At present one of the most important problems of water management in accordance with requirements of Water Frame Directive (WFD) is counteract of worsen on water bodies condition and to end of year 2015 achievement good conditions all waters. For surface water “good state” be appointed by " the good ecological state ”. Ecological conditions accordance with FWD determined biological quality elements, helped by hydromorphological and physics – chemical quality elements. It to it fully match the requirements the FWD to assessment of quality of surfers waters was one should introduce hydromorphological assessment.

Minimizing the importance of the hydromorphological status assessment in the assessment of ecological status in the Water Framework Directive may result in an incorrect assessment of the condition. As of today, the Water Framework Directive only gives a description of the very good hydromorphological state. As a result, we take into account whether the condition is very good or worse than very good to assess the ecological status. However, we assess the hydromorphological status in five classes. In my opinion, the assessment of ecological status should take into account the full hydromorphological status assessment. If hydromorphological conditions meet high status we should classifay as hgigh ecological status if not we should classifay as good status in accordance with WFD. Thats mean hydromorphological conditions could not classifay as moderate, poor ora bad ecological status. But during the assessment of hydromorphological condition we assess this hydromorphological conditions as moderate, poor or bad.

More Mariusz Adynkiewicz-Piragas's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions