COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (2000/60/EC)

Transcription

1 COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (2000/60/EC) TESTING OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON IDENTIFICATION OF SURFACE WATER BODIES WITHIN THE PILOT RIVER BASIN PROCESS Output of the Workshop held in Brussels on September 2003 Produced by WRc

2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Results from the testing 4 Key issues on water bodies identification 20 Annexes: Annex A Typology criteria as defined in Annex II of the Water Framework Directive 31 Annex B Defintion of Surface Water Bodies (according to Article 2 (10) of WFD) 34 Annex c Groundwater and surface water interaction 36 i

3 SUMMARY Under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), a series of Guidance Documents (GDs) were developed 1. In order to test and validate these GDs, a network of fifteen Pilot River Basins (PRBs) has been established 2. The testing exercise has started in 2003 and should be finalised by the end of It was decided to test in priority the GDs concerning the implementation of Article 5 of the WFD. This report covers the testing of the Horizontal Guidance Document No. 2 on Water Body Identification 3 - the part dealing with the identification of surface water bodies. This document is foreseen to be a useful tool for the Strategic Co-ordination Group and all other experts in the CIS and thereby complements the Guidance Document. However, it is not endorsed by the Commission or the Water Directors 4. Fourteen out of the 15 Pilot River Basins (PRB) had agreed to test the Guidance Document No. 2. The PRBs provided information on the testing by mid September through a questionnaire (Individual reports will be available on request 5 ). The questionnaire has tried to identify the steps in the identification of surface water bodies which were the most difficult for PRBs to implement and issues which might require additional guidance. In addition, a workshop was held in Brussels on September on Surface Water Bodies Identification where the results of the testing in specific PRBs and at the national level were presented. The workshop was a very valuable exercise which allowed participants to share views, identify steps which were the most difficult to implement and highlight key issues which would require additional guidance. The main conclusion of the testing is that the Guidance Document No. 2 does not need to be redrafted but additional examples representing good practices are recommended on specific issues such as: Small water bodies and very small elements of water Aggregation (reporting, management and monitoring) Reporting (scale, thresholds, indicators) Process of identification of water bodies; Typology (freshwater only) 1 Copies of GD are available on 2 More information on the CIS and the PRB exercice is available on: 3 Guidance Document No.2. Identification of Water Bodies ISBN X; ISSN ) 4 The Water Directors agreed to assess and decide upon the necessity for reviewing the DG following the pilot testing exercise 5 Please address your query to WFD helpdesk: env-wfd-circa@cec.eu.int ii

4 The results of the testing have allowed some initial comparison of approaches between PRBs and useful indicators such as density of SWB; method used to define the typology of surface water; criteria used to define status, etc. Some key findings are as follows: Most PRBs have followed the same hierarchical approach as recommended in the Guidance Document No. 2; i.e. first delineate into categories, then into types and then applying the other criteria. Most PRBs have finalised the delineation of categories in the River Basin District but have not yet finalised their typology and/or have not yet considered the other criteria. The density (i.e. numbers of river Water Bodies (WBs) per square km) in the different PRBs varies and does not seem to be linked to the size of the basin. Most PRBs, except the Odense PRB have not identified very small WBs unless they were significant. The criteria used to describe significant include HMWB, significantly polluted, having an impact on the downstream WB, protected area, significant flow, etc. This has resulted for some PRBs in the identification of a certain number of very small water bodies below the thresholds of 10 km 2 for river catchment and 0.5 km 2 for lake area. The number of types defined nationally and of course in the different PRBs for the different categories of surface waters varies between 2 to 35 types for lakes and 3 to 64 types for rivers as it depends on the different typologies but also on the local conditions in the specific catchment. The Strahler order has been used by several PRB in their typology for rivers. Austria has provided examples on the way they have carried out their identification of water bodies. Austria recommended that the identification of WBs be divided in two distinct parts: a basic delineation mainly based on typology which defines a fixed number of WBs and a detailed delineation which uses other criteria such as status and/or pressures to refine the delineation of WBs. This is a flexible and iterative process which may lead to change in the number of WBs after 2004 when additional information is made available following for example new monitoring results for the RBMP in Examples are provided on the approaches used by different countries to deal with very small units of water. This was a controversial issue which may need further discussions. The UK favour, where appropriate, the inclusion of minor tributaries within a larger contiguous river water body for management purposes. The UK, however, does not recommend this approach for minor streams discharging into coastal waters but rather to select a few of these streams as representatives and identify them as WBs as a means of providing a general overview. Most PRBs reported that data available are not sufficient to describe status as required under the WFD. All PRBs have mentioned the need to review the delineation process following additional monitoring data, according to the requirements of Article 5. In most/all PRBs, the biological status is described based iii

5 on preliminary information usually relying on existing monitoring data on macroinvertebrate communities (i.e. the saprobic index or extended biotic index). Expert judgement and data from pressure and impact analysis are also used due to lack of data. Most PRBs have not taken into account protected areas and wetlands for delineating WBs. iv

6 1. Introduction Under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), a series of Guidance Documents (GD) were developed to provide an overall methodological approach. As of September 2003, there were eleven GDs finalised as well a Technical Report on Groundwater 1. In order to test and validate these GDs, a network of fifteen Pilot River Basins (PRBs) in eighteen countries has been established 2. The testing exercise started in 2003 and should be finalised by the end of In the first phase (Phase 1a) of the testing, it was decided to test in priority the GDs concerning the implementation of Article 5 of the WFD. GD No. 1. Economics and the Environment (WATECO) GD No. 2 Identification of Water Bodies GD No. 3 Analyse of Pressures and Impacts (IMPRESS) GD No. 5 Transitional and Coastal Waters (COAST) GD No. 8 Public Participation GD No. 10 Rivers and Lakes Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems (REFCOND) Technical Report 1 Statistical aspects of the identification of groundwater pollution trends and aggregation of monitoring results This report concentrates on the testing of the Guidance Document No.2 on the Identification of Water Bodies 3. The Guidance Document No.2 is divided into two main sections: one dealing with the surface water bodies and one with bodies of groundwater. This report only deals with the identification of surface water bodies (SWBs) the groundwater aspect has not been analysed here. Surface water bodies cover lakes, rivers, and coastal and transitional waters 4. Under Article 5 and Annex II (1) of Water Framework Directive (WFD), Member States have to identify Surface Water Bodies (WB) by 22 December 2004 as part of the first characterisation of the river basin district. The water bodies are the units that will be used for assessing compliance with the WFD environmental objectives and reporting. The Guidance Document No.2 was requested by several working groups of the CIS since it is a basic element of their own guidance on issues such as reference condition and intercalibration. In addition, discussions had revealed different views among 1 A copy of all the Guidance Documents is available 2 More information on the CIS and the PRB exercice is available on: 3 Guidance Document No.2. Identification of Water Bodies ISBN X; ISSN ) 4 The definition of SWB as published in the WFD is given in Annex B in all the EU official languages 1

7 Member States on the interpretation of the term Water Bodies. The GD was endorsed by the Water Directors 5. The Water Directors also agreed to assess and decide upon the necessity for reviewing this GD following the pilot testing exercise and the first experiences gained in the initial stage of the implementation. The Guidance Document No.2 has tried to provide a pragmatic step-wise and flexible approach for the identification of surface water bodies leaving to the Member States to adapt the process to their specific circumstances while bearing in mind that the identification of water bodies must be consistent and co-ordinated within a river basin district in particular within international river basin districts. Fourteen out of the 15 Pilot River Basins (PRB) have agreed to test the Guidance Document No.2 during These PRBs are listed below: Odense (Od) - Denmark Oulujoki (Ou) - Finland Moselle-Sarre (MS) France, Germany, Luxembourg Marne (Ma) - France Neisse (Ne) Germany, Poland and Czech Republic Somes/Szamos (So) Romania and Hungary Scheldt (Sc) Belgium, France and The Netherlands Pinios (Pi) - Greece Shannon (Sh) - Ireland Guadiana (Gu) - Portugal Jucar (Ju) - Spain Tevere (Te) - Italy Cecina (Ce) Italy Suldal (Su) Norway To collect information on the first phase of the testing, a questionnaire entitled Terms of Reference (ToR) was drafted by JRC-IES 6. The questionnaire covers General and Key Issues; i.e. interpretation, coherence between GDs, status of implementation, etc. The PRBs had to respond to questions dealing with Guidance Document No. 2 by mid September. To support the PRB exercise, a series of workshops were held during the second part of A two-day workshop on Surface Water Bodies Identification took place in Brussels on 25 and 26 September During informal meeting under the Danish Presidency in Copenhagen on 21 and 22 November JRC-IES is responsible for the technical secretariat of the PRB testing excercise 2

8 The testing of the Guidance Document No. 2 has tried to identify the steps in the identification of surface water bodies which were the most difficult for PRBs to implement and issues which will require additional guidance. This report constitutes the first summary of the application and experience gained in specific river basins in Europe as a large on the implementation of the WFD for the characterisation of surface water bodies. It is based on the responses from the PRBs to the Terms of Reference (ToR), as well as from the discussions held during the workshop on Surface Water Bodies. The testing of the Guidance Document No. 2 has also allowed some initial comparison of approaches and statistics such as minimum size for SWB; method used to define the typology of surface water; criteria used to define status, etc which are presented in Section 2. This document shall provide in Section 3 an additional information source which can be used to complement the Guidance Document No2 and it should help to assess the need for revision of the Guidance Document. Note, this document is not endorsed by the Commission or the Water Directors. 3

9 2. Results from the testing Introduction As previously mentioned the Guidance Document No.2 was supposed to be tested by the fourteen PRBs, by mid September 2003, twelve have responded to the ToR and a summary of their response is provided in the Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1 PRBs returns (as per 15 September 2003) Issues Od Ou MS Ma Ne So Sc Pi Sh Gu Ju Te Ce Su Status - - Number of SWB Size of SWB - - Very small SWB - - Typology - - Information from - - Article 5 Review - - Pristine water - - Aggregation - - Subdivision Physical features - - Protected areas - - Wetlands The reports submitted by each individual PRB contain more detailed information than reported in this report. These reports will be made available on request 1. It is also important to note that there are more detailed guidelines provided in other GDs on certain aspects covered by the Guidance Document No. 2 such as for example in the GD No 5 on coastal and transitional water bodies or the GD No10 on typology and reference conditions. The replies provided by the PRBs provided here need to be complemented by the responses supplied on these GDs. It is thus advised to refer to the report 2 prepared by JRC and summarising responses on the other GDs. Process of identification/delineation The Guidance Document No 2 recommends a methodology for the practical delineation of surface water bodies (SWBs) which follows a hierarchical step process as presented in Figure 2.1 below. 1 Please address your query to WFD helpdesk: env-wfd-circa@cec.eu.int 2 Reference to this report will need to be added when the report is finalised 4

10 Figure 2.1 Summary of suggested hierarchical approach to the identification of surface water bodies (Extracted from Guidance Document No2) The identification of SWBs in the different PRBs are at different level of finalisation and most PRBs have reported that it is a preliminary delineation which will be reviewed following Article 5 analysis (Table 2.2). Most PRBs have finalised the delineation of categories in the River Basin District but have not yet finalised their typology and/or have not yet considered the other criteria. Additional information is provided for each step in the relevant sections below. Most PRBs have followed the same hierarchical approach as recommended in the Guidance Document; i.e. first delineate into categories, then into types and then applying the other criteria (see Figure 2.1). However some PRBs seem to have adapted the process. For example, in the Tevere PRB, the River Basin District has first been divided into 3 main systems based on geology and hydrogeology; the main reticulate (alluvial plains); the karst structures and the volcanic structure. The Moselle-Saar PRB is the only international PRB out of four which has identified transboundary WBs. Additional examples on the process of identification are presented in Section 3 below. 5

11 Table 2.2 Identification of Surface Water Bodies by the PRBs (as per 15 September 2003) PRB Odense Oulujoki Moselle- Sarre Marne Lausitzer Neisse Somes Scheldt Pinios Shannon Guadiana Jucar Tevere Cecina Suldal Status of delineation The procedure has been tried all the way but all water bodies have not yet been delineated as typology is not finalised yet. Awaiting for national typology. Identification of rivers WBs is not complete as only done for the Odense river and streams in the Ryds catchment Preliminary water bodies have been delineated for rivers and lakes. Typology not finalised and existing databases are insufficient for a comprehensive assessment of ecological status and human impacts Preliminary water bodies have been delineated in the five parts of the basin. Typology is more or less the same between the parties. Only natural criteria were used at this stage. Application of the Pressure layer will result in the subdivision of some WBs. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated. To be finalised after pressure assessment. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated in the Saxony and the Czech parts. The Polish party has not yet finalised their delineation and results should not be available before end of December Typology is finalised for the Czech and German sides. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated in the Romanian and Hungarian parts for lakes and rivers. Typologies have not yet been compared nor harmonised. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated in the different parts of the basin for rivers and transitional/coastal waters. No harmonisation throughout the international basin yet. Typology is more or less finalised in the Flemish part for rivers and coastal waters and is finalised in the Walloon Part it is not clear if the information supplied also includes data from the Netherland part. Only natural criteria applied, WBs will be sub-divided according to other criteria and following identification of HMWB. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated. Typology not finalised. Typology not finalised for any surface water category. PRB had offered to test the GD but no reply was sent Typology is finalised but the identification of water bodies has not been completed yet. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated. Typology is finalised. Pressure analysis is currently being carried out to identify water bodies which are not discrete or significant but which can negatively affect the quality of water bodies. Response to the ToR not submitted but information was provided during the September workshop. Only rivers and coastal waters have been delineated as there is no lake. Preliminary water bodies have been delineated for rivers and lakes. Typology not tested on the coastal areas. However, number of coastal WB were provided. The national typology is almost finalised. Aggregation will probably take place. Number and size of water bodies The preliminary number of SWBs identified in the different categories (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) varies widely according to the PRBs (Figures 6

12 2.2 and Tables 2.3 and 2.4). This depends on the characteristics of the PRBs such as the catchment size, the length of the river and of the coastline, the number of lakes and on the methodology used. The minimum and maximum size of SWBs per category varies also between the different PRBs and between the different parts of an international PRB (Table 2.4). Table 2.3 Number of Surface Water Bodies PRB Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Odense NI 280 NI NI Oulujoki NA NA Moselle-Sarre On going 414 NA NA Marne NI 51 NA NA Lausitzer 0 37 NA NA Neisse (NE1) Somes/Szamos 14 (+4 small 413 NA NA WB) Scheldt NA 201 SC1 NI Pinios NI 7 NI NI Shannon NI NI 13 9 Jucar NI NI NI NI Tevere Cecina NA 8 NI 1 Suldal SU1 +75 sub basins with small rivers and lakes NI 74 Notes: NA NI NE1 SC1 SU1 Rivers not applicable not identified yet Information for the German and Czech part of the PRB the Polish data is not yet available Within the entire Scheldt RBD, there will be about 350 water bodies when designation finalised the number of river stretches may be lower following aggregation It is interesting to note the difference in density (i.e. numbers of WBs per 1000 square km) in the different PRBs which have identified rivers WBs (Table 2.3). For example, the largest PRB, the Scheldt PRB (district area of 37,170 km2) has one of the lowest densities, while two of the smallest PRBs (less than 1,500 km 2 ), the Odense and Suldal PRBs have the highest density in term of number of river WBs per 1000 square km. For rivers WBs, PRBs have reported the size as length of river stretch or/and catchment area. For the seven PRBs which have supplied information on catchment area, the minimum size varies between 1 km 2 in the Suldal and Odense PRBs to 200 km 2 in the Oulujoki and the 230 km 2 in the Pinios PRBs. The minimum catchment size proposed under the WFD as 10 km 2 has been used as threshold in the Flemish part of the Scheldt PRB, in the Romanian part of the Somes PRB, in the Moselle-Saar PRB, in the Jucar PRB (but in conjunction with minimum annual flow) and in the 7

13 Suldal PRB (but in conjunction with the minimum width). However, in the Suldal PRB, catchment areas as small as 1 km 2 are reported as WBs. The minimum length of a river WB is commonly below 5 km ranging between 0.5 and 3 km except in some parts of the Moselle-Saar PRB which has identified as minimum river stretches, sections as long as 10 or 16 km. The maximum size for river WBs varies greatly ranging between 12 km in the Odense PRB and 542 km in the Moselle-Saar PRB and even greater according to the catchment size between 65 km 2 in the Suldal PRB to 21,500 km 2 in the Oulujoki PRB. Lakes It is interesting to note that out of the five PRBs which have carried out so far the identification on lake WBs, three PRBs (i.e. Oulujoki and Suldal PRBs even though both PRBs have a large number of smaller lakes and in the Czech part of the Neisse basin) have decided not to designate lakes smaller then 0.5 km 2 except in specific circumstances such as HMWBs. The inclusion of lakes smaller than 0.5 km 2 in the Suldal PRB would have resulted in 316 additional WBs. However, the Odense, Somes and Shannon PRBs have adopted a smaller limit (0.1 km 2 for the Somes and Shannon PRBs and 100 m 2 in the Odense PRB). The maximum size for lake varies greatly between 3.17 km 2 in the Odense PRB and 713 km 2 in the Oulujoki PRB. Coastal and transitional waters Information on coastal waters was only supplied by six out of the 9 PRBs with coastal waters (i.e. Cecina, Odense, Shannon, Suldal, Scheldt and Tevere PRBs). The level of information supplied through the ToR relating to Guidance Document No2 was limited. There was even less information reported on transitional waters. It is recommended to consult the output report produced by JRC 3 for further information. The Suldal has reported the higher number of coastal WBs (74) while Cecina has reported to identify only 1 coastal WB. The minimum reported size for coastal WB varies between 6 km 2 (Shannon) and 10 km 2 (Odense) while the maximum size varies between 54 (Odense) and 385 km 2 (Shannon). Numbers of transitional WBs were only provided by the Scheldt, Shannon and Tevere PRBs. 3 Reference to this report will need to be added when the report is finalised 8

14 Lakes Rivers Trans Coastal Figure 2.2 Cecina (903 km2) Odense (1,160 km2) Suldal (1,460 km2) Lausitzer Neisse (4,403 km2) Pinios (9,500 km2) Marne (12,730 km2) Shannon (14,007 km2) Somes (16,046 km2) Tevere (17,400 km2) Jucar (22,075 km2) Oulujoki (22,841 km2) Moselle-Sarre (28,152 km2) Scheldt (37,170 km2) Number of Surface Water Bodies in different PRBs Table 2.4 Density of river WBs in the relevant PRBs PRB Catchment size (km 2 ) Density (Number of river WB/1000 km 2 ) Cecina Odense Suldal Pinios Marne Somes Tevere Oulujoki Moselle-Sarre Scheldt

15 Table 2.5 Size 1) of Surface Water Bodies PRB Lakes Rivers Coastal Odense Min: 100 m 2 Max: 3.17 km 2 Min: 1 km Max: 12 km Min: 10 km 2 Max: 54 km 2 Oulujoki Min: < 0.5 km 2 Max: 713 km 2 Min: 200 km 2 Max: 60 km 2 /21,500 km 2 Moselle-Sarre: Belgium Min: 16 km 2 Max: 46 km 2 Mean: 50 km 2 Luxembourg Min: 3 km 2 Max: 400 km 2 Mean: 70 km 2 France Min: 6 km 2 Max: 80 km 2 Mean: 90 km 2 Germany-Saarland Min: 10 km 2 Max: 542 km 2 Mean: 66 km 2 Germany-Rhein Pflatz Min: 0.5 km (HMWB) Min: 2 km/10 km 2 Max: 90 km/51 km 2 Marne Min: 2 km 2 Max: 829 km 2 Lausitzer Neisse: Germany Min: 2.1 km Max: 46 km Czech Rep Min: 6.01 km 2 Max: km 2 Poland Somes: Romania Min: 0.1 km 2 Max: 8.15 km 2 Min: 3.3 km/10 km 2 Max: 65 km/813km 2 Scheldt: Flanders: Min: 10 km 2 Max: NI Wallonia Min: 1.4 km Max: km Pinios Min: 230 km 2 Max: 6600 km 2 Shannon Min: (0.1km2) Max: 120 km2 NI Min: 6 km 2 Max: 365 km 2 Jucar NI NI NI Tevere Min: 0.3 km Min: 0.5 km Min: 30 km Max: 124 km 2 Max: 66 km Cecina - Min: 2.15 km Max: 34.1 km/368.3 km 2 Suldal Min: 0.5 km 2 Max: 28.9 km 2 Min:1 km2 Max: 65.2 km 2 NI Notes: 1) PRBs have reported the size as length of river stretch (km) or/and catchment area (km 2 ) 100 ha = 1km 2 10,000 m 2 = 1ha 10

16 Category of waters As reported in the Guidance Document No2, a surface water body must not be split between different surface water categories (rivers 4, lakes 5, transitional waters 6 and coastal waters 7. It must be of one category or another. The boundary of a water body may be established where two different category meet. Springs The Jucar PRB is suggesting adding the springs to the current categories. They have identified two types of springs according to the quantity and importance of their flow. This could also cover ephemeral rivers as identified in the Tevere PRB. The Odense PRB has considered temporary watercourses and springs as rivers (not wetlands). Wetlands The Jucar PRB has included wetlands in the lake category. The Odense PRB has recommended that a definition for riparian zone be given to improve the delimitation of WBs and wetlands. Coastal and transitional waters The Jucar PRB has in its legislation (Decree 627/1976) a definition for coastal water in compliance with Article 2 (7) of the WFD. The Oulojoki has used GIS based data to delineate its coastal waters. While coastal waters have been delineated, there were problems with delineation of transitional waters in the Pinios, Odense, Cecina and Suldal PRBs They have all chosen to define only coastal waters. In the Pinios PRB, this is due to physiographic features of the river mouth; in the Cecina PRB it is due to the presence of salt mines in the catchment while for the Odense, the GD No 5 on transitional and coastal waters is not clear enough on this point. Transitional waters have not yet been identified separately for the moment in the Jucar PRB they are part of the river network a study is currently being conducted. 4 Article 2(4) of the WFD body of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land bu which may flow underground for part of its course 5 Article 2(5) body of standing inland surface water 6 Article 2(6) bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river mouths which are partly saline...but substantially influenced by freshwater flows 7 Article 2(7) - up to one nautical mile 11

17 Typology Process As reported in the Guidance Document No2, the WFD in its Annex II specifies that for each surface water category, the relevant SWBs shall be differentiated according to type. These types should be defined using one of two systems; System A or System B 8. Most PRBs have not finalised their typology or are doing their delineation within the context of an ongoing national typology program (Odense, Oulujoki, Pinios, Shannon, Jucar). Some PRBs however have finalised their typology or are using a national typology already in place (The Czech and German part of the Lausistzer Neisse, most parts of the Scheldt and Moselle-Saar and Suldal PRBs). Some of the international PRBs have tried to harmonise their typology as far as possible on the transboundary WBs (e.g. the Moselle-Saar PRB and the Scheldt PRB for coastal waters). In the Moselle Saar PRB, however, there is still some further harmonisation needed to assign the same names to some equivalent types for transboundary WBs (e.g. Devonian schist in Luxembourg is more or less the same of Ardenne in Belgium) or to sub-divided some of the types. This will be done by using a table of similarity of certain types as far as possible. Some of the international PRBs has not yet compared nor harmonised their typology (i.e. the Somes PRB and to a certain extent the Lausitzer Neisse PRB). It is not clear if the Scheldt PRB have a harmonised approach for their typology for rivers. Most PRBs (Table 2.6) have or are going to combine criteria from Systems A and B (i.e. Odense, Lausizter Neisse, Somos, Scheldt and Somes PRBs). The Cecina PRB has used System A for rivers and System B for coastal waters while the Tevere PRB has used System B for rivers and coastal waters and System A for lakes. The Jucar reported that system B was more appropriate to define river types in Spain. The Flemish part of the Scheldt has not yet decided which systems to use for lakes. Odense and Pinios have chosen System B whereas Shannon would prefer to use System A but typologies are still being developed. The number of types defined nationally and of course in the different PRBs for the different categories of surface waters varies (Table 2.6) as it depends on the different typologies but also on the local conditions in the specific catchment. Norway has a finalised national typology for lakes, rivers while the typology for coastal waters does not seem to be finalised. Norway is divided into 6 eco-regions, each divided in up to a maximum of 26 river types and up to a maximum of 23 lake types. In the Flemish Region of the Scheldt PRB, the typology has defined 10 types for lakes and 8 types of rivers. 8 see Annex 1 of this report 12

18 In Denmark, the National Environmental Research Institute (NERI) is currently developing a national typology for lakes, rivers and coastal waters also based on Systems A and B: For lakes, 16 types have been defined based on alkalinity (>/< 2 meq/l); colour (>/< 60 Pt/l); salinity (>/< 0.5 %o) and mean depth (>/< 3 m). For rivers, 6 types have been defined based on elements from Systems A and B such as the position west or east of the Weichsel ice-front line, size defined by stream order, catchment area and distance from the source. For coastal waters, 16 types have been defined based on geomorphologically defined regions subdivided according to criteria from System B such as mean depth, tidal range, exposure and salinity and the fjords are further divided into inner, threshold and other fjords. The Odense PRB has recommended the following criteria as being the most useful for river typology; these are the stream width and catchment area and perhaps also annual minimum flow, all criteria to be supplemented with slope. In the Suldal PRB, the width of river is used to delineate water bodies in pre-selected sub-basin larger than 10 km 2 ; rivers with a width smaller than 15 m were not identified as separate water bodies. In the Jucar, Tevere and Cecina PRBs, minimum flow is an important criterion when delineating rivers into WBs. Intermittent streams are considered as being neither significant nor discrete elements. In the Jucar PRB, the river with a catchment area greater than 10 km 2 must provide a least a natural undisturbed annual runoff of 3.2 million m 3 to be identify as a WB in order to remove a great number of streams and ravines usually dry for most part of the year or conveying water only when storm events. In the Cecina PRB, the river must flow more than 120 days per year to be significant. In the Tevere PRB, no threshold was reported. Most PRBs have used abiotic parameters and validated by biotic parameters to define the different types of WBs. The Strahler stream order is a classification of stream size. Low-order streams (e.g. 1st order) are small and have no tributaries. Two 1st order streams join to form a single 2nd order stream and so on until the river reaches the ocean (e.g. Mississippi River reaches 12th order before reaching the ocean). The Strahler order is used by several PRBs in their typology for rivers (i.e. Odense PRB, the Flemish part of the Scheldt, the Czech and German part of the Neisse, in France). 13

19 Table 2.6 Criteria used for defining typology for lakes and rivers in the PRBs PRB Lake River Odense Moselle-Saar Neisse (Czech part) Scheldt (Flemish part) Somes Alkalinity Colour Salinity Mean depth area Size Altitude Geology depth Strahler order Catchment area Width Distance from source, or Catchment area Run-off median min Slope Ecoregion (altitude) (geology) (substrate) Size Hydromorphological type (reference to fish communities) Area Altitude Strahler order Geology/geochemistry ecoregion Altitude Ecoregion Size Strahler order Obligatory: Ecoregion Size Geology Altitude Optional: Litological Annual mean specific flow Slope Annual rainfall Annual mean temperature Tevere Geology Base flow (Point sources) (Linear sources) (Flow decrease in the substratum) Slope Lithology/ geomorphology Cecina System A Shannon Jucar Suldal System B obligatory factors Altitude Latitude Mean depth Geology Size Size Altitude Geology Calcium concentration System B - Primary factors: Presence of peat Geology Flow Slope System B Size Altitude Geology Calcium concentration 14

20 Table 2.7 Number of different types of lakes and rivers present in the PRBs PRB Lake River Odense 17 3 Oulujuko NI NI Moselle-Saar Belgium 5 Luxembourg 9 France 15 Germany-Saarland 7 Germany Rhein Pflatz 7 Scheldt: Flemish part 10 Somes Romanian part Lakes: 2 reservoirs: 5 types + 9 sub-types 14 types + 18 sub-types Shannon Suldal sub-basins Tevere 3 10 Very small elements of water As reported in the Guidance Document No2, Member States have flexibility to decide whether the purposes of the Directive, which apply to all surface waters, can be achieved without the identification of every minor but discrete and significant element of surface water as a water body. The Directive does not include as such a threshold for what constitutes the minimum size of a surface water body. However, under System A Typology, some indications of what would be considered a very small water bodies are given; namely below 10 km 2 catchment area for rivers and less than 0.5 km 2 surface area for lakes. The Guidance Document proposed that, a) where possible, small elements of surface water are incorporated within a contiguous larger water body of the same surface water category and of the same type; b) where this is not possible, according to their significance in the context of the Directive s purposes and provisions, small elements of surface water are identified as water bodies and if they are (1) belonging to the same category and type, (2) influenced by the same pressure category and level and (3) having an influence on another well-delimited water body, these small elements may be grouped for assessment and reporting purposes; c) for those small elements of surface water not identified as surface water bodies, protect, and where necessary improve them to the extent needed to achieve the Directive s objectives for water bodies to which they are directly or indirectly connected. The PRBs have used different approaches to deal with very small elements of water. Most PRBs have not delineated very small lakes with a surface area below 0.5 km 2 (50 ha) or very small rivers with a basin area smaller than 10 km 2 except under specific circumstances as described below. This does not exclude, however, the possibility to identify some of these small elements later when additional information is made available. 15

21 The specific circumstances when PRBs identify small elements of water as water bodies are: a) if a very small element of water is significantly impacted or/and b) when having a negative impact on a main WB or c) being part of a protected area (Oulujoki PRB) or d) having a flow more than 120 days a year (Cecina PRB). The Cecina PRB has also identified very small streams as WBs because of their significant impact on the water quality of the outflow from the whole basin. In this case designation has been guided by the Impact and Pressure approach while designation according to typology was, in this case, less relevant. One PRB (i.e. Odense) has however identified all very small lakes/ponds (i.e. down to 100 m 2 ) as separate water bodies. The Shannon PRB will probably also considered lakes smaller than 0.5 km 2 down to 0.1 km 2 to reflect local conditions. Most PRBs have included small elements of surface water as part of a contiguous larger water body of the same surface water category and of the same type. The Suldal PRB has proposed an alternative to this approach by merging non-contiguous small elements together into one single water body. The Oulujoki PRB is also considering combining several lakes and small river stretches into one single water body. The Rhein-Pflaz part of the Moselle-Saar PRB has aggregated in a single WB, small WBs when they are not contiguous (e.g. small tributaries of a main rivers which are close to one another). This issue was controversial. Further discussion is presented in the next section on key issues. Physical features As reported in the Guidance Document No2, Physical features (geographical or hydromorphological) can significantly influence surface water ecosystems and their vulnerability to human activities and can also differentiate discrete elements of surface water. Physical features can then be used to sub-divide WBs. Most PRBs have used confluence as physical features to subdivide WBs. Also administrative national boundaries are used as physical feature to sub-divided WBs (i.e. Neisse PRB). The Moselle Saar PRB which has preferred to delineate transboundary WBs to ensure coherence between the national typologies. Identification of water bodies must be consistent and co-ordinated within a river basin district. In particular, international river basin districts need to develop common approaches for the whole river basin. To be able to fulfil this requirement, if a river stretch constitutes the national boundary between two countries, it makes sense to delineate a transboundary WB. If the river flows from one country to another, it can be appropriate to delineate transboundary WBs. 16

22 The Odense PRB recommends that a definition for hydromorphology be given, as it is imperative to know of any physical modifications/alterations before being able to undertake the final WB designation. Status identification As mentioned in the GD No2, initially, Member States will not have sufficient information to accurately define the status of waters. Consequently, especially during the period prior to the publication of the first River Basin Management Plan, it may be appropriate to use the analysis on pressures and impacts as a surrogate for status. As understanding of status improves, the boundaries of water bodies can be adjusted. Most PRBs reported that data available are not sufficient to describe status as required under the WFD. All PRBs have mentioned the need to review the delineation process following additional monitoring data, according to the requirements of Article 5. In most PRBs, the biological status is described based on preliminary information usually relying on existing monitoring data on macro-invertebrate communities (i.e. the saprobic index or extended biotic index) (i.e. Lausitzer Neisse, Cecina, Odense, Tevere). In France, biological monitoring is based on invertebrates and fish ecology zones (salmonid, ciprinid and intermediate zones). Some PRBs have applied pressure analysis to identify WBs (e.g. the Moselle-Saar and the Walloon part of the Scheldt PRB, the Romanian part of the Somos PRB, Tevere PRB) or also applied expert judgement (e.g. Suldal, the Flemish part of the Scheldt River). Heavily Modified Water Bodies As reported in the Guidance Document No2, Heavily Modified Water Bodies may be identified and designated where good ecological status is not being achieved because of impacts on the hydromorphological characteristics of a surface water resulting from physical alterations. In the Moselle Saar PRB, pressures, including morphological and water quality aspects, will be used to further refine the SWB identification and will then allow to identify candidates for HMWB from WBs depending on the percentage of the WB being affected by the pressures or the intensity of the pressures. The identification of hydromorphological pressures, principally hydropower development or alterations of the natural flow in the Odense, Suldal, Tevere and Somes PRBs, is also used for the identification of potential heavily modified water bodies. The Somes PRB provided a detailed typology for HMWBs using a pragmatic approach based on the number of physical structures per stretch of river. 17

23 Additional information is needed on this aspect. Protected areas As reported in the Guidance Document No2, under the Water Framework Directive, all the protected areas must be considered for an integrated river basin management. The boundaries of water bodies and protected areas will, in most cases, not coincide because both geographical areas are being defined for different purposes on the basis of different criteria. In case a water body would not fully be inside or outside a protected area, it may be considered to sub-divide the water bodies into two parts so that the boundaries coincide Protected areas will usually be used to sub-divide a water body in the Suldal PRB. In the Scheldt and Moselle-Saar PRBs, the protected areas are not taken into account to delineate the WB but, if a WB contains a protected area, this latter conserves its own objectives and its own management plan. WBs were further sub-divided in the Tevere PRB following the limits of national and regional parks; special protected areas, sites of interest for the Community, nitrate vulnerable zones and sensitive areas. Protected areas are defined as Natura 2000 areas in the Jucar PRB; as drinking water sources, catchment protected against hydropower development, national parks and nature reserves and landscapes protection areas in the Suldal PRB. Wetlands As reported in the Guidance Document No2, Wetlands which are directly influencing the status of the related water body must be associated with a water body. The boundaries of such wetlands must be identified in a pragmatic way in order to meet the requirement of a discrete and significant element. In most PRBs, wetlands will be considered at a later stage following additional monitoring information or the publication of the specific Guidance Document on Wetlands. The Odense, Tevere and Jucar PRBs are the only PRBs where wetlands had already been identified or taken into account in the delineation of SWBs. In the Jucar PRB, a preliminary criterion for wetlands is used to be considered as water body; a wetland has to have a surface area larger than 0.5 km 2 on the digital map (1:25,000) elaborated by the Spanish National Geographic Institute. Aggregation As reported in the Guidance Document No2 Surface water bodies may each be grouped for the purposes of assessing the risk of failing to achieve the objectives set for them under Article 4 (pressures and impacts analysis). They may also be grouped for monitoring, reporting and management purposes where monitoring sufficient indicative or representative water bodies in the subgroups of surface water provides for an acceptable level of confidence and precision 18

24 in the results of monitoring, and in particular the classification of water body status Different terms are used by the PRBs; aggregation, grouping and merging. For example, the Moselle Saar PRB proposed that aggregation is the merging of several similar elements into a single WB while grouping is gathering several WBs in order to lead a common process for characterisation, assessment, etc. To avoid confusion, it is recommended to refer to the definitions agreed for each term as presented in section 3 below. Aggregation and merging are applied in most PRBs for very small elements of water (e.g. less than 10 km 2 for rivers) and small WBs (rivers ranging between km 2 ) if these are not under significant pressures. For example, the approach adopted in the Scheldt PRB is to merge both small rivers (10 100km 2 ) and larger rivers ( km 2 ) into a single water body. In the Suldal PRB, to avoid discontinuity in the river system, very small elements of water (e.g. lakes smaller than 0,5 km 2 ) and rivers with catchment larger than 10 km 2 but with a width less than 15 m without significant pressures are not identified as separate WBs but are merged with neighbouring river stretch or are merged together into a single WB for management and reporting purposes. However, both examples were discussed controversially. It recommended that more specific examples be prepared as there are uncertainties regarding how to carry out aggregation and if it should be a permanent fixture or only for reporting. This is further discussed in the next section on key issues. Subdivision Following the initial identification of SWB by the end of 2004, further subdivision will be done after designation of HMWB and after additional information on status to separate between good and moderate status (i.e. Neisse, Scheldt, Suldal PRBs), at the latest in Other issues A key issue identified in the Tevere PRB is the interaction between groundwater and surface waters. The Tevere stressed the necessary to maintain a minimum flow to ensure good status. This is dependent on the impact from hydropower or other structures impairing the flow but also on the interaction between groundwater and surface water (i.e. groundwater abstraction). This is discussed in great details in the next section on key issue. 19

25 3. Key issues on water bodies identification General issues Following discussions during the workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies held in Brussels on 25 and 26 September 2003, it was clear that the PRBs had little difficulties in testing the Guidance Document on the Identification of Water Bodies on surface waters (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). The main conclusion of the exercise was that the Guidance Document No 2 was a good basis for the implementation of the WFD and did not need to be redrafted. However, supplementary information on specific issues is needed, mainly through presentation of good examples to illustrate some of the key points of the guidance. This section of the report will provide some of this additional information. Key issues A number of Key Issues were initially identified during the workshop on September 2003; these issues were then discussed and prioritised as follows: Issues requiring more guidance: Small water bodies Aggregation (reporting, management and monitoring) Reporting (scale, thresholds, indicators) Process of identification of water bodies Typology (freshwater only) Merging and splitting of water bodies Other Criteria to be included: Protected areas Floodplains Groundwater / surface water interactions Issues linked to other Guidance Documents need to be strengthened The meaning of significant pressures Typology (for transitional and coastal waters) HMWBs Wetlands GIS (Strahler) 20

26 Additional Challenges: Availability of data International River Basins Temporary / ephemeral water bodies Some of these key issues have been discussed in more detailed and practical examples from individual PRBs or National representatives as agreed at the Water Bodies workshop in September 2003 were provided and have been included in this report. Process of identification The way Austria has refined the process for identification was considered to be very useful and is described in more details below. Austria recommended that the identification of WBs be divided in two distinct parts: A basic delineation based on typology which defines a fixed number of WBs when the typology is complete for River Management Basin cycle. The abiotic typology is validated by a study of aquatic communities present in each type. It gives a finalised basic delineation and the maximum size of a WB. A detailed delineation which uses criteria including status, pressures, impacts, protected areas, etc. This is a flexible and iterative process which will be refined when additional information, e.g. from monitoring on status, is available and this can result in a modification of the number of WBs. According to the Austrian approach, a water body must be clearly defined by its status; either due to the dominance of a significant pressure or to the dominance of an impact (if information is already available). Therefore, the most dominant factor within a water body which determines the ecological status should be identified and this will define the final borders of a water body. If the pressures are having a significant ecological impact, a water body must be delineated to reflect this impact (through the appropriate classification of the body) and drive measures under the WFD to address the problem. Examples below presented by Austria illustrate the approach used in two different situations. Some concerns were raised by the UK with regard to the second example. The UK argues that this second approach could compromise the achievement of good status as a whole by not protecting specifically the good status stretch. Although the overall approach appears to be reasonable and generally applicable, the decision as regards the dominant status or pressures needs to be made on a caseby-case basis. The overall aim should be that the approach is practicable without compromising the objectives of the WFD. 21

27 The following example illustrates two water bodies; WB 1 is clearly dominated by Good Status and therefore defined as a distinct/individual WB and the WB 2 is dominated by significant pressures which impact the status and therefore are dominant for the definition of this distinct WB. WB1 Good Status dominant dominant pressure pressure WB2 pressure The second example illustrates one single delineated water body which is almost dominated by pressures which impact the ecological status. Between the impacted reaches, a short river section (in relation to the overall WB length) can be assessed with Good Status. The short section with Good Status is not dominant in relation to the overall length and is therefore integrated into one WB. However, concerning this case degradations of the Good Status stretch have to be prevented anyway. pressure pressure WB1 Good Status pressure pressure pressure Not dominant Fragmentation of the river network by lakes One of the issues raised by the UK was that of very small lakes (less than 0.5 km 2 ) cutting a river network. It is also an issue raised by the Oulujoki and Suldal PRBs regarding chain of lakes. 22

28 Creating a new river water body boundary at every confluence with a lake could lead to the establishment of a large number of small river water bodies. In addition, where the river stretches between the lakes are small, they might be insufficiently significant to justify their identification as water bodies. This would then potentially lead to gaps in the coverage of the status maps. This would not be acceptable as a solution. It is clear from the GD No2 that lakes greater than 50 ha must be identified as individual WB. In case of very small lakes, the UK has offered and approach presented below: To overcome these two potential problems, unless there are other reasons for their identification as separate water bodies (e.g. status differences), rivers in the UK and in Norway draining into lakes are treated as contiguous with the immediate downstream river water body (see figure below). > 50 ha < 50 ha < 50 ha River water body at high ecological status River water body at good ecological status < 50 ha < 50 ha 2 Lake Transboundary water bodies An example of harmonised international collaboration is the Moselle-Saar PRB. Belgium, France and Luxembourg have adopted a nearly common multi-criteria characterisation for the typology of water bodies. This common approach was made possible by testing transboundary WBs which have to have the same homogeneous type. In principle, WB should be identified as transboundary WBs where the border is along the river flow. Moreover it is evident that the identification of WBs must be harmonised or at least coordinated throughout an international river basin district. 23

29 Small elements of surface water The discussion on very small elements of water has clarified some points with regard to identification, management/monitoring and reporting but it was also controversial. Some useful examples are presented below: In the UK, although minor tributary streams are included within a larger water body for management purposes, they are not necessarily shown on the river basin maps. This is because the density of such streams when mapped tends to make the maps incomprehensible. 1 1 River water body at high ecological status River water body at good ecological status Minor tributaries included in water body but which, for presentational clarity, may not be shown on water body maps The UK argued that the approach described for minor tributaries couldn t be used for minor streams discharging into coastal waters. The approach being developed in the UK is to (a) identify coastal streams as water bodies if they are of sufficient importance in their own right; and (b) identify a selection of the remaining streams as water bodies as a means of providing a general overview of the condition of small elements of surface water 24

30 Coastal Water Up to 1 or 3 nm limit Identify a selection as water bodies Coastal water body at good ecological status Coastal water body at high ecological status Land Stream not included in a water body Stream included in a water body There are several examples regarding the merging of small non-contiguous elements of water (e.g. Oulujoki, Suldal PRBs as well as the Rhein and Pflaz section of the Moselle-Saar PRB) (see section on aggregation below). However, this issue is still very much under discussion and it will need further concrete examples to clarify the possible approach for dealing with very small water bodies. Regarding the management and reporting of very small WBs, some comments were made: The administrative burden of managing a large number of very small WBs may be enormous; There are differences between reporting thresholds and management approach of very small WBs; Reporting on smaller WBs should focus on description of approach rather than provide all the data; a thresholds/scale needs to be agreed for reporting purposes (only); if it is not reported, it does not mean that it does not have to be managed and protected under the WFD; Monitoring a representative sample of very small WBs may be recommended where these water bodies are of the same type and subjected to similar pressures. 25

31 Protected Areas The issue of protected areas was discussed as one additional criterion for the refined delineation of WBs. The UK has taken the view that the primary purpose of the identification of water bodies should remain the provision of an accurate description of water status. Existing Protected Area boundaries are followed in delineating water bodies only if doing so would not compromise the description of surface water status. In many cases, Protected Areas will be nested within or cut-across the boundaries of water bodies. Protected Areas will thus overlay additional standards and objectives on top of the Directive s status objectives for water bodies. These additional standards and objectives may be applicable to parts of, or all of, a water body depending on the boundaries and requirements of the relevant Protected Areas. In an example provided by the UK and illustrated below, the use of the boundary of the shellfish water in delineating a WB was contra-indicated because it would have resulted in a water body with mixed high and good status zones. Similarly, following either the Bathing Water Protected Area or the (overlapping) Natura Protected Area boundaries would have resulted in unnecessarily small coastal water bodies both at high ecological status. From a management point of view, the simplest option in this example was to create two coastal water bodies with multiple objectives, the relevant Protected Area objectives being applicable only to specific zones within each body. Coastal Water Coastal water body at good ecological status Coastal water body at high ecological status Shellfish Water Protected Area Land Bathing Water Protected Area Natura 2000 Protected Area 26

32 Aggregation, grouping and merging There were a lot of discussions concerning this issue these covered definitions, objectives and recommendations: Definition: It is agreed that aggregation means grouping into one unit separate identified water bodies while merging means combining into a single water body unidentified units of water. Merging should only be done when the basic criteria are met simultaneously, in particular contiguity, same type and same category (cf Guidance Document No2). Objectives: Aggregation can be applied for different purposes; for management, monitoring and reporting of water bodies while merging of WBs is performed to make larger (and fewer) WBs. It is necessary to apply aggregation on the basis of clear criteria and a transparent process. The criteria for aggregation will be different for different purposes. E.g aggregation for management may be different to aggregation for reporting. More details on the criteria for aggregation are available in the Monitoring and Pressures and Impact analysis Guidance Documents. Aggregation is performed, when feasible, to simplify monitoring, reporting, etc. Aggregation may be useful for pressures and impact analysis, monitoring, management and reporting and it is a useful tool for managing and/or reporting very small WBs on the criteria such as pressure, status/impact, quality objectives, sensitivity, etc; Recommendations: Future clarification is needed on: criteria for aggregation for management, development of tools for managing and/or reporting very small water bodies and; on how to report the aggregated information. The latter will be discussed in the preparation of the reporting Guidance Document. Examples on best practice for merging and aggregation should be elaborated When aggregation is applied, it is important to mention/report the reason for this aggregation (i.e. aggregation for management purposes or else) For monitoring ensure representative sample of water bodies. 27

33 Some examples of approaches adopted by the PRBs are presented below: The Oulujoki, Suldal PRBs as well as the Rhein and Pflaz section of the Moselle-Saar PRB suggested to merge very small elements of water together even if not contiguous or of the same category into one single water body to avoid discontinuity of the river network and for reporting and management purposes. The Commission services were not in favour of this approach since it is not in line with the WB guidance. Similarly, the UK is not in favour of merging stretches of river that are not hydrologically contiguous because they are either separated by other river water bodies or are in different drainage basins (see Figure below). However, where appropriate, they would group such bodies for management purposes. As far as lakes are concerned, the UK proposed, where appropriate, to group lakes for management purposes. They will not merge different lakes into one water body. If a set of lakes can be appropriately grouped for all management purposes (pressures and impacts analysis; monitoring; design of measures; reporting), grouping has the same effect as would merging in terms of reducing the logistical burdens associated with managing large numbers of water bodies. However, grouping is clearly consistent with the WFD s definition of a surface water body (which gives the example of a lake as being a water body but not a group of lakes) whereas merging several lakes into a single lake water body is not. If a set of lakes cannot be grouped for all management purposes, the suggestion of merging could not arise at all. Water Body 1 Tributary 1 Water Body 2 Tributary 2 Even though water body 1 and 2 are of the same type and status, they are not merged into one water body because they are separated from each other by other river water bodies The two tributaries are in this case part of the same water body 28

34 Reporting The key issues on reporting needs to be discussed in more details through the WG 2D on Reporting. However the some important points were made which are listed below: There are differences between the requirements of the WFD and the reporting obligations to the Commission There is a need to identify aggregated information which fulfils Commission reporting objectives (i.e. compliance check, comparison and provide a European picture, etc.) More detailed information expected to be available to stakeholders at national/regional/local level Reports to the Commission should include maps, aggregated data/statistics and textual information: o There is a need to reach an agreement on scale of maps and minimum size of WB that is required to be reported o The textual information should, for example, describe methods for WB identification and answer specific questions (e.g. how are small WB managed?) o Statistics/aggregated data should provide useful indicators to the Commission (i.e. percentage of WB identified as HMWB, etc) Different reporting needs in 2005 and 2009 in 2005 maybe sufficient to report on typology if detailed delineation takes place later (see Section 2 Austria example). Interaction between surface and groundwater bodies. It is important to consider the interaction between rivers and aquifers as well as between lakes and aquifers. The Tevere PRB underlined how these phenomena actually occur in their territory with some water bodies losing 50% of the flow and lakes in which the level dropped by several cm per year. These phenomena can represent a risk to the achievement of the quality objectives of surface and groundwater bodies. From both workshops held in Brussels on the Identification of surface water bodies and on groundwaters, it appeared that this issue is common to many Member States (i.e. in the French, German, and Danish PRBs). This phenomenon is thought to be widespread and to have originated recently in the other Member States while in Italy, this phenomenon started about thirty years ago, but became evident only in the last years. 29

35 The Tevere PRB recommended considering the following: The necessity of highlighting the interaction between surface and groundwater, already in the phase of surface water body identification. The necessity of setting qualitative and quantitative objectives for surface water bodies and the associated groundwater bodies at the same time. As far as the second point is concerned the Tevere PRB agrees with the fact that it is not recommendable to define abstraction thresholds for groundwater bodies beforehand. The thresholds should be defined case by case, according to the type of interaction existing with the depending terrestrial ecosystems. General comments A few general comments were made during the workshop: The priority should be to address significant environmental problems first, but it is important not to forget the smaller elements of surface water; It is recommended that WBs are as large as possible, consistent with meeting the objectives of the WFD. It is unlikely that there will be a single answer regarding size of WBs, rather that the size will be River Basin specific; Important to focus on major problems in the first planning cycles. This will involve considering identifying impacted and ecologically important smaller elements of surface waters as individual water bodies; River water bodies are stretches/length but should take into account of the catchment areas around them for pressure analysis and delineation; It is unlikely there will be a harmonised approach to water body identification throughout Europe but the current PRB exercise will hopefully provide examples of good practices that can be highlighted. 30

36 ANNEX A TYPOLOGY CRITERIA AS DEFINED IN ANNEX II OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE System A Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Ecoregion Ecoregion Ecoregion: Baltic sea Barents sea Norwegian sea North sea North atlantic ocean Mediterranean sea Ecoregion: Baltic sea Barents sea Norwegian sea North sea North atlantic ocean Mediterranean sea Altitude typology High:>800 m mid-altitude: 200 to 800 m lowland: <200m Altitude typology High:>800 m mid-altitude: 200 to 800 m lowland: <200m Based on mean annual salinity: Freshwater: <0.5%o Oligohaline: 0.5 to <5%o Mesohaline: 5 to < 18 %o Polyhaline: 18 to <30%o Euhaline: 30 to < 40%o Based on mean annual salinity: Freshwater: <0.5%o Oligohaline: 0.5 to <5%o Mesohaline: 5 to < 18 %o Polyhaline: 18 to <30%o Euhaline: 30 to < 40%o Size typology: Small: 10 to 100 km2 Medium: >100 to 1000 km2 Large: >1000 to 10,000 km2 Very large: > 10,000 km2 Geology: Calcarous Siliceous Organic Depth typology based on mean depth: <3m 3 to 15 m >15 m Size typology: Small: 0.5 to 1 km2 Medium: 1 to 10 km2 Large: 10 to 100 km2 Very large: > 100 km2 Geology: Calcarous Siliceous Organic Based on mean tidal range: Microtidal: <2m Mesotidal: 2 to 4 m Macrotidal: > 4m Based on mean depth: Shallow waters: < 30 m Intermediate: 30 to 200 m Deep: > 200 m 31

37 System B Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Obligatory factors: Altitude Latitude Longitude Geology Size Obligatory factors: Altitude Latitude Longitude Depth Geology Size Obligatory factors: Latitude Longitude Tidal range salinity Obligatory factors: Latitude Longitude Tidal range salinity Optional factors: Distance from river source Energy of flow Mean water width Mean water depth Mean water slope Form and shape of main river bed River discharge category Valley shape Transport of solids Acid neutralising capacity Mean substratum composition Chloride Air temperature range Mean air temperature precipitation Optional factors: Mean water depth Lake shape Residence time Mean air temperature Air temperature range Mixing characteristics (e.g. monomictic, dimictic, polymictic) Acid neutralising capacity Background nutrient status Mean substratum composition Water level fluctuation Optional factors: depth current velocity wave exposure Residence time Mean water temperature Mixing characteristics turbidity Mean substratum composition Shape Water temperature range Optional factors: depth current velocity wave exposure Mean water temperature Mixing characteristics turbidity retention time (of enclosed bays) Mean substratum composition Water temperature range 32

38 33

39 ANNEX B DEFINTION OF SURFACE WATER BODIES (ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 (10) OF WFD) DK - "Overfladevandområde": en afgrænset og betydelig mængde overfladevand, såsom en sø, et reservoir, et mindre eller større vandløb eller en kanal, en del af et mindre eller større vandløb eller en kanal, et overgangsvand eller en kystvandsstrækning. DE - "Oberflächenwasserkörper": ein einheitlicher und bedeutender Abschnitt eines Oberflächengewässers z. B. ein See, ein Speicherbecken, ein Strom, Fluss oder Kanal, ein Teil eines Stroms, Flusses oder Kanals, ein Übergangsgewässer oder ein Küstengewässerstreifen; EN Body of surface water : means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water. ES masa de agua superficial : una parte diferenciada y significativa de agua superficial, como un lago, un embalse, una corriente, río o canal, parte de una corriente, río o canal, unas aguas de transición o un tramo de aguas costeras; EL Σύστηµα επιφανειακών υδάτων": διακεκριµένο και σηµαντικό στοιχείο επιφανειακών υδάτων, όπως π.χ. µια λίµνη, ένας ταµιευτήρας, ένα ρεύµα, ένας ποταµός ή µια διώρυγα, ένα τµήµα ρεύµατος, ποταµού ή διώρυγας, µεταβατικά ύδατα ή ένα τµήµα παράκτιων υδάτων. FR - "masse d'eau de surface": une partie distincte et significative des eaux de surface telles qu'un lac, un réservoir, une rivière, un fleuve ou un canal, une partie de rivière, de fleuve ou de canal, une eau de transition ou une portion d'eaux côtières; IT corpo idrico superficiale": un elemento distinto e significativo di acque superficiali, quale un lago, un bacino artificiale, un torrente, fiume o canale, parte di un torrente, fiume o canale, acque di transizione o un tratto di acque costiere; NL oppervlaktewaterlichaam": een onderscheiden oppervlaktewater van aanzienlijke omvang, zoals een meer, een waterbekken, een stroom, een rivier, een kanaal, een deel van een stroom, rivier of kanaal, een overgangswater of een strook kustwater PO Massa de águas de superfície": uma massa distinta e significativa de águas de superfície, como por exemplo um lago, uma albufeira, um ribeiro, rio ou canal, um troço de ribeiro, rio ou canal, águas de transição ou uma faixa de águas costeiras. FI Pintavesimuodostumalla" tarkoitetaan pintavesien erillistä ja merkittävää osaa, kuten järveä, tekoallasta, puroa, jokea tai kanavaa, puron, joen tai kanavan osaa, jokisuun vaihettumisaluetta tai rannikkovesien osaa. SE ytvattenförekomst : en avgränsad och betydande ytvattenförekomst som till exempel en sjö, ett magasin, en å, flod eller kanal, ett vatten i övergångszon eller en kustvattensträcka. 34

40 35

41 ANNEX C GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER INTERACTION The following schemes illustrate the most common forms of interaction between surface and groundwater body: Groundwater body feeding a surface water stream through a localized spring Groundwater body feeding a surface water stream through a linear spring In both cases, the flow increases and if the aquifer brings good quality water (as it often occurs) the consequence is dilution. This is an interaction between a linear water body and a 3D water body hidden in the sub-surface. In the opposite case when the surface water body loses the contribution from the groundwater body and loses its dilution function. The surface water body feeds the aquifer and can therefore pollute it. It is clear that when we deal with pressures and impacts this issue must be taken into account. It may occur due to natural causes (for example, seasonal variations of the aquifer level) or be caused by a pressure such as (a) a water diversion from a surface water body which should be taken into account in the HMWB testing; or (b) water abstraction from wells (see figure below). 36

42 It is the same problem, but it is less evident. In the first case water abstraction is well identified and the impact can easily be traced back to the pressure. In the second case, water abstraction is due to a diffuse pressure (many wells distributed along a large area), and the impact is consist in the lowering of the aquifer s water table and consequently decrease of the stream s base flow. In the above example, in which no morphological alterations to the surface water body are present, the application of a time extension or a less stringent objective may be simpler and more appropriate than attempting to justify a HMWB designation, provided the conditions required by Article 4.4 and 4.5 are met (e.g. the achievement of good status must be disproportionately expensive or technically unfeasible). 37