Hydrobiologia 516: 285298, 2004. D. Hering, P.F.M. Verdonschot, O. Moog & L.

Sandin (eds), Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe. 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

285

Integration of the saprobic system into the European Union Water Framework Directive
Case studies in Austria, Germany and Czech Republic a a Peter Rolauffs1, , Ilse Stubauer2 , Svetlana Zahr dkov 3 , Karel Brabec3 & Otto Moog2
1 Department of 2 Department of

Ecology, Faculty of Hydrobiology, University of Essen, D-45117 Essen, Germany Hydrobiology, Fisheries and Aquaculture, BOKU, University for Agricultural Sciences, Max Emanuelstrae 17, A-1180 Wien, Vienna 3 Department of Zoology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University Brno, Kotl rsk 2, a a 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic Fax: +49-201-183-442. E-mail: peter.rolauffs@uni-essen.de

Key words: Water Framework Directive, saprobic system, benthic invertebrates, reference conditions, bioassessment Abstract The use of saprobic systems has long traditions in the water management in Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany. Within the context of water quality assessment they are applied to indicate the effects of anthropogenic caused organic impact leading to a decrease in the dissolved oxygen content of running waters. In December 2000 the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force. It demands homogeneous procedures and methods for assessing inland surface waters as well as groundwater, coastal and transitional waters. The WFD focuses on the assessment of biotic elements and the ecological status has to be dened based on type specic approaches and reference conditions. To incorporate the saprobic approach into the new integrative methodology of the European assessment of the ecological status of water bodies, the national saprobic systems need to be adjusted. This paper describes the according methodological developments and adaptations of Austria, the Czech Republic, and Germany required to harmonise the traditional procedure with the guidelines of the WFD. In the three countries national databases were established to provide species lists from largely undisturbed stream sites. Such reference sites build the basis for calculating stream type specic reference values. The calculation has been done in slightly different ways dependent on the country. In addition to that boundaries were dened to characterise the 5 saprobic quality classes.

Introduction The saprobic approach dates back to the middle of the 19th century (Hassal, 1850; Cohn, 1853), while the saprobic system of water quality assessment in running waters is in use for about 100 years (Kolkwitz & Marsson, 1902, 1908, 1909). The systems have been modied several times. Changes have focussed on the declaration of abundance classes (Knpp, 1955), the possibility of calculating an index (Pantle & Buck, 1955; Zelinka & Marvan, 1961; Marvan, 1969), and providing an effective tool for visualising river quality by coloured maps (Liebmann, 1952). The saprobic

index as a basis for the assignment of water quality classes in many European countries has a good public acceptance and serves as a traditional tool for water management and political decisions. However, by focusing only on the organic degradable components of running waters, the saprobic approach does not meet the goals of modern challenges in water policy. Further adaptations are, therefore, needed to meet the challenges of current developments in European legislation and administration. In December 2000 the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) became operative (European Union, 2000; Lanz & Scheuer, 2001). It de-

286 mands for new and homogeneous methods of river assessment throughout Europe as follows (Hering et al., 2004): The future river assessment has to be based on biological elements (e.g. benthic macroinvertebrates). The river assessment must be stream type-specic and based on reference conditions, which need to be dened separately for each stream type (Nijboer et al., 2004; Verdonschot et al., 2004). The quality classes should be orientated by the comparison to the undisturbed pristine situation, which could be a real or a hypothetic one. The assessment should classify a site into one of ve levels (high, good, moderate, poor, and bad status). To incorporate the biological elements in quality assessment the following attributes have to be considered: composition and abundance of the biological quality elements, the ratio of sensitive to insensitive taxa with regards to disturbance, and the level of diversity of invertebrate taxa. The water managements of those countries that apply the saprobic system - namely Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany see the need to incorporate the traditionally used assessment schemes into the upcoming methods stipulated by the WFD, while other countries have developed alternative multimetric approaches to assess organic pollution (Brabec et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2004; Sandin & Hering, 2004). It is seen as essential to continue its use as an important part of future stream assessment, supplemented by new, additional components. Therefore, the Saprobic System has recently been revised by scientists in cooperation with the responsible national organisations. The revision comprised alterations and additions to the list of indicator taxa, stream type-specic dened saprobic reference conditions and an adaptation to the ecological status classication of the WFD. The ve classes of increasing deviation from pristine conditions needed to be established by comparing anthropogenic inuenced sites to those not impaired. These modications should full both the above mentioned demands as well as the criteria of the WFD relating to the components of an assessment system. Methods Overview The adaptation of the Saprobic Systems has recently been done in slightly different ways due to different historical approaches and because of the fact that the necessary tasks have been carried out independently. The resulting differences do not inevitably lead to disadvantages. In fact, most of the existing aims can be reached by different approaches. To guarantee the comparability within the AQEM1 project the partners have adjusted the national methods to harmonise the methodological design as far as necessary. The Austrian approach The biological water quality assessment in Austria follows the traditional saprobic system (Liebmann, 1962; Slde ek, 1973). Indicator lists for benthic invertebc rates have been revised by taxonomic specialists and have been published in the Fauna Aquatica Austriaca (Moog, 1995a, 2002). Calculation methods for the saprobic index and allocation to water quality classes are dened in the Austrian Standards NORM M 6232 (1997) and the Guidelines for the determination of saprobiological water quality of running waters (Moog et al., 1999). Up to now, the biological quality of running waters has been characterized by 4 saprobity levels and 3 transitional levels (14), which express the intensity of increasing organic pollution. This total of 7 saprobic water quality classes represent a xed scheme independent from the stream type, whereas the ecological status of a river according to the WFD has to be compared with near-natural reference conditions based on different stream types. For future application of the saprobic system as one of the metrics to describe the ecological status, the saprobic reference conditions of Austrian stream types need to be dened. The saprobic reference conditions represent nearnatural reference conditions of unpolluted running waters in terms of degradable organic matter (Braukmann, 1987). The biocoenoses and the ecological status of unstressed rivers correspond with stream types (Moog, 1995b). For the denition of saprobic reference conditions, a database with more than 5000 sampling sites was
1 The Development and Testing of an Integrated Assessment System for the Ecological Quality of Streams and Rivers throughout Europe using Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

287 available. Data have been provided by the Austrian Federal, State, municipial, and private water monitoring agencies, dissertations, diploma theses and other studies. Out of these, a pre-selection of reference sites was made according to the denitions of the WFD, the REFCOND project (Owen et al., 2001), the AQEM project (AQEM consortium, 2002) and the Austrian approach (BMLFUW, 2002). These sites were discussed with the responsible governmental and federal governmental experts. Out of these 571 reference sites (near-natural sites) have been used for analysis. As a spatial river typology, the Austrian aquatic Bioregions, based on WFD system A and B criteria (Moog et al., 2001a) have been used. For each sampling site the saprobic index (Zelinka & Marvan, 1961) has been calculated using the software ECOPROF 2.5 (Moog et al., 2001b). The nal analysis of saprobic indices has been performed by calculating box- and whiskerplots using the software Statistica for Windows 2.0. The characteristic of the dataset comprises the following attributes: 571 datasets (indicator lists with abundances) from reference sites; spread over 250 running waters; distributed over all 15 aquatic Bioregions of Austria; catchment area classes: <10 km2 , 10 100 km2 , >100 1000 km2 ; altitude classes: <200 m, 200 <500 m, 500 <800 m, 800 <1600 m, 1600 m.
Table 1. Scale for the classication of biological quality of surface water according to the Czech standard CSN 75 2221 Biological status class High Good Moderate Poor Bad Saprobic indices <1.5 1.52.19 2.22.99 3.03.49 >3.5

The Czech approach The assessment of the biological water quality using a saprobic system has a long tradition in the Czech Republic. Based on the traditional saprobic system (Kolkwitz & Marsson, 1902), saprobiological methods were developed, mainly by Zelinka, Marvan, Rotschein, and Slde ek (Zelinka & Marvan, 1961; c Slde ek, 1973; Rotschein, 1982). c The biological water quality of running waters is characterised by 5 saprobity classes (xenosaprobity to polysaprobity), which express the intensity of increasing organic pollution (CSN 75 7716). For classication, the boundaries not corresponding with these original classes were determined by the standard CSN 75 7221 (Table 1). The scheme is universal, but without relation to both stream types and reference conditions.

To meet the demands of the WFD and to compare with near-natural reference conditions of different stream types, the saprobic reference conditions have been dened for the basic stream types present in the Czech Republic. Reference sites must hold natural conditions, anthropogenic disturbances have to range to a minimum. This more general description is specied by several criteria that must be met (e.g., oodplain should be covered with natural climax vegetation, coarse woody debris must not be removed, no riverbank xation, no hydrological alterations, no weirs retaining sediments, no point sources of pollution). It was not possible to nd reference sites for all stream types present in the Czech Republic, that are in full compliance with the criteria listed above. In such cases, the optimum sites were taken as substitutes instead of real reference sites. River typology is still being devised. Therefore, only the basic stream types were dened for the purpose of determining saprobic reference conditions based on ecoregions, altitude classes (including 500 m a.s.l. boundary) and catchment area classes (see example in Table 2). For each sampling site the saprobic index was calculated according to the Zelinka & Marvan-method formula as described in Moog et al. (1995) using the software HOBENT (Kokes et al., 2002), based on Czech saprobic scores (CSN 75 7716). Data from AQEM reference sites and data from the PERLA project, picked out after a rigorous selection procedure, represent 167 reference sites which are distributed all over the Czech Republic and cover nearly all basic stream types. Only datasets from the spring season and from ecoregions 9 and 10, from mid altitudes and with catchment areas less then 1000 km2 were statistically evaluated (calculating of quartiles; box- and whisker-plots and statistical signicance of differences was tested by one-way ANOVA, both with the software Statistica). The stream types poorly

288
Table 2. Basic stream types in the Czech Republic in ecoregion 9 (symbols: + stream type exists in ecoregion 9; stream type does not exist in ecoregion 9). Catchment area <10 km2 10< 100 km2 100< 1000 km2 1000< 10000 km2 Altitude class <200 m >200<500 m + + + + + + + +

500<800 m + + + +

800 m + + +

Table 3. Saprobic reference conditions in Austria; the numbers represent the highest tolerable saprobic index in the catchment area and altitude classes of the Bioregion Limestone Foothills (M: median; P: 75%-percentile; expression expert consensus described in the text) Catchment area <10 km2 Altitude class 200<500 m <1.25 M 1.0, P 1.3

500<800 m <1.25 M 0.75, P 1.0

800<1600 m <1.25 (no data available, expert consensus) <1.5 M 1.4, P 1.5 <1.5 (no data available, expert consensus)

10<100 km2 100<1000 km2

<1.5 M 1.3, P 1.4 <1.75 M 1.55, P 1.6

<1.5 M 1.3, P 1.5 <1.5 M 1.6, P 1.7

represented in the datasets were used with carefully expert judgement. The denition of saprobic reference conditions followed the Austrian approach in deriving threshold values with consideration of the 75%-percentile as well as requirements of administrative agencies. The values of reference conditions represent the boundaries between the saprobic quality classes high and good and are expressed as the upper limit of high quality sites. The German approach Since 1991 the method of assessing the organic impact in running waters has been regulated by German standard DIN 38 410 (DEV, 1987, 1992). It is based on one of the traditonal saprobic procedures (Pantle & Buck, 1955). Originally, the standard was designed to be used for assessing mountainous streams and, therefore, the species were typical of stream types located in such ecoregions. Nevertheless, the system was also used in lowland streams. The application of the sap-

robic procedures designated for mountainous streams to lowland water bodies resulted in quality classes that indicate worse saprobic conditions compared to the real situation. Most of the assessment results were also concentrated in only one saprobic quality class due to the fact that most of the 148 indicator taxa were classed around a saprobic score of 2.0. This deciency is known as the centripetal effect (Marten & Reusch, 1992). A few years ago a committee of national experts was established to adapt the Saprobic System to an overall application on German stream types. The goal was to check the saprobic scores that were assigned to the taxa, to update them according to current scientic knowledge and to add typical lowland taxa to the list. The upgraded standard contains 612 indicator taxa. In a second step the system should be adapted to the demands of the WFD. The implementation was undertaken in a research project called Biological stream assessment for characterising the oxygen content based on stream type-specic reference condi-

Table 4. Proposal of saprobic reference conditions in Austria; the numbers represent the highest tolerable saprobic index (worst saprobic index) for the high ecological status

289

290
Table 5. Saprobic reference conditions; the numbers represent the highest tolerable saprobic index in the catchment areas and altitude classes of the ecoregion 9 in the Czech Republic (M: median; P: 75%-percentile). Expert judgement was applied where insufcient datasets for statistical evaluation (additional information is given in chapter Results Derivation of saprobic reference conditions, Austrian part) Catchment area Altitude class <200 m <10 km2 10<100 km2 100<1000 km2 1000<10 000 km2 <1.50 (expert judgement) <1.50 (expert judgement) <1.80 (expert judgement) <2,00 (expert judgement) 200<500 m <1.50 M 0.98; P 1.31 <1.50 M 1.18; P 1.42 <1.80 M 1.39; P 1.76 <2.00 M 1.78; P 1.92 500<800 m <1.25 M 0.87; P 1.10 <1.25 M 0.88; P 0.95 <1.50 M 0.98; P1.18 <2.00 (no data available) 800 m <1.00 (expert judgement) <1.25 (no data available) <1.50 (no data available) (does not exist)

Figure 1. Saprobic index ranges at reference sites of non-alpine Bioregions in different altitude classes.

Figure 2. Saprobic index ranges at reference sites in the Bioregion Limestone Alps in different catchment classes.

tions (Rolauffs et al., 2003). The specic goals of this project were: First application of the revised saprobic indicator list with a large number of datasets. Description of saprobic reference conditions of all 20 German stream types that are used as reference values in comparison to saprobic indices of sites to be assessed. Regrouping of the current 7 quality classes to a 5class-system. Development of a computer software to calculate both the saprobic index and the water quality class. To attain the goals datasets of all 20 German stream types were collected to build up a database that was intended to be the basis for further evaluation and calculation. In the nal stage of the research project it comprised about 1800 datasets, most of which came from water authorities, private ofces, and universit-

ies. They were collected from sites that covered all possible degrees of organic pollution to get a representative cross-section of existing impacts. The typology is based on Schmedtje et al. (in prep.) and predominantly follows System A of the WFD (Annex II). System A classies the streams by altitude typology, size typology and geology, whereas System B includes both obligatory factors (e.g. altitude, latitude, longitude) and optional factors (e.g. distance from source, mean water depth, valley shape). The project was nished in June 2002.

291

Figure 3. Distribution of saprobic indices in reference sites of ecoregions 9 and 10 in the Czech Republic in different altitude classes.

Figure 4. Distribution of saprobic indices in reference sites of ecoregions 9 and 10 in the Czech Republic in different catchment classes.

Results General predictors of saprobic index ranges Austria The analysis of the Austrian dataset (reference sites) shows that saprobic indices tend to decrease with increasing altitude (Fig. 1) and increase with increasing catchment area (Fig. 2). Due to this observation, the evaluation of saprobic indices follows the scheme proposed in the WFD. Hence, the analysed sites are categorized by altitude and catchment area classes (System A, Annex II) within the aquatic Bioregions (System A and B criteria). Czech Republic As in the analysis of the Austrian dataset, the saprobic indices decrease with increasing altitude (Fig. 3) and increase with increasing catchment area (Fig. 4). The altitude of 500 m above sea level seems to represent an important threshold under the conditions prevailing in the Czech Republic. The values of the saprobic indices of sites from lower medium altitudes differ signicantly (p < 0.001) from those of higher medium altitudes. This boundary should be included into the typology. In contrast, values of the saprobic indices from the sites of catchment areas lower than 10 km2 do not differ signicantly (p = 0.36) from the next higher category (10100 km2 ). The category was evaluated separately with respect to the WFD categories, which does not include such very small streams.

Figure 5. Distribution of saprobic indices in dependence on altitude classes from reference and good sites (relating to all German stream types).

Figure 6. Distribution of saprobic indices in dependence on catchment area from reference and good sites (relating to all German stream types).

292

Figure 7. Saprobic index ranges at reference sites of Bioregion Limestone Foothills in different altitude and catchment classes.

Germany As in the results from Austria and the Czech Republic the saprobic index shows a negative correlation to the altitude class (Fig. 5) and a positive correlation to the catchment area (Fig. 6). The calculation is based on both reference and good sites (758 datasets in total). The three ecoregions (Alps, Mountainous Areas and Lowlands) are clearly separated by their 75%-percentiles, whereas the different catchment area classes within each ecoregion do only show a strong trend of an increasing saprobic index, large rivers being separated best. Derivation of saprobic reference conditions Austria For the analysis of saprobic reference conditions, the combinations of Bioregion/altitude class/catchment area class are used as types. For deriving the threshold values, the 75%-percentile and the median are considered. For the derivation, approximations to the next quarter of a class are performed in consulation with administrative agencies. The threshold values for saprobic indices represent the border between high and good quality and are expressed as the upper limit for high quality (saprobic index <1.0; <1.25; <1.5; <1.75 or <2.0). As an example, values derived

from Figure 7 for the Bioregion Limestone Foothills are given in Table 3. Stream types with no reference data sets available were classied according to expert knowledge (see Table 3). For this step, results from adjacent and comparable altitude and catchment classes were consulted to dene the saprobic reference condition. The results for all Austrian Bioregions are summarized in Table 4 (Stubauer, 2002; Stubauer & Moog, in prep.). The separation of altitude and catchment classes has been maintained consequently even in cases of similar saprobic reference conditions. This provides a persistent mode for application. The scheme is currently being tested by federal biologists and may be subject to minor alterations. The use of system A criteria (Annex II, WFD) like catchment and altitude classes indicated quite a high number of types (class combinations) (32) within the 15 Austrian Bioregions. Therefore, further typological possibilities were tested: stream order (Strahler System) and longitudinal zonation. As an example, running waters in the Limestone Foothills and the Limestone Alps are analysed. The saprobic reference conditions (Figs 8, 9) show the same trend as described for catchment area classes. The steplike line in the gures shows possible saprobic reference con-

293

Figure 8. Saprobic index ranges in reference sites of the Bioregion Limestone Foothills along different stream orders. Figure 11. Saprobic reference conditions in relation to basic stream type: ecoregion 9, higher mid altitutes.

Figure 9. Saprobic index ranges in reference sites of the Bioregion Limestone Alps along a longitudinal gradient (EUK eucrenal, HYK hypocrenal, ER epirhithral, MR metarhithral).

Czech Republic In dening the saprobic reference conditions the Austrian approach was followed (see chapter Methods). Data on the basic stream types were analysed, the examples of which are given in Figures 10 and 11. The threshold values were dened with respect to needs of water management, e.g., the same value (2.0) was assigned to large streams at lower mid altitudes and for large streams at higher mid altitudes of ecoregion 9, for which available datasets were lacking. As an example, values for ecoregion 9 are given in Table 5. Germany The datasets reect a representative cross-section of existing degrees of organic pollution. To obtain typespecic values of reference conditions of each of the 20 stream types, the focus was set on only undisturbed sites. Each of the stream types was treated separately. To get the specic values a mathamatical procedure was used: the best 10% of the saprobic indices were considered to dene saprobic reference conditions by calculating its mean value and deducting twice the standard deviation to ensure that the resulting reference value will be lying beneath most of the saprobic indices. Some of the results are shown in Table 6. The remaining sites (affected by organic impact) and saprobic indices, respectively, were used to reconstruct the consequences of different sets of class boundaries to the saprobic quality of these sites. Stream types that react similarily to organic pollution were grouped together to assign a common value. This does not necessarily imply a similarity in their biocoenoses. After the groups have been determined each group was assigned one reference value by calcu-

ditions. Using stream orders or longitudinal zonation, the number of types can be reduced.

Figure 10. Saprobic reference conditions in relation to basic stream type: ecoregion 9, lower mid altitutes.

294

Figure 12. Saprobic indices used to calculate the saprobic reference conditions of the German saprobic type-groups (symbols: n number of corresponding data sets, AG type-groups according to Appendix A). Table 6. Reference values of the ve most frequent German stream types German stream type Value of reference condition 1.25 1.40 1.55 1.70 1.90

dened by expert knowledge. The whole procedure was a mathematical one with the aim of reducing the number of saprobic reference conditions. The 10% best saprobic indices of each resulting saprobic type group are shown in Figure 12. Discussion Overview The Water Framework Directive governs the future water management and protection in the member states of the EU. A main focus of the WFD is the use of biotic elements in stream assessment. The following attributes of the biological elements need to be considered for evaluating the ecological status of water bodies: composition, abundance, the ratio of disturbance sensitive taxa to insensitive taxa, and age structure. With respect to most of the methods currently used to evaluate river quality in European countries, the Directive enforces a re-orientation of the monitoring procedures towards an integrated approach. Instead of solely documenting the biological water quality with respect to organic pollution, the forthcoming assessment of the ecological status of water bodies needs to consider a broader aspect of the relationships between biota, hydro-morphological and chemical components. On the other hand an assessment by saprobic systems covers the aspect of signicant point source pollution and diffuse source pollution as demanded by the WFD. Therefore, those countries that base the river quality monitoring on

Calcareous alpine streams Small streams in lower mountain areas Mid-sized streams in lower mountain areas Small sand bottom streams in the lowlands Mid-sized sand bottom streams in the lowlands

Table 7. Scheme for the assignment of saprobic indices to ecological status classes in Austria according to the WFD (basis: saprobic reference conditions in Table 3) Ecological Saprobic indices status class High Good Moderate Poor Bad 1.0 1.011.75 1.762.25 2.262.75 >2.75 1.25 1.262.00 2.012.50 2.513.00 >3.00 1.50 1.512.10 2.112.60 2.613.10 >3.10 1.75 1.762.25 2.262.75 2.763.25 >3.25 2.00 2.012.40 2.412.90 2.913.40 >3.40

lating the mean of the individual values of each stream type to the nearest 0.05-step. For some of the stream types the number of datasets were too low for calculation. In such cases the reference conditions were

295 the principles of the saprobic system see an urgent need to incorporate the saprobic approach into the new integrative methodology of European assessment. To adjust the national saprobic systems, the Austrian, the Czech, and the German partners of the AQEM project decided to harmonise the saprobic methodology by integrating a status of saprobic reference conditions that reect the demand for a reference based evaluation system in the WFD. On the basis of sampling sites located in near natural streams reference related values of each component of assessment should be determined. In Austria and the Czech Republic the saprobic reference conditions were derived exclusively from existing reference sites . The selected sites have been pre-classied in accordance with the state biologists and water managers in Austria. Due to the specic administrative structures in Germany, instead of selecting reference sites the potentially lowest stressed sites of each type were considered in calculating the saprobic reference conditions. As the main typological allocation base the type specic assessment had a strong focus on System A & B parameters in Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany. Saprobic systems are in accordance with this part of the normative denitions of ecological status classications of the directive that is based on the ratio of sensitive taxa to tolerant taxa. It refers to the dependency of the species on the oxygen content in the water, which again depends on the saprobic stress. Adaptation of saprobic water quality classes to the 5-class-scheme of the WFD Austria Based on the saprobic reference conditions, the interquartile ranges, and expert opinions a scheme for the assignment of saprobic indices to ecological status classes according to the WFD is recommended (Table 7). The traditionally used and politically xed water quality target in Austria is dened as saprobic water quality class II (good status with an upper limit of 2.25 in the saprobic index). The new scheme provides the saprobic index ranges for all ecological status classes, considering the upper limit of the good ecological status as a xed objective in the WFD. The scheme is currently being tested by federal biologists. Czech Republic For the proposal concerning the boundaries of the quality classes post-classicated data from AQEM, non-reference sites were used. An application of this method leads to type-specic class boundaries (Table 8). At present there is no xed scheme for the assignment of saprobic indices to ecological status classes (see also Table 7 of the Austrian approach). Germany Following on from the values of the saprobic reference conditions the boundaries of the quality classes were calculatd by means of ecological quality ratios (EQR values). EQR values are mentioned explicitly in the WFD and represent relative deviations from the corresponding reference value. In the process of establishing a modied saprobic system several sets of EQR values were tested for their effects on the assessment. For this purpose all sites present in the database were used, that are undisturbed sites as well as reaches affected by saprobical discharge. The favoured set contains EQR values at levels of 5%, 25%, 50% and 75% as the boundaries of the 5 quality classes. For example, a site must not differ more than 25% in relation to the appropriate reference condition to be assessed as a good site. The class width of at least 20 percentage points ensures that the general variability within one site will not affect the assessment fundamentally. The EQR values that will be favored are a compromise between scientic and political opinions. Appendix A summarises the resulting boundaries of quality classes for the German stream types. Conclusions Austria The denition of saprobic reference conditions provides the possibility to integrate the traditional saprobic system into the concept of the EU Water Framework Directive, which is based on reference conditions and different stream types. The saprobic index of the benthic community can easily be incorporated into the classication scheme of the WFD without additional expenses in routine monitoring. For practical use, a table with type specic saprobic reference conditions is provided (Table 4, Stubauer 2002, Stubauer & Moog in prep.) as well as a scheme for the assignment of saprobic indices to status classes according to the WFD (Table 7). As a typological basis, combinations of Bioregion and altitude class / catchment area class are proposed. Czech Republic Long-term saprobiological monitoring has been conducted in the Czech Republic. The denition of saprobic reference conditions of stream types (which

296
Table 8. Class boundaries for the saprobic index of the most frequent stream types, derived from AQEM data (symbols: # class boundaries were dened without sufcient datasets) High Ecoregion 9: Mid-sized streams, lower medium altitudes Mid-sized streams in Central Sub-alpine Mountains (type C01) Ecoregion 10: Small streams, lower medium altitudes Small streams in the Carpathians Ecoregion 10: Mid-sized streams, lower medium altitudes Mid-sized streams in the Carpathians 1.70 1.712.20 2.212.50 2.513.00 3.01 # (type C03) 1.20 1.211.50 1.512.00 2.012.70 2.71 (type C02) 1.80 1.812.10 2.112.50 2.513.00 3.01 # Good Moderate Poor Bad

were dened for the purpose of determining saprobic reference conditions based on ecoregions, altitude classes and catchment area classes) enables signicant improvement of the system of saprobiological monitoring for approximation to the WFD demands. The type specic saprobic reference conditions in ecoregion 9 in the Czech Republic are given in Table 5. The Czech standards CSN 75 7716 and CSN 75 7221 formulated in 1998, but their modication is necessary in the near future. Germany The adaptation of the German standard DIN 38 410 indicating anthropogenic induced organic impact to the demands of the WFD is nearly nished. After suggestions of national experts on how to eliminate minor discrepancies have been considered, the revised Saprobic System will replace the old one. It will be integrated as a module, amongst others, into the stressor-specic assessment approach built up in the AQEM project. The scheme of both reference conditions and threshold values of the varying saprobic quality classes are given in Appendix A. It requires combinations of ecoregion, altitude class and catchment area. General conclusion The revision of the Saprobic Systems in Austria, the Czech Republic and Germany has nearly been nished, so that the implementation into national standards will be done presumably within the next year. The values of reference conditions were calculated from reference sites or the best situations available,

and 5 saprobic quality classes had been established constructively. First initial calculations showed that the results are scientically comprehensible and the modied systems seem to function. Due to the fact that the revised systems are based on slightly different guidelines as well as on diversely derived saprobic reference conditions, the assessment results cannot directly be compared. However, stream types that are spread over at least two countries provide the opportunity to form an intercalibration network between the systems, which should be done in the near future and will be described by an additional publication. Saprobic Systems currently are applied in more European countries, but there are no concrete activities (according to the knowledge of the authors) concerning adaptation to the damands of the WFD. Further information about existing assessment systems can easily be obtained using the Waterview Database provided at http://www.eu-star.at (submenu Review / waterview database). References
AQEM consortium, 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM system: A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic invertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive, http://www.aqem.de. 202 pp. BMLF, 2002. Kriterien zur Ausweisung von potentiellen Referenzstrecken fr den sehr guten kologischen Zustand und Eichstrecken fr den guten kologischen Zustand. Strategiepapier, Bund-Lnder Arbeitsgruppe kologische Bewertung gem WRRL. Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wien. 18 pp. Brabec, K., S. Zahrdkov, D. N mejcov, P. Pail, J. Koke & J. e r s Jarkovsk, 2004. Assessment of organic pollution effect considering differences between lotic and lentic stream habitats. Hydrobiologia 516: 331346.

297
Braukmann, U., 1987. Zooznologische und saprobiologische Beitrge zu einer allgemeinen regionalen Bachtypologie. Arch. Hydrobiol. Heft 26: 355. Cohn, F., 1853. ber lebende Organismen im Trinkwasser. Gnsbergs Zeitschrift fr Klinische Medizin 4: 229237. CSN 75 7716, 1998. Water quality, biological analysis, determination of saprobic index. Czech Technical State Standard. Czech Standards Institute, Prague, 174 pp. CSN 75 7221, 1998. Water quality Classication of surface water quality. Czech Technical State Standard. Czech Standards Institute, Prague, 10 pp. Dahl, J., R. K. Johnson & L. Sandin, 2004. Detection of organic pollution of streams in southern Sweden using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 161172. DEV (Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.), 1987. Biologischkologische Gewsseruntersuchung (Gruppe M): Allgemeine Hinweise, Planung und Durchfhrung von Fliegewsseruntersuchungen (M1). In: Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und Schlammuntersuchung. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinheim, 13 pp. DEV (Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.), 1992. Biologischkologische Gewsseruntersuchung: Bestimmung des Saprobienindex (M2) . In: Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und Schlammuntersuchung. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinheim, 13 pp. European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Ofcial Journal of the European Communities, 72 pp. Hassal, A., 1850. A Microscopic Examination of the Water Supplied to the Inhabitants of London and suburban districts. London. Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 120. Knpp, H., 1955. Grundstzliches zur Frage biologischer Voruteruntersuchungen erlutert an einem Gtelngsschnitt des Mains. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 2 (3/4): 363368. Kolkwitz, R. & M. Marsson, 1902. Grundstze fr die biologische Beurteilung des Wassers nach seiner Flora und Fauna. Mitt. aus d. Kgl. Prfungsanstalt fr Wasserversorgung u. Abwasserbeseitigung Berlin 1: 3372. Kolkwitz, R. & M. Marsson, 1908. kologie der panzlichen Saprobien. Ber. Dt. Botan. Ges. 26a: 505519. Kolkwitz, R. & M. Marsson, 1909. kologie der tierischen Saprobien. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 2: 126152. Kokes, J. et al., 2002. Predikcni modely ricnich ekosystemu [Prediction models of river ecosystems]. Final report, Project No. VaV 510/7/99. Water Research Institute T.G.M., Prague. Lanz, K. & S. Scheuer, 2001. EEB Handbook on EU Water Policy under the Water Framework Directive. European Environmental Bureau (EEB), 60 pp. Liebmann, H., 1962. Handbuch der Frischwasser- und Abwasserbiologie. 2. Auage, Verlag Oldenburg, Mnchen, 588 pp. Marten, M. & H. Reusch, 1992. Anmerkungen zur DIN Saprobienindex (38410 Teil 2) und Forderung alternativer Verfahren. Natur & Landschaft 67: 544547. Marvan, P., 1969. Primetchanija k primeneniju statistitcheskich metodovpo opredeleniju saprobnosti. Simposium SEV. Voprosy saprobnosti, Zivogost: 1943. Marvan, P., J. Rothschein & M. Zelinka, 1980. Der diagnostische Wert saprobiologischer Methoden. Limnologica 12 (2): 299 312. Moog, O. (ed.), 1995a. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca. Lieferung Mai/95, Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien. Moog, O., 1995b. Gewsserbeurteilung und Immissionsschutz. Wiener Mitteilungen 125: C 1C 31, TU Wien. Moog, O., A. Chovanec, J. Hinteregger & A. Rmer, 1999. Richtlinie zur Bestimmung der saprobiologischen Gewssergte von Fliegewssern. Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien: 144 pp. Moog, O., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, T. Ofenbck & J. Gerritsen, 2001a. Aquatische koregionen und Fliegewsser-Bioregionen sterreichs eine Gliederung nach geokologischen Milieufaktoren und Makrozoobenthosznosen. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien (in press). Moog, O., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, R. Vogl & V. Koller-Kreimel, 2001b. ECOPROF-Software. Bundesministerium fr Landund Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Wien. Nijboer, R. C., R. K. Johnson, P. F. M. Verdonschot, M. Sommerhuser & A. Buffagni, 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516: 91105. NORM M 6232, 1997. Richtlinien fr die kologische Untersuchung und Bewertung von Fliegewssern (zweisprachige Fassung). sterreichisches Normungsinstitut, Wien, 84 pp. Owen, R., W. Duncan & P. Pollard, 2001. Denition and establishment of reference conditions. Discussion paper for REFCOND WP 5, manuscript. Pantle, R. & H. Buck, 1955. Die biologische berwachung der Gewsser und die Darstellung der Ergebnisse. Bes. Mitt. dt. Gewsserkundl. Jb. 12: 135143. Rat der Europischen Union, 2000. Richtlinie 2000/60/EG des Europischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Schaffung eines Ordnungsrahmens fr Manahmen der Gemeinschaft im Bereich der Wasserpolitik. Brssel, ABLL 327 vom 22. Dezember 2000. Rolauffs, P., D. Hering, M. Sommerhuser, S. Rdiger & S. Jhnig, 2003. Entwicklung eines leitbildorientierten Saprobienindexes fr die biologische Fliegewsserbewertung. Umweltbundesamt Texte 11/03: 1137. Rotschein J., 1982. Nov metody stanoven indexu saprobity. [New methods of saprobic index assessment]. Vodn hospodstv B, 6: r 159162. Sandin, L. & D. Hering, 2004. Comparing macroinvertebrate indices to detect organic pollution across Europe: a contribution to the EC Water Framework Directive intercalibration. Hydrobiologia 516: 5568. Slde ek, V., 1973. System of water quality from the biological c point of view. Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebnisse Limnol. 7: 1218. Stubauer, I., 2002. Ausweisung saprobieller Grundzustnde sterreichischer Fliegewsser. Dissertation, Universitt fr Bodenkultur, 136 pp. Verdonschot, P. F. M. & R. C. Nijboer, 2004. Testing the European stream typology of the Water Framework Directive for macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 3554. Zelinka, M. & P. Marvan, 1961. Zur Przisierung der biologischen Klassikation der Reinheit ieender Gewsser. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 389407.

298
Appendix A.. Boundaries of quality classes of all 20 German stream types. The boundaries of the type-groups were derived from the values of the corresponding stream types. The stream types belong to the following ecoregions: 14 Alps and Subalpine Areas, 510 Lower Mountainous Areas, 1120 Lowlands. Stream type-group [Type-No.] type name Group A: types 1, 2 [1] Pebble/gravel bottom streams of the calcareous Alps, with signicant substrate transport [2] Cobble and pebble/gravel bottom streams of the tertiary hills, river terraces and old moraine landscapes Saprobic Quality Class High Good Moderate

Poor

Bad

1.101.25 >1.251.85 >1.852.55 >2.553.30 >3.304.00 1.111.25 1.251.83 1.832.55 2.553.28 3.284.00 1.121.26 1.261.84 1.842.56 2.563.28 3.284.00

Group B: types 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16 1.251.40 >1.401.95 >1.952.65 >2.653.35 >3.354.00 [3] Pebble/gravel bottom streams of the young moraine landscapes 1.421.55 1.552.06 2.062.71 2.713.35 3.354.00 [4] Mid-sized pebble/gravel and sand bottom streams with wide 1.251.38 1.381.93 1.932.62 2.623.31 3.314.00 oodplains (e.g. Iller, Lech, Isar) [5] Streams with sand, pebble/gravel, cobbles or boulders 1.211.35 1.351.91 1.912.61 2.613.30 3.304.00 in Triassic sandstone, mountain and vulcanic areas [6] Clay, sand or cobble bottom streams in Loess or Triassic mudstone 1.311.44 1.441.98 1.982.65 2.653.33 3.334.00 (Keuper) areas [7] Pebble and cobble bottom streams of calcareous areas 1.261.40 1.401.94 1.942.63 2.633.31 3.314.00 (without karstlands) [8] Pebble and cobble bottom streams of calcareous areas 1.401.53 1.532.05 2.052.70 2.703.35 3.354.00 (without karstlands) [16] Small pebble/gravel bottom streams of moraine landscapes, river 1.331.46 1.462.00 2.002.67 2.673.33 3.334.00 terraces and lowland hills Group C: type 9 [9] Clay, sand, cobble or boulder bottom streams of the highlands Group D: type 11 [11] Organic brook Group E: types 13, 14, 17 [13] Small sand bottom streams of the old glacial landscapes [14] Small sand bottom streams [17] Mid-sized pebble/gravel bottom streams of moraine landscapes, river terraces and lowland hills Group F: types 10, 15, 18, 19 [10] Mid-sized to large Pebble/gravel dominated streams with wide oodplains (e.g. Upper Rhine, Bavarian Danube, Lower River Main) [15] Mid-sized sand bottom streams [18] Small loess-loam bottom streams [19] Mid-sized pebble/gravel, sand and organic oodplain streams Group G: type 20 [20] Large sand and pebble/gravel bottom streams with wide oodplains (e.g. Lower Elbe, Weser, Oder, Rhine) 1.401.55 >1.552.05 >2.02.70 >2.703.35 >3.354.00 1.381.51 1.512.03 2.032.69 2.693.34 3.344.00 1.451.60 >1.602.10 >2.10 2.75 >2.753.35 >3.354.00 1.481.60 1.602.11 2.112.74 2.743.37 3.374.00 1.551.70 >1.702.20 >2.202.80 >2.803.40 >3.404.00 1.521.65 1.652.14 2.142.76 2.763.38 3.384.00 1.601.72 1.722.20 2.202.80 2.803.40 3.404.00 1.641.76 1.762.23 2.232.82 2.823.41 3.414.00 1.751.90 >1.902.30 > 2.302.90 >2.903.45 >3.454.00 1.912.01 2.012.43 2.432.95 2.953.48 3.484.00 1.741.85 1.771.89 1.771.89 1.852.30 1.892.33 1.892.33 2.302.87 2.332.89 2.332.89 2.873.43 2.893.44 2.893.44 3.434.00 3.444.00 3.444.00

1.852.00 >2.002.40 >2.402.95 >2.953.45 >3.454.00 2.082.18 2.182.56 2.563.04 3.043.52 3.524.00