 

10% 

0% 

75 

12 

Result will be compared 

to data of structure 

before planning 

measures 


26

Results Biology – Fishes – 283 WB 

© van de Weyer 


Results Biology – Fishes 

Assessment fishes 

EcologicalStatus 

bad 

poor 

moderate 

good 

high 

Waterbody [%] 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

40 

91 

95 

49 

8 

In about 80 % of the 

water bodies there is a 

demand for 

improvement the 

structure and the 

possibility for 

migration 

Result will be compared 

to data of structure 

before planning 

measures 


Fish Migration 

Groups of measures 

M1: allocation of development sites 

M2: Development of near natural waters 

M3: Establishment of possibility of migration 

M4: Ecolog. sustainable discharge control 

M5: Improvement natural retension 

M6: Special measures at federal waterways 

Obstacles to migration 

Only „unpassable“ or „largely unpassable“ 

Obstacle to migration 

Obstacle to migration, wich needs to be 

modifided 

Key to measures taken 

Categories of measures 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 

and stretch for implementation the measures 

Example: 

Measures already implemented 

Example: 

WRRL Hessen – river basin management plan & programme of measures 

86 

27

Disposal of migration barriers, delineation of buffer stripes 

87 

Participation of the Public 

• Before finishing the programme of measures 18 meetings 

at regional level have been carried out 

• Aims: Presentation of the proposed measures 

Discussion of the proposals 

Consideration of further advice and suggestions 

• The following organizations had been invited 

• Local authorities 

• Nature protection organisation 

• Administrators responsible for fedaral water ways 

• Organisations responsible for fishery ……….. 

www.flussgebiete.hessen.de 


Selection of Prior Surface Waters 

Example: Migratory Fishes-Programme Rhine - ICPR 

Prior Surface Water 

Migration upstream accessible 

Migration upstream partially accessible 

W RRL Hessen - Projekt Maßnahmenprogramm Migration upstream und inaccessible 

Bewirtschaftungsplan 

89 

28

Prioritization of Measures 

• Even in water bodies, which have not been determined as 

priority (> 80 %) , there are measures for improving the 

structure necessary to a greater extent 

• Main goal: to initiate and advance self development 

Example : 

1. Development sites must be available 

2. Kick start measures to promote the natural dynamic 

3. Using high water discharge as „digger“ 


Groundwater monitoring - goal settings 

Characterization of the natural quality of groundwater 

Analysis of the chemical and quantitative status of GWB 

Identify anthropogenic induced trends in pollutant concentrations 

Evaluate the effectiveness of measures 

91 

Groundwater monitoring WFD 

Map of the monitoring network 

Quantitative status 

Hesse: 

Area of the state: 21.116 km² 

A total of 124 groundwater bodies 

with an average area of 170 km 2 exists. 

Result of the pressures and impact analysis concerning the 

quantitative status: 

"All groundwater bodies are not at risk" 

Therefore the groundwater level monitoring can be minimised. 

Level monitoring sites 

Settlements 

Groundw ater level monitoring netw ork: 

In total 110 groundwater level sites 

Thereof 41 sites also used to monitor the chemical status 

Forest 

Border of the groundwater body 

92 

29

Groundwater monitoring WFD 

Map of the monitoring network 

Chemical status 

Hesse: 

Area of the state: 21.116 km² 

A total of 124 groundwater bodies 

with an average area of 170 km 2 exists. 

Result of the pressures and impact analysis 

concerning the chemical status: 

"69 groundwater bodies are at risk" 

Monitoring netw ork: Chemical status 

In total: 392 monitoring sites 

Thereof : 247 f or surveillance monitoring 

145 f or operational monitoring 

Surveillance monitoring sites 

Operational monitoring sites 

GWB "not at risk" 

GWB "at risk" 

93 

Border of the groundwater body 

Parameters 

Groundw ater quality standards 

Nitrates 

50 mg/l 

Active substances in pesticides, 

including their relevant metabolites, 

degradation and reaction products 

0.1 µg/l 

0.5 µg/l (total) 

Minimum list of pollutants for w hich Member States have to consider establishing threshold 

values 

- Substances or ions 

w hich may occur both naturally and/or as a result of human activities: 

Arsenic 

Cadmium 

Lead 

Mercury 

Ammonium 

Chloride 

Sulphate 

- Man-made synthetic substances: 

Trichloroethylene 

Tetrachloroethylene 

- Parameters indicative of saline or other intrusions: 

Conductivity 

94 

Qualitative status of the groundwater bodies in Hesse 

Qualitative status (GWB) 

• 128 GWB in Hessen 

Out of this, 24 are in a bad status 

(f ailing of quality standards) 

• 14 GWB due to nitrate 

• 3 GWB due to nitrate und pesticides 

• 2 GWB due to pesticides (only) 

• 5 GWK due to salinisation 

(potash mining production) 

95 

30

Action areas: 

Action areas: 

Determination of the stress potential 

by means of the intensity of land use and 

the current groundwater contamination. 

priority of action areas / measures 

consulting contents 

96 

Progress of work 

in Hesse 

Action areas: 

Determination of the stress potential 

by means of the intensity of land use and 

the current groundwater contamination. 

Good advances towards 

the implementation of 

WFD - measures 

97 

Programme of measures 

Agricultural consulting (substance-related) 

Cooperative agreements (voluntary agreements between farmers, water 

companies and nature conservation groups) are the main instrument. 

Codes of Good Farming Practice are not always enough to protect 

groundwater. 

Example: Diffuse Nitrogen Pollution 

Application techniques of manure ; reduced and optimised fertilisation; Avoiding 

spreading fertilizer and manure at high risk times and in high risk areas; 

Pesticides 

Establishment “Good Practice”; 

Integrated farming systems; Minimum area without any pesticide treatment along 

rivers and water courses 

98 

31

Public Participation / Involvement 

99 

RENA Water Management sub-group 

MONITORING AND STATUS 

ASSESSMENT OF WATER BODIES 

IN LITHUANIA 

Shkodra, 28 February – 1 March 2012 



Consortium 

WHERE IS IT - LITHUANIA 



Consortium 

32

River basin districts in Lithuania 

13.01.2010 



Consortium 

MONITORING OF SURFACE WATER 

BODIES 

The purpose of monitoring is: 

• to identify the status of the existing water bodies, 

• to evaluate the effectiveness of pollution reduction measures, 

and 

• to obtain data, which would serve as the basis for taking 

decisions, during the programme implementation period, on 

provision of conditions for the attainment of good ecological 

and chemical status of rivers, lakes, ponds and related 

ecosystems. 

The status of surface water bodies is assessed through 

surveillance and operational monitoring of water bodies and, if 

needed, investigative monitoring. 



Consortium 

SURVEILLANCE MONITORING (1) 

- to get information about the overall status of water 

bodies in the country and its long-termchanges. 

- this information is required for designing key measures 

intended to ensure protection of water bodies in future, 

- supplementing and ensuring the differentiation of water 

bodies into types, 

- establishing reference conditions for water body types. 

For the purpose of implementing water quality management 

based on the basin principle as regulated by WFD, the 

surveillance monitoring network was selected so as to enable 

an assessment of the status of water bodies within each river 

basin district, basin or sub-basin. 



Consortium 

33

SURVEILLANCE MONITORING (2) 

Taking into account the monitoring site and the 

importance of information in respect of the entire 

river basin district, surveillance monitoring was 

subdivided into two types: 

1) intensive monitoring (conducted every year) and 

2) extensive (conducted twice during the 

implementation of the management plan in a 

RBD). 



Consortium 

SURVEILLANCE INTENSIVE 

MONITORING 

Monitoring sites were selected: 

• in the major rivers of sub-basins; 

• at the mouth of the rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea; 

• in transboundary water bodies situated at the border; 

• in water bodies suffering from a significant agricultural 

impact; 

• in reference water bodies (unaffected by anthropogenic 

pressures); 

• in other water bodies of national significance (tha 

largest inland water bodies). 



Consortium 

SURVEILLANCE EXTENSIVE 

MONITORING 

Surveillance extensive monitoring is carried out for 

water bodies which are indicative of the overall status 

of water bodies, i.e. 

1) in water bodies the ecological status of which 

currently conforms to the criteria for high and good 

ecological status, or 

2) the ecological potential conforms to the criteria for 

maximum and good ecological potential. 



Consortium 

34

OPERATIONAL MONITORING 

is undertaken in water bodies the current ecological status or 

ecological potential of which is lower than good. 

The purpose: 

1) To establish the status of surface water bodies identified 

as being at risk or failing to meet their water protection 

objectives. 

2) To assess any changes in the status resulting from the 

programmes of measures for the achievement of the 

water protection objectives. 

3) To assess the impact of sources of pollution on the 

receiving water body. 



Consortium 

INVESTIGATIVE MONITORING 

is undertaken 

1) in cases when the reason of failure of a parameter 

indicative of a quality element to conform to the 

good status requirements has not been identified, 

or 

2) when the extent or impact of accidental pollution 

needs to be identified. 



Consortium 

MONITORING PROGRAMME 

The key objective: to establish and monitor the status of all 

water bodies in the country; therefore the network of 

monitoring sites is established in respect of water bodies. 

In total: 

−832 water bodies in the category of rivers, 

−345 water bodies in the category of lakes and ponds, 

and 

−6 water bodies in the category of transitional and coastal 

waters have been identified. 

Consequently, the task of the monitoring programme was to 

reflect the status of all 1183 water bodies. 



Consortium 

35

MONITORING PROGRAMME (2) 

A number of these water bodies are similar by their 

typology, status and factors conditioning the status. Thus, 

in order to streamline the monitoring network, water 

bodies were grouped on the basis of 

−their typology, 

−status and 

−factors determining the status. 

At least one monitoring site was selected for each group 

of water bodies assuming that such one monitoring site 

represents the status of all water bodies within the group. 



Consortium 

NUMBER OF MONITORING SITES 

Grouping is done only for rivers. The water bodies in the rest of 

categories (lakes, transitional and coastal waters) are considered as 

individual water bodies that cannot be grouped. 

Type of monitoring 


Rivers 

Lakes 

Surveillance intensive 54 9 

Surveillance extensive 104 225 

Water bodies 

Transitiona 

l waters 

Coastal 

waters 

Territor 

ial Sea 

Operational 287 55 16 6 9 

Investigative 23 56 

Total No of sites 468 345 16 6 9 

No of water bodies monitored 468 345 4 2 1 

% of the total No of water bodies 56.3 100 100 100 100 


Consortium 

CRITERIA 

The type of monitoring was determined based on the results of 

the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies. 

Only >50 km 2 catchment size 

rivers and 

>0.5 km 2 surface area lakes 

are monitored (considered as 

water bodies). 



Consortium 

36

CRITERIA (2) 

820 water bodies monitored 

348 are currently 

at good or high status 

75 % of river water bodies, 32% 

of lake water bodies and all 

(100%) transitional and coastal 

waters are currently at risk 



Consortium 

Network of monitoring sites for rivers (including heavily 

modified and artificial water bodies) 



Consortium 

Network of monitoring sites for lakes and 

ponds 



Consortium 

37

Water body types 

and network of 

monitoring sites in 

the transitional and 

coastal waters, and 

territorial Sea 



Consortium 

PARAMETERS MEASURED (1) 

General physico-chemical parameters (T, pH, O 2 , 

BOD, P total , P04-P, N total , NO 3 -N, NH 4 -N, NO 2 -N, 

TOC, COD, etc.) and main ions – in all water bodies 

(monitoring sites). 

Hazardous substances, heavy metals – all intensive 

monitoring sites (except of reference sites) and water 

bodies, where they potentially can occur or were 

detected earlier. 

Hazardous substances in biota – only transitional 

waters. 



Consortium 

PARAMETERS MEASURED (2) 

Biological elements: 

• Benthic invertebrates and Macrophytes – all water 

bodies; 

• Fish – all, except coastal waters; 

• Phytoplankton – all, except rivers; 

• Phytobenthos – only rivers; 

• Zooplankton – only transitional waters. 

Hydrology and morphology – all water bodies 

Continuity – rivers and lakes. 



Consortium 

38

EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM MONITORING 

REQUIREMENTS 

For the minimum frequency of the monitoring of parameters indicative 

of biological elements: 

• macrophytes (in all water bodies, except for reference condition sites), 

• fish fauna and zoobenthos (in water bodies in the category of lakes 

and heavily modified lakes, except for reference condition sites) 

Arguments: 1) Macrophyte communities - very inert ones and their 

reaction to qualitative changes in their living environment is exceptionally 

slow. 

2) The water exchanger rate is much lower in lakes than in rivers, hence 

communities of fish fauna and zoobenthos also change very slowly. 

Consequently, parameters indicative of biological elements are sufficient 

to be monitored once in six years in such specific cases. 



Consortium 

STATUS CLASSIFICATION – GENERAL WFD 

RULE 

Do the estimated 

values for the biological 

quality elements meet 

reference conditions 

No 



quality 

elements meet good 

status 

No 

Classification on the 

basis of the biological 

deviation from 


Yes 

Yes 


Do the physicochemical 

conditions meet 

high status 

No 


conditions 

meet good status 

Yes 

Do the hydromorphological 

conditions 

meet high 

status 

Good status 

Yes 

Is the deviation moderate Yes Moderate status 

Greater 

Is the deviation 

major Greater 

Bad status 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Poor status 

High status 


Consortium 

Seems simple, but in reality 

everything is much more 

complicated.... 



Consortium 

39

STATUS CLASSIFICATION – GENERAL WFD 

RULE 



quality elements meet 


No 



quality 

elements meet good 

status 

No 

Classification on the 

basis of the biological 

deviation from 


Yes 

Yes 




high status 

No 



good status 

Do the hydromorphologica 

Yes 

l 

conditions 

meet high 

status 

No 

Good status 

Yes 

Is the deviation moderate Yes Moderate status 

Greater 

Is the deviation 

major Greater 

Bad status 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Poor status 

High status 


Consortium 

Consequently, a water body may be assigned 

to the moderate, poor or bad 

status/potential class only on the basis of 

the monitoring results for the biological 

quality elements. 



Consortium 

ECOLOGICAL STATUS ELEMENTS – 

VARIATIONS (1) 

• Variations of status elements can be related both to natural 

changes of climatic conditions (e.g. reduction of discharge due to 

prolonged droughts) and to measurement error. 

• Probability of measurement error is higher in assessments of the 

status of the biological quality elements, e.g. due to a nonrepresentative 

sample or inadequately selected sampling place or 

time. 

• Error of calculation of the physico-chemical values is by far lower. 

On the other hand, there is still a possibility of errors determined 

by seasonal (onetime) measurements and by accidental values. 



Consortium 

40


VARIATIONS. TWO OPPOSITE 

ALTERNATIVES 

• The value of one 

indicator could have 

been determined by an 

error arising due to 

measurement or natural 

variation and not by 

changes in the actual 

status of that water 

body. 

• It could be maintained 

that even changes in one 

single indicator are a sign 

of deterioration of the 

status of the water body, 

i.e. a lasting impact will 

eventually alter the status 

of the water body. 



Consortium 


VARIATIONS (3) 

• Designation of a water body as a water body at risk 

on the basis of a single value is also irrational from 

the economical point of view 

• To solve these problems we use a “compromise” 

system for status establishment and classification 

confidence based on the position of an indicator 

within the range of indicator values on the status 

scale. 



Consortium 

Status still good 

Status 

Elements: High Good Moderate Poor 

Biological ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 

metric 1 

metric 1+n 

Physico-chemical ≤75 ≤10 

0 

≤25 ≤50 ≤75 ≤10 0 

≤25 ≤50 ≤75 ≤10 0 

≤25 ≤50 ≤75 ≤10 0 

metric 1 

metric 1+n 

(descending) ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 

E.g. O 2 mg/l 

Hydromorphology 

Status moderate 

Status 

Elements: High Good Moderate Poor 

Biological ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 

metric 1 

metric 1+n 

Physico-chemical ≤75 ≤10 

0 

≤25 ≤50 ≤75 ≤10 0 

≤25 ≤50 ≤75 ≤10 0 

≤25 ≤50 ≤75 ≤10 0 

metric 1 

metric 1+n 

(descending) ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 ≥75 ≥50 ≥25 ≥0 

E.g. O 2 mg/l 

Hydromorphology 



Consortium 

41

GROUNDWATER MONITORING 

• National level; 

• Municipal level; 

• Level of economic entities. 

The Lithuanian Geological Survey conducts national 

groundwater monitoring and approves monitoring 

programmes developed by economic entities, evaluates 

monitoring findings, and provides proposals on 

environmentalmeasures. 



Consortium 

Groundwater monitoring network in the Nemunas 

RBD 



Consortium 

GROUNDWATER MONITORING (2) 

• One bore-well in many cases. 

• For assessment impacts of land use on shallow groundwater 

resources, groups of wells located in a small area, under the 

same hydro-geological conditions but in sites of different land 

use, are used. A group usually consists of two to four wells. 

• Well clusters, which are wells specially drilled into aquifers 

situated at different depths, are intended for the monitoring of 

all main aquifers comprising fresh water column and their 

interaction. A well cluster usually consists of two to four wells. 

• Denser - at the country border, where cross-border groundwater 

monitoring is being conducted. 



Consortium 

42

NATIONAL GROUNDWATER 

MONITORING 

• Conducted according to a work-plan approved every year, which 

consists of activities of monitoring of the groundwater table and 

quality. 

• As from 2005, the groundwater table has been measured once a 

day with the help of electronic sensors located in 75 bore-wells. 

• 61 well – for shallow groundwater, 

• 6 wells – for Quaternary intermoraine, and 

• 8 wells – for Pre-Quaternary confined aquifers. 

In total, 280 wells have been included in the National Monitoring 

Programme. 



Consortium 

FREQUENCIES 

• General chemical composition, micro components, pesticides and 

organic compounds, biogenic elements are analysed in the same 

280 sites; 

• frequency - from 1 a year to 1 each 2-6 years. 

• Principle of rotation: groundwater sampling for assessing general 

chemical composition and biogenic elements is more frequent (at 

least once a year) in a shallow aquifer the composition of which is 

changing more rapidly, and less frequent (every two years) - in 

confined aquifers. 

• Specific chemical components, such as organic compounds, 

pesticides and metals, the concentrations whereof in groundwater 

are very low, are monitored once in five years in wells, where these 

components are likely to be detected. 



Consortium 

CHALLENGES/RECOMMENDATIONS (1) 

• Biological assessment “newly appeared” with the WFD. 

• Due to the lack of monitoring data of previous years, 

assessment methods were developed not for all biological 

quality elements required by WFD. 

• It is very important to select proper site for monitoring, 

especially – for monitoring of biological elements. 

Atypical sites have to be avoided. 

• Results of the assessment depend a lot on the sampling 

and testing methods. 



Consortium 

43


• Hydromorphological conditions have to be assessed 

carefully when general physicochemical parameters are at 

the background levels, but biological elements show signs 

of disturbance. 

• Different countries interpret hydromorphological impact 

on the biological status differently. 

• Lack of understanding of the impact of chemical 

elements on the biological elements. 



Consortium 


• Advanced planning is very important; it is crucial to 

coordinate monitoring programmes with the 

development of RBMPs. 

• Lack of very good specialists; not only biologists, but 

specialised biologists with very specific experience! 

• Continuity is very important. 

• “We are in half a way”. 



Consortium 

44

WS Training Materials, Feb 2012, Activiti 3 2, Shkodra, I part ... - RENA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?