Here is the reminder:
*********************************
50. For chemical pollutants it was never the intention to use the
distance from a reference condition as a basis for classification.
Rather standards should be laid on a normative basis ensuring the
quality intended for a particular water body. Following this approach
the standards required may vary depending on the type of substances
and water bodies concerned, and according to the purpose for which the
standard is laid down. Thus for nitrates a health-based reference
standard was laid down in groundwater and water intended for use as
drinking water. For pesticides the reference standard is a "technical
zero" derived from a political decision that pesticides should no be
present in groundwater, and for surface water the assessment criteria
for authorisation of a pesticide rely on a toxicological and
ecotoxicological approach. 51. However the key point is that the
boundaries between the classifications for chemical quality will
depend on the establishment of absolute standards, and not on any
concept of departure from reference conditions.
Choice of parameters
52. Consequent on the discussion of how the model for presentation of
monitoring results in a common format should function, it is then
necessary to consider what parameters should be monitored in order to
describe the actual status of the waters monitored. For reasons of
practicability it is necessary to limit the number of parameters
required to the essential ones. As mentioned in Commission's comments
on the WRc-report, even these few water types would lead to a very
high number of possible combinations between water types and
parameters to be monitored. One option may be to define several sets
of parameters, with a core set being monitored most frequently and a
set of others monitored on a less frequent basis. 54. The FWD puts
importance to the biological elements. Presently there are very few
requirements for monitoring of biological elements and these concern
microbiology and human health-related concerns (Bathing Water
Directive, Drinking Water Directive). Elaboration of the extent to
which monitoring of biological elements is feasible, in particular for
certain ecosystems where little work has been done on the issues to
date, must be a priority.
55. A further question for consideration is
the extent to which it is possible to identify chemical and physical
parameters, and how these should fit into the overall classification
procedure. For the physical parameters it should be considered which
weight should be given to structure of riverbanks, bottom sediments,
spawning beds for fish, wavelength of meanders, water flow etc.
56. The Commission concluded from the WRc-report that it would not be
possible to require the monitoring of all the quality elements listed
in the Ecological Quality of Water Directive, but that monitoring of
at least the physico-chemical, biological and morphological
characteristics of the body is essential. 57. In summary, the key
issues can be identified as follows:
How far is it possible to strip down the number and type of
parameters monitored while maintaining a reliable picture of the
status of the water body? How far can we proceed in classification by
relying primarily on chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen,
BOD5/COD, ammonium etc. Is it possible to chose a set of core
parameters which could be supported by a number of other parameters
monitored less frequently or only in more specific situations ? Some
of these parameters (primarily the chemical ones) are already being
monitored under existing water legislation. To which extent could
these parameters be used for the purpose of the FWD ? To what extent
are the saprobic indexes while others rely more on chemical
indicators for their classification. Choice of location for
monitoring sites and sampling
58. The question of ensuring that monitoring gives a representative
picture also needs to be looked into e.g. the selection of monitoring
stations and sites, the size of the mesh or grid, frequency etc used
in order to allow for comparisons to be made.
Quality assurance
59. It is obviously of great importance to ensure quality assurance of
any regime set up. However this consideration is subsequent on the
determination of the comparability regime itself and for the time
being the Commission does not propose to discuss it in detail.
Presentation of results
60. The FWD foresees a common format for the presentation of results
of the monitoring of waters. This format should be developed in such a
way as to ensure compatibility with the EEA data requirements. The
reporting is foreseen through submission to the Commission of the
6-annual River Basin Management Plans. The FWD also foresees that
common rules should be laid down for the amount of information to be
included in these Plans. 61. It is obviously not possible at this
stage to specify further these common formats and common rules. This
task will have to wait until more precise technical specifications
have been laid down on the monitoring requirements them selves.
Delegations are invited to express their views on the issues
discussed.
=========================================================
Piotr Parasiewicz
Dept. of Hydrobiology, Fisheries and Aquaculture
Univ. of Agricultural Sciences in Vienna
Max Emanuelstr. 17
1180 Vienna, Austria
tel: ++431 47654 5206
fax: ++431 47654 5217
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://iwgf-sig.boku.ac.at/fish/hfahome.htm
|
