CIS Guidance Document on WFD Article 4(7) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT 1

Transcription

1 General Comments Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters General Further integration of groundwater issues is needed throughout the More overage lf groundwater throughout the guidane UK The aspet will be strengthen omment doument. Most examples and disussion are from a surfae water ontext. doument would be helpful and more balaned General Flow arrows in figures of surfae water bodies should be inluded It helps to understand interonnetion between related water bodies. CZ Arrow for flow diretion added General Case studies, whih are planned to be added should be on theoretial base also. It might happened that suitable ase study is not available. CZ An attempt will be made General omment General omment Further detail and ase studies on Chapter 4 (4.7 assessment) would be welome. Doument is aimed at appliation of artile 4.7 and whilst how to identify water bodies to be inluded in a 4.7 is welome (Chapter 3) the fous should be how to arry out a 4.7 assessment. In the ontext of good praties example please provide also referenes related to oastal and transitional water bodies, possible in hapter Marine Strategy Framework and Marine Spatial Planning Diretives or where you onsider UK RO An attempt will be made but possibilities also depend on the provision of pratial ase studies MS will be asked to provide examples More general More attention to artifiial water bodies and ross border effets BE-FL The issue is addressed in the guidane. Pratial proposals in whih diretion the issue should be further elaborated would be welome. On the doument as a whole This draft is a promising first step and the guidane in its urrent form do provide a good basis for further elaboration on this rather diffiult issue. The overall piture is that the guidane is rather broad and overarhing, thus laking to provide atual more detailed guidane on some issues where Sweden see that more thorough and preise guidane would have been benefiial. These omments are foused mainly on the larifiations we have identified a need for in the guidane. As an overarhing omment we would like to point out that we onsider it to be very important that the guidane addresses and desribes the relationship between the artiles 4.1 and 4.7 in a lear and unambiguous way. The first step towards implementing artile 4.7 is in our view taken only when a thorough evaluation of the possibility of fulfilment of artile 4.1, even though the existene of physial modifiations, has resulted in a negative answer. As it was highlighted by a few partiipants during the disussions at the workshop held in Brussels in Deember 2016 this analysis More speifi details are given below. SE Comment not fully lear. With this guidane we try to address the points you mention.

2 demands a orrelation between the hydro-morphologial quality elements evaluated and the biologial ones. This proess mirrors the proess of delaring a water body as heavily modified. This latter proess is also learly onduted by a step by step approah refleted in Sweden by the reent update of the regulations onerning lassifiation issued by the Swedish Ageny for Marine and Water Management, SwAM. [1] It is important that the upoming guidane addresses suh a step-by-step approah, stressing the need not to skip or to handle the first evaluation in a less areful way, sine artile 4.7 is learly an exemption from the general priniple of reahing good eologial status. [1] 2 hapter 2a HVMFS 2016:31 whih enters in fore together with 4-5 in the same hapter. Overarhing omment Overarhing omment Overarhing omment "Sreening/Soping" Terminology "Assessment" Terminology "impat" and "effet" The text seems to mix up sreening and soping. Sreening asks whether there is a mehanism for an effet on status: i.e. ould there be an effet, so does there need to be an assessment? Sreening is therefore a YES/NO question. And if yes, soping then establishes what does (and what does not) need to be assessed. It is onfusing to use the term assessment in the situation when the Artile 4(7) tests are being applied. It would be muh more logial to use the term assessment in the same way that it is used in the Habitats Diretive (i.e. an appropriate assessment). Under the Habitats Diretive, the assessment is undertaken to establish whether or not the Artile 6(4) tests need to be applied. Although it is aknowledged that the term impat is used in the Diretive (WFD), disussing an impat or impats on water body status fails to ensure that the user of the guidane makes a lear distintion between the assessments being arried out for the WFD and those under the EIA Diretive. For the WFD, it would therefore be preferable to use the term effet or effets on status, thus learly distinguishing onsiderations under WFD from those under EIA. JB, Chair Navi TG JB, Chair Navi TG JB, Chair Navi TG Chapter was revised Terminology was revised Terminology was revised

3 Introdution Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters Please add some information in setion 1.1 on what artile 4.7 is about. Although the title of this setion suggests an explanation of the purpose of the Guidane, after reading this setion, the purpose remains unlear beause it is not yet explained what artile 4.7 is about. This is explained in setion 1.3 in some detail, but a very short summary in two lines in setion 1.1 would be more than welome. NL Short text added 73-1 INTRODUCTION A Guidane Doument: What for? and it is also a general omment It was developed in the frame of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) proess Authorities responsible for taking deisions on the granting of permissions for new ativities or projets that might have an impat on water Or Authorities responsible for taking deisions on the granting of permissions for new ativities or projets that have a potential impat on water 123 As remarked earlier on the key issue paper, this table ould also refer to Guidane no We suggest adding some another relevant CIS guidane doument: GD No. 3 IMPRESS, GD No. 18 and 26, GD No. 31 and The atual objetive of the WFD should be added: to establish a framework for the protetion of [ ] waters [and ] promotes sustainable water use (Art. 1 WFD). It is more relevant to have here the indiation about the urrent CIS timeframe in order to indiate that supplementary info is provided in omparison with the previous CIS related douments 1. It is important to use the same terms/notions throughout the whole doument in order to ensure the onsisteny - e.g. the term/notion projet (besides ativity ) is introdued at the line 96 although the term ativity (with the same meaning) is mentioned before Another possibility is to use only the term ativity and to indiate in the footnote what it means and overs (projets, et) 2. For might or potential - it is a prognosis/ a risk /an ex-ante analysis about the impat on the water bodies status GD No. 3 on Analysis of Pressures and Impats has larified the impats in the ontext of WFD and established the DPSIR analytial framework whih should be used through environmental assessment proess to ensure omparison of results. GD No. 18 and 26 related to assessments of Groundwater Bodies, while GD No. 31 and 34 important from hydrologial point of view in the ontext of Art. 4(7) assessment. Clarify the objetive of WFD to balane protetion and sustainable use of water (instead of fous on protetion only) RO RO NL HU etri Years added Text updated Added The list in the doument is fousing on the most relevant ones. A sentene referring to the full list of guidane douments have been added. The aspet of long-term sustainable water management is overed by the urrent text. 128 Add and at the beginning of the line This is a listing NL Added 146 Insert at the start of this sentene: Deterioration or failure to ahieve good status/potential as a result of, delete in line 147 failure to prevent status, delete in line 148 (inluding and ). The resuting text beomes: Deterioration or failure to ahieve good status/potential as a result of new modifiations to the physial harateristis of a This is more in line with the wording of the other exemptions as it now states what is allowed under this exemption and what wouldn t be allowed otherwise. NL Text taken on board

4 surfae water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, or status deterioration of a body of surfae water from high status to good status as a result of new sustainable human development ativities (Artile 4(7)) The sentene implies new sustainable human development ativities is a valid reason for any deterioration of status of a water body (for example, it says inluding from high to good ). The text should be lear that new sustainable human development ativities are only relevant for deterioration from high to good status 149 Furthermore, assessments under Diretive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effets of ertain plans and programmes on the environment (SEA Diretive) an ontribute to the integration of environmental onsiderations into the preparation of ertain plans and programmes as listed above. Assessments under the SEA Diretive an therefore help to fully take signifiant effets on the environment into aount, inluding water Makes mention of the importane of Artile 4(8). Could the guidane doument work through an example 153 Inlusion of interpretation of permanent vs temporary in the ontext of WFD Change request of the : It should be pointed out that the WFD omplies with the priniple of sustainable development aording to whih the needs of the present generation should be met without ompromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs" whih involves the pursuit of eonomi progress while safeguarding the natural environment and promoting soial justie. These are fundamental objetives of the European Union laid down in the Artile 3 of the Treaty and appliable to all EU ativities and poliies, inluding EU environment poliy (suh as water legislation (artile 191 of Treaty) and, as another example, renewable energy (artile 194 of the Treaty). Interpretation of the WFD, Artile 4.7 refers to new sustainable human development ativities but only in ontext of deterioration from high to good status. This is made lear later in the guidane doument (e.g. lines ). This introdutory text needs to be lear to avoid onfusion The urrent wording gives the impression that RES poliy and NREAPs shall be submitted to SEA. Refleting previous disussions, it should make it expliit that NREAPs are not inluded by default in SEAs. This is justified sine "NREAP does not "set the framework for future development onsent of projets" within the meaning of Art. 3 (2) a) of Diretive 2001/42/EC". These elements are further desribed in the joint letter ENV/ENER below. However, it ould be reminded in the guidane that "when implementing the NREAP, through, as appropriate, more speifi plans setting the framework for future development onsent of projets, SEAs will have to be arried out" The relationship between Artile 4.7 and Artile 4.8 ould be important for river augmentation shemes This features later in the doument but it may be of benefit to onsider a qualifying sentene here also, or at least to signpost to the detail further on in the doument This hange is requested in view to make the paragraph legally orret and sound. For a omplete information, artiles in full have been added below. It is also worth mentioning the urrent Commission s better regulation work in this ontext. Artile 3 of the Treaty: 3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balaned eonomi growth and prie stability, a highly ompetitive soial market eonomy, aiming at full employment and soial progress, and a high level of protetion and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote sientifi and tehnologial advane. Artile 37 of the Charter of Human Rights : A high level of environmental protetion and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the poliies of the Union and ensured in aordane with the priniple of sustainable development Artile 191 of TREATY UK DG ENER UK UK etri Paragraph has been rephrased Text amended. Art 4.8 is mentioned 2 paragraphs later. No need for a hange Referene to the relevant setion in the doument has been added A referene to the Treaty and to the better regulation initiative has been added. The importane of integration is stronger emphasised in the revised text.

5 whih must omply with the fundamental right to environmental protetion, therefore requires an analysis at several levels, having regard to the diretive s ultimate objetive of proteting water as a shared asset and other legitimate shared EU objetives, in view to adopt a sustainable, balaned and equitable approah in its appliation and espeially of the so alled non deterioration priniple whih takes the form of maintaining, improving and prohibiting the deterioration of the aquati environment in the European Union.. Request for additional omment : The European Commission is engaged in a better regulation proess whih should help to put in plae a holisti integrated approah of the different European objetives and regulations (suh as energy, limate and environment). 1. Union poliy on the environment shall ontribute to pursuit of the following objetives: - preserving, proteting and improving the quality of the environment, - proteting human health, - prudent and rational utilisation of natural resoures, - promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in partiular ombating limate hange. 2. Union poliy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protetion taking into aount the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the preautionary priniple and on the priniples that preventive ation should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be retified at soure and that the polluter should pay. In this ontext, harmonisation measures answering environmental protetion requirements shall inlude, where appropriate, a safeguard lause allowing Member States to take provisional measures, for non-eonomi environmental reasons, subjet to a proedure of inspetion by the Union. 3. In preparing its poliy on the environment, the Union shall take aount of: - available sientifi and tehnial data, - environmental onditions in the various regions of the Union, - the potential benefits and osts of ation or lak of ation, - the eonomi and soial development of the Union as a whole and the balaned development of its regions. 4. Within their respetive spheres of ompetene, the Union and the Member States shall ooperate with third ountries and with the ompetent international organisations. The arrangements for Union ooperation may be the subjet of agreements between the Union and the third parties onerned. The previous subparagraph shall be without prejudie to Member States' ompetene to negotiate in international bodies and to onlude international agreements.

6 165 Change sentene: WFD, whih must omply with the fundamental right poliy objetive of the European Union to environmental protetion, As remarked earlier on the key issue paper, the CJEU has formulated the WFD s ultimate objetive differently (see judgement under 37): The ultimate objetive of Diretive 2000/60 is to ahieve, by oordinated ation, good status of all EU surfae waters by The Court s interpretation takes preferene over (merely) an A-G opinion and the Guidane Doument shouldn t diverge from its interpretation here. 169 It would be very useful to inlude here some information/indiation about preautionary approah/priniple in relation to Art.4.7. (some elements are mentioned at pg. 31, LINES ) Furthermore under artile 194 of the TREATY, The Commission should promote development of RES. Art. 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union says: A high level of environmental protetion and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the poliies of the Union and ensured in aordane with the priniple of sustainable development. This is a poliy objetive, not a fundamental right or laim whih someone may enfore by legal ation. This would be very useful for some MS to find this type of information espeially in the light of some infringement ases DE NL RO The text has been revised. The text has been revised. Half sentene added to reflet the omment. Integration of setor Poliies as prerequisit for poliy oherene Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters Shorten, just say that there are other poliy setors whih an lead to impats on water bodies. Therefore, in eah poliy setor the objetives of the Water Framework Diretive have to be taken into aount to avoid any impat on the Water Body. If an impat is by all means unavoidable, the projet is only possible if the speifi requirement of that projet is met. As that part ontains more desriptions that onlusions it would be possible to shorten that setion. EEB Comment not taken on board as other Stakeholders would like to see these poliies refleted to some detail This hapter ould be shortened, espeially regarding part 2.5 on European funding instruments. 172 Integrated approahes and poliy oherene play a entral role for the implementation of the WFD and 172 for informed assessments in relation to Artile 4(7). We agree that integrated approahes should be used in order Chapter two seems too extensive in its urrent form. The linkages to the main diretives are desribed further on in the guidane and it is hard to see why this part has to be this elaborated and detailed. In its urrent form it would benefit from an explanation of how the information of the funding instruments should be taken into aount or is relevant in this guidane. SE BG Comment not taken on board as other Stakeholders would like to see these poliies refleted to some detail No ation as this is a statement

7 to evaluate in a better way the neessity to establish exemptions under Artile 4(7). We onsider that the list of setor poliies potentially onerned by Artile 4(7) assessments is quite exhaustive and the impats you identify, mainly on hydromorphology, an result in hanges that in most of the ases should require being subjet to Artile 4(7) assessments. 173 New physial modifiations WWF Physial has been added Please add here and Waste water treatment plant EurEAU added 176; ; 331;1203 Complete the list of relevant poliies: The Guide 7uppos reflet also irrigation in the warranty for food sustainability and Rural Development Programmes. Setorial Poliies set as priorities for Member States should be defined with more preision, draft text of Guidane Doument no. 35 definitios are vague. 177 Should the first of be a for? NL orreted 177 provides an opportunity of a strongly alls for Establishing a strong ommitment to serious and pratiable better regulation et Amended a oordinated approah ri 179 The list an be ompleted with other setoral poliies suh as agriulture; speifi mention of Common Agriultural Poliy required Providing water resoures to expand irrigation has been the argument to promote some new dams and water transfers in some MS. Although in many ases these new infrastrutures have been defined as having multiple purposes (e.g flood protetion and water supply for human onsumption, as well as for irrigation) the reality is that the expansion of irrigation has been a very relevant driving fore for new modifiations of water bodies. WWF CAP added Change the bullets as follow : Renewable energy poliy and its renewable energy ation plans : Energy poliy inluding Renewable energy poliy Climate Poliy inluding Climate hange adaptation and mitigation 183, 301 and elsewhere? This should refer to the Maritime Spatial Planning Diretive Energy and Climate poliies as a whole are relevant. Diretive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Counil of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning ES et ri JB, Chair Navi TG CAP added. The aspet of irrigation is also expliitly mentioned in hapter This sentene breaks down at the word are. NL Paragraph removed sine other environmental legislation added to the list and speifi sub-hapter 187 This is not lear what is it that are most likely not triggering Artile 4(7) assessments? Are poliies intended to be subjet to suh an assessment? JB, Chair Navi TG Amended Correted 192 hene 191 deterioration of water bodies status RO Word added 199 Undoubtedly the results of other integrated The outome of one integrated approah will not neessarily be the same as another: JB, Rephrased Paragraph removed sine other environmental legislation added to the list and speifi sub-hapter

8 approahes an provide ideas and help inform deisions, but are is needed when we make suh statements beause, ultimately, the signifiane tests are different in the different Diretives we should avoid the reader assuming that it will be. 209 Typing error? Several instead of serval BE-FL orreted 209 Spelling should this be several?? JB, orreted Chair Navi TG 211 Remove spae between minimum and NL done requirement 213 drought should be draught NL orreted 213 Misspelling of draught and missing m after Clarity UK orreted Rivers anals and lakes omply with the Please hek it - is it draught? RO orreted minimum requirements for lass IV waterways as laid down by the European Conferene of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) lassifiation of inland waterways (meaning a drought?? Of 2.50 must be possible), whereas, upon request of a Member State and in duly justified ases, exemptions shall be granted by the Commission from the minimum requirements on draught (less than 2,50 m); 224 Change the title and ontent of the hapter to either: 1) Energy Poliy in general (in whih ase all types of energy soures that might have an impat on water should be treated separately and here a great fous should then be given to Hydropower, but also Thermal Power Plants that use water for ooling with an important negative impat on fish and other speies), or more foused to 2) Hydropower, and Small and Big Hydropower should appear with their speifiities. Similarly as our previous omment this setion should not be limited to RES poliy only, but either refer to energy poliy more generally or to hydropower more speifially as driver having the biggest impat. Most RES have nothing to do with water; and on the other hand (small) hydropower produes a major impat on water. WWF Chapter revised 224 Change title : Energy poliy, inluding renewable energy poliy The report should take into aount the new energy-limate ontext (new EU priorities and objetives) in whih the WFD is enshrined (energy independeny, seurity of supply, ) Chair Navi TG et ri Title hanged 225 The EU s Renewable Energy Diretive (2009:28/EC) whih, under the urrent revision proess as part of the Commission s Clean It is important to make the link with the work that s is going on at EC through the Clean Energy for all pakage, whih gives RES development a entral role in the attainment of ruial objetives for Europe in near future suh as energy independeny and limate et ri The paragraph has been moved to the beginning to inrease attention

9 energy for all pakage, will see its target inrease at least up to 27 % for 2030, sets a binding 227 Add 2030 as well as 2050 EU renewable energy targets (i.e. 80/90% renewable by 2050). 232 Individual renewable energy targets trajetories for eletriity, heating and ooling, and transport setors 233 Inlude new bullet point: Seurity of supply within the lean energy pakage 234 Overly positive statement on importane of hydropower as RES in the EU. Needs to be hanged to reflet the reality on the ground. 234 Hydropower onstitutes an important renewable energy soure and also a key flexibility solution to integrate higher shares of variable renewables, suh as wind and solar We suggest adding also another example to the renewable energy: water abstration for geothermal purposes The new EC governane proposal asks MS to provide for new Energy Climate plans before the end of the year whih will inlude information on the intended RES development (as MS are free to hoose their energy mix). Without taking into aount this the guide is going to be out of date already in Measures / projets under Art. 4(7) with an energy perspetive are planned under longterm onsiderations beyond 2020 and also beyond The 20% / 27% (line 237 for year 2030) mentioned underplay the long-term role of hydropower in the energy mix. These objetives are indiative, therefore we rather use "trajetories" than "targets" Inlude SoS as poliy/target: all renewable generation within Europe supports selfsupply and redues import dependeny; has to be explained in detail in an extra hapter, e.g. new 2.5. First, only small apaities are onsidered RES aording to RES Diretive; moreover IEA expliitly reognised that EU s potential for large hydropower has already been largely harnessed (World Energy Outlook Speial Report 2015: Energy and Climate Change, OECD/IEA, Paris, p. 47). Seond, a lear desription of impats of hydropower (inl. hydro-morphologial) should be given. We do believe this is an important aspet to highlight. In a nutshell, hydro ould exist without wind and solar, while wind and solar would have at least urrently diffiulties to integrate without the flexibility provided by hydropower. In the future, with around +50% wind and solar between 2020 and 2030, it is therefore likely that hydro might beome important not only as a soure of RES but also as a soure of flexibility. Using the geothermal energy is also ould be the subjet to an Art. 4(7) assessment, beause the thermal water prodution an adverse effet both on GWB (hanging water level and hemial omposition) and SWB status (heat and salt ontamination). et ri DG ENER et ri WWF DG ENER HU Added. Amended. The issue of seurity has been added in the beginning of the hapter Text has been hanged. Objetive of the hapter is to introdue relevant setors, next other relevant setors, but not to provide a full overview. Negative impats should be found in the RBMPs Amended. More fous on hydropower sine the main ause of alterations from renewable energy, but geothermal is also addressed already in the hapter 234 Inlude new text passage after line 233: When assessing the value of different renewable tehnologies, their overall role in the eletriity system has to be onsidered. E.g. their ontribution to integrate other renewable tehnologies, their storage possibilities, and their potential to provide system servies et. These different parameters have to be inluded in overall oordinated approah. The harateristis of renewable eletriity soures are very different from tehnial/seurity point of view: hydropower is among the few RES being non intermittent/not volatile, hydropower is atively ontrollable and, most important, hydropower offers not only base-load generation but also very valuable balaning servies. These servies are from utmost importane to integrate volatile RES suh as wind and PV in a sustainable and renewable manner at large sale in order to ahieve long-term EU goals. 235 Stronger wording than likely needed. Relevant to point out that new hydropower plants are very likely to be subjet to an Artile 4(7) assessment, to adequately reognise the impats of hydropower, whih will ause deterioration. 235 By impating Taking into aount their likely impats on hydromorphology, new hydropower plants may require to go through are likely to Impats on hydromorphology should only be taking into aount in irumstanes impeded by the WFD (high status) et ri WWF et ri Amended. Overall hapter revised to find better balane. Comment not lear. Impats of hydropower are not only relevant for deterioration of hydromorphology from

10 be subjet to an Artile 4(7) assessment Add new modifiations to the sentene as This omment has a relation to the definition New modifiations. Assuming that the follows By impating on hydromorphology new assessment should not only refer to the onstrution of a new hydropower plan but hydropower plants or new modifiations are also modifiations suh as refurbishments or other modifiations altering the likely to be subjet to an Artile 4(7) hydromorphology. assessment. New hydropower is an example of modifiations where strategi planning and strategi environmental assessments should be mandatory. 235 This part of the draft guidelines is too general. There should be a referene to the impat on the environmental objetives of the onstrution of hydropower plants on existing dams as well as speially reated for this purpose Move this text to line 227, diretly under the first paragraph 236 Propose to delete this sentene. The argumentation goes in the wrong diretion as it is not about RES as suh, but only about those soures of energy that have an impat on water environment (see our omments above on this and the limited role for hydropower) It would be useful to add information on impat of strutural interventions on water bodies. SE high to good. New modifiations have been added Clarifiation doument PL This issue is disussed at a later stage in more detail Would be a more logial plae for this text NL done To explain better why flood risk management projets ould be problemati and subjet to Art 4.7 WFD assessment. WWF WWF Text has been modified and linkage to other soures of RES introdued. This explanation is provided at the end of the setion. A ase study is planned to be added 251 Remove 22 Deember 2013 Unlear why this date is mentioned. NL done To point out that Art 4.7 assessment ould lead to identifying NWRMs as signifiantly better environmental options. To address the problem of flood protetion measures being frequently defined as being of overriding publi interest, without adequate justifiation. WWF Ok, in hapter in signifiantly better environmental options. 274 Delete birds Other than when referring to the Wild Birds Diretive, the MSFD does not mention birds 284 Should it be elaborated here that Good Eologial Status and Good Environmental Status do not neessarily align? Suggest in oastal regions is replaed with oastal water bodies 309 It requires larifiation. How projets finaned from EU funds will be verified by the EC, also in the ontext of the assessment of eah RBMP? Currently in Polish Regional Operational Programmes it is indiated that investments whih affet the ahievement of environmental objetives may be finaned after informing the Commission about the ompliane of the prepared management plans with the requirements of the WFD. JB, Chair Navi TG The MSFD has a desriptor on birds so, kept Helpful for reader to understand ontext UK Aording to the latest GES deision they should align For larity UK Amended Neessary to explain due to experiene PL in the urrent planning yle PL Referene to ex-ante onditionalities added 309 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION This Regulation ontains forms if Art WFD is being applied in preparation of CZ Added in footnote

11 (EU) 2015/207 dated 20 January 2015 should be mentioned. 329 Add: investments in the water, energy or transport setors speifi projets. ERDF and CF are also an important soure of funding for the water setor (water supply, wastewater, water re-use). EIB Added Perhaps for ompleteness will also be useful to have a footnote explaining that Cohesion Poliy is applied through 11 themati objetives, and list them It should be learly speified that artile 4,7 an be used for these projet finaned by these EU funds. 337 The purpose of setion is unlear. Unlike the previous setions, no link is made with 4(7) WFD. 344 Like setion 2.5.2, the purpose of setion is unlear, sine no link is made with 4(7) WFD. The relation with artile 4.7 is not lear enough to understand that artile 4.7 an be used dor projets finaned by ESIF or ESF. 357 Add referene to limate poliy. See omment line 180. Add referene to limate poliy as Europe has ommitted itself in the ontext of an international agreement and to reah the goal, Europe will need the energy setor to invest in low arbon projets, therefore a oordinated and balaned approah is needed to avoid onflits The aim of limate hange adaptation plans is not to mitigate emission but to adapt to a new ontext. Cutting emissions is the aim of ETS and ESD. It shows learly the need to broaden the sope of this paragraph to inlude limate poliy as a whole Add referene to hydropower as important for both limate hange mitigation and adaptation 371 A hapter on EIA needs to be inluded (e.g. as hapter 2.8) addressing linkages between EIA and Art 4.7 assessment To add other relevant setors from Art 3(2)(a) to the list in the brakets. Hydropower plays an important role in mitigation, as well as in adaptation (whih is partially reognised by the draft under the term water storage ) EIA and Art 4.7 linkages are relevant and should be addressed in the guidane as other poliies/legal ats. Referened Art 3(2)(a) of the SEA Diretive lists the following setors, out of whih more ould be ited here as very relevant: agriulture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, teleommuniations, tourism, town and ountry planning or land use. FR NL NL et ri et ri et ri WWF WWF Text amended and a better link has been established Referene to Artile 23 CEF added Different ase for IPA, but relevant for WFD as main funding instrument to ahieve implementation in these ountries. Text amended. added This is obvious and the omment is therefore unlear Chapter RES has been amended and the link to mitigation has been added Text has been hanged to Water storage inluding hydropower Chapter on EIA added Setors have been added

12 386 At the end of the line, the following is missed. to Diretive 85/337/EEC, or whih, in view of the likely effet on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Artile 6 or 7 of Diretive 92/43/EEC. Artile 3(2)of SEA Diretive has not been orretly transribed:. 2. Subjet to paragraph 3, an environmental assessment shall be arried out for all plans and programmes, (786) whih are prepared for agriulture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, teleommuniations, tourism, town and ountry planning or land use and whih set the framework for future development onsent of projets listed in Annexes I and II to Diretive 85/337/EEC, or ES added 397 The appliation of the SEA proedure an in partiular be used as a first indiation if Artile 4(7) assessments might be required (sreening). We think that this proposal is justified and the proedures ited above an be useful tools in the first steps in the designation of exemptions under Artile 4(7). 397 appliation of SEA proedure be used as a first indiation if Art 4.7 assessments might be required We suggest adopting more roles to SEA proess not only help, failitate. The SEA proess an be used as full appliation of Art. 4(7) proedure in several but speial ases. If MS ensure all neessary element of an Art. 4(7) proedure in addition to the SEA proess than streamlining an be effiient in programme level as well Implementation of an ation plan inluding many small individual projets an be arried out under supervision of a framework rules have been assigned during SEA proess. In this ase the generi approah an be used with evidene for small projets not falling within the sope of EIA (see line in this guidane) Knowing the riteria for the appliation of artile 4(7) would be neessary as is referred in the text in forms of sreening and assessment. Both proedures, sreening and assessment, are parallel to atual development of Strategi Environmental Assessment (SEA) To add a sentene If the plans and programmes affet areas where water bodies are loated, it is (b) whih, in view of the likely effet on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Artile 6 or 7 of Diretive 92/43/EEC. SEA proedure an be used to assess umulative effets of a number of individual projets in their entirety. In addition the assessments on overriding publi interest / weighing of interests and the assessment of better environmental options under an Artile 4(7) proedure in a SEA proess an be more relevant in regional than in loal level. The plan or programme should be subjet to preparation and/or adoption by an authority and it means that Art. 4(7) assessment should be arried out or ontrolled by an authority whih has more apability to go through Art. 4(7) proess with adequate ommitments. Publi partiipation should be ensured during the SEA proess as well. General rules for individual projets should be assign in the programme/plan aording to the findings of SEA inluding suh ases when EIA should be applied for an individual projet due to loal speial situation (e.g. proteted habitat affeted loally). Thus the sope of the judgement on Art. 4(7) proess should be inluded in the doumentation of evidene Detailed explanation of the riteria to disard dupliity between artile 4(7) and SEA would be welome. BG EurEAU HU ES WWF No ation as this is a statement Unlear omment Please provide a pratial example/ase study to illustrate this approah in order to better to understand this link Please send a pratial example/ase study to illustrate this approah in order to better to understand this link Sentene added

13 reommended that a general assessment under SEA inludes a hapter for Art 4.7 WFD assessment. 389 Change first bullet into: be used as integral part of Artile 4(7) assessment (e.g. sreening) appliation of SEA proedure be used as a first indiation if Art 4.7 assessments might be required 398 There are neessary to establish the sequene of EIA assessment and delaration requirements under Artiles 4.7 RSV When assessment performed under SEA are the same needed for Art 4.7 assessment, any repetition should be avoided. The artile 4.7 is to prove best option and mitigation measures in the proposed solution and therefore it is neessary to determine the sequene of evaluation 399 Help to identify and assess umulative effets Potential umulative effets must be identified before they an be assessed JB, Chair Navi TG See omment on 199 re. need to reognise the important differenes between the EIA, Habitats Diretive and WFD signifiane tests 405 Signifiant impat of the partiular ativity on the environment, inluding on water status IT EurEEA SK JB, Chair Navi TG RO An SEA an provide useful information but is different from a 4(7) assessment This is rather a statement than a omment This is addressed in a later hapter. Text has been modified and identifiation has been added Respetive hapters have been revised. Text has been amended Sope and sreening Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters priniple relationship between "Art 4.7 EurE This should be lear from the figure 1 sreening and Art 4.7 assessment AU A detailed explanation for the reommended sreening proess, independently of projet s Draft doument suggests simplified proedures for small size projets without speifying the ases and the proedure. This results in emerging unertainty. ES Chapter was updated and approah further speified size is needed. 413 Could the doument over whether the renewal of an existing abstration liene (for example Time Limited Lienes or permit reviews) would ount as a new modifiation or alteration of groundwater level. There is some onfusion regarding whether a renewal is a new modifiation. UK Aspet added in hapter Change sentene: The proess for determining whether a new modifiation or new sustainable human development ativity might lead to deterioration / non-ahievement of good status / potential needs to be aomplished in advane is the first step of the authorisation proess and is alled "Artile 4(7) sreening". 413 & figure after 426 Both, Art. 4 (7) sreening (assessment whether the projet will ause deterioration / nonahievement of good status / potential) and Art. 4 (7) assessment (whether the permission an be granted in spite of a deterioration / non-ahievement of good status / potential) are part of the authorisation proess. DE Text amended. Add /alteration after modifiation NL Text amended.

14 , 426, 867, 1037 Need to make sure text refers to alterations to groundwater levels too. The text as urrently written suggests new sustainable human development ativity overs any deterioration and also prevention of ahievement of good, but under the WFD it speifially relates only to deterioration from high to good. Amend text to make this lear These figures are informative. However, would it be possible to also inlude a figure/hart that would show the art 4(7) sreening and assessment proesses in relation to other proesses (IAE, SEA), and the phases in more detail, also how the proesses are linked/overlapping. Sope of Art. 4(7) sreening phase needs to be larified. 418 Suggest we say to determine whether the Artile 4(7) tests need to be applied see overarhing omment 2. Above 418 Add sentene: Mitigation measures are an inherent element of a projet so the "new modifiation or new sustainable human development" needs no Art. 4(7) assessment if mitigation measures are expeted to lead to avoidane of deterioration or failure to ahieve good status Change sentene: Artile 4(7) sreening needs to be distinguished from the is the prior step to Artile 4(7) assessment" itself, by whih it is determined whether or not permission for a new projet an be granted under Artile 4(7) 421 Something wrong with numbering of hapters: referene to hapter Referene to hapter number is inorret 1303 hapter It is not entirely lear how the iterative interrelationship between sreening and assessment works during the projet development phase (taking into aount urrent Need to make sure alteration to levels of groundwater is inluded in these general statements on Art 4.7 otherwise guidane is not adequately refleting groundwater and the full sope of Art 4.7 new sustainable human development ativity relates only to deterioration from high to good, as orretly desribed later in lines and Please, onsider drafting a hart showing different phases of the proess in more detail, and in hronologial order (e.g. Gantt type of hart or flow hart), and optimally in relation to other proesses. UK UK FI Alteration has been added Text amended New diagrams have been added in the later hapter. Also, would it be possible to open the proess of the art 4.7 sreening and assessment in more detail in the form of a hart. Now this is only done in a greater detail in the text. Another alternative is separate sreening phase from assessment, beause it is partly misleading to onnet the sreening phase to the art. 4(7). In many ases, it is lear that projet is not in sope of 4(7) exemption, but it an be aepted with ertain mitigation measures. Does this guidane inlude these ases too? JB, Terminology has been amended. Chair Navi TG This is a onsequene of hapter 4.1 (see lines ). DE Added See line 413. DE Paragraphs and terminology was updated. BE- orreted FL Error in text UK orreted To larify for example if suh iterative relationship would lead to modifiation of a projet or just to (inadequate) justifiation of existing projet in terms of Art 4.7 onditions. WW F Further larifiation is expeted from the additional flow harts, in partiular the updated flow hart on the 4(7) Test.

15 experiene with MS applying Art 4.7 exemption). Can this be larified further? 426 See omment line 418, to be integrated in figure It would be useful to indiate in figure 1 (or in an additional figure linked to figure 1 ) a relationship with SEA, EIA and AA proedures. 426 For better understanding the first box in the deision tree (sreening) should be split in expeted to ause deterioration yes/ no and if no- expeted to ause non-ahievement of GES/GEP yes/no 426 Figure 1 should inlude also a situation in whih investor after reeiving the projet authorization at a sreening stage hanges the projets sope during the projet development phase In order to ensure that other relevant WFD requirements are fulfilled there must be an assessment of the impat area that sometimes, for example due to fish migration, an be muh larger than the area where the exploitation takes plae It is desirable with a more distinguished onnetion between the Diretives in terms of guidane how the 4(7) assessment proedure may be integrating with other more established proedures, suh as EIA and SEA. See omment line 418. DE Integrated in flow hart on 4(7) Test To put 4.7 sreening and assessment into ontext, and show how different assessments omplement eah other. It should be larified to what extent it is aeptable to introdue hanges to projets sope without the need for going bak to sreening stage WW F AT PL Suh a figure has been added Further detailed deision tree on the sreening proess is added later on. How an a projet be hanged one it is authorized? The atual projet whih is planned to be authorized needs to undergo a sreening. So the sreening might need to be repeated in ase the projet is hanged. To larify this, the text ould elaborate a bit further on this issue. SE This is overed by the assessment of impats on other water bodies. See hapter 3.4 seond paragraph There might be a differene doing a 4(7) assessment on strategi and projet level not learly addressed in the doument. The assessment and onsideration of mitigation measures addressed in the doument resemble in many ways the SEA and EIA methodology, whih makes it possible to integrate the proedures. Therefore, in order to failitate the implementation of the 4(7) assessment, make it flexible and time effiient, it is valuable with at least a brief guidane on possible manners to integrate the different proedures. Reapitulation of the WFD Environmental Objetives and Artile 4(7) SE A speifi sub-hapter has been elaborated. Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters 435 Suggest we just say Reap JB, aepted Chair Navi TG The setion ould rather be inluded in hapter 1. The hapter addresses information fitting better in the introdution of the doument. SE Chapter 1 provides a "softer" introdution already while hapter 3 goes into details. 437 These objetives instead of These overriding priniples As explained in the previous line of the guide, referene is made to objetives and not to overriding priniples (see line 453 too). 441 Delete hemial from list Hydromorphologial and physio-hemial elements (the latter inluding speifi JB, Please see Annex V 1.1. etri Amended

16 441 Change sentene: eologial status is defined through biologial quality elements (BQEs), the supporting hydromorphologial, hemial and physio-hemial elements supporting the biologial elements Groundwater quantitative status is not only defined by water table regime but by related/dependant surfae water body status and surfae eosystems status. 453 Delete These objetives established by the WFD are legally binding. 454 (Table Art. 4(7)) We assume that the essene of the provision the reasons for modifiations or alterations are speially set out and explained in the river basin management plan is 16upposed16t of the requirement for publi partiipation. 460 The deisive governing fator on whether an Artile 4(7) assessment needs to be applied is the potential effet of the new modifiation or new sustainable development ativity on the water body status (see hapter 3.3), independently whether it is an entirely new modifiation or a modifiation at already existing infrastruture (e.g. modifiations or extensions at an existing hydropower plant) The guidane doument indiates that the artile 4(7) assessment apply, not only to ompletely new ativities, but also to modifiations at existing infrastruture. It is suggested to hange the wording in order to better larify that the assessment shall apply both for ompletely new ativities (modifiation and sustainable development ativities), and to amendments (i.e. expansion or inreased) to existing ativities or establishments. pollutants) are the supporting elements to Good Eologial Status. For those unfamiliar with the Diretive, it is potentially misleading to suggest that hemial elements support GES. This is to underline the only supporting harater of HyMo et. for a good as well as for a moderate eologial status/potential (Annex V WFD). WFD Annex V 2.1.2, CIS Guidane Nº 20. Proposed Change:...quantitative status is defined by groundwater level regime and by related/dependant surfae water body status and surfae eosystems status, while hemial status.... Legally binding is not very informative. It is better here to refer to the CJEU s judgement in the Weser ase and replae this sentene with the following: If a projet endangers reahing these objetives, permission for this projet has to be refused, unless one of the WFD s exemptions inluding Artile 4(7) is used. Howeve, this ould also be omitted, sine this is disussed at the end of page 16. It is not possible to explain all reasons for modifiations or alterations in the river basin management plan six or even more years in advane. We suggest emphasizing that an exeption under Artile 4 (7) an be mentioned in the RBMPs within its atualization while maintaining the rights of publi partiipation. Chair Navi TG DE ES NL CZ Text hanged added FN added to make this general intro more speifi This is quoted from the WFD offiial text and therefore it an not be removed. To ensure full onsisteny with WFD provisions RO Status has been added The use of the word modifiation to existing infrastruture is diffiult in this ontext, sine it ould easily be misinterpreted as referring only to art. 4.7 first indent, i.e. the alternative modifiations to the physial harateristis. Therefore, it is unlear whether an Artile 4.7 assessment is neessary for instane in the ase of inreased emissions from an existing industry faility inreases. NO Comment taken on board and text hanged 462 Inlude: The Art. 4.7 WFD sreening proess has On-going ativities an lead to a deterioration of the water status as well. Those on-going EEB Issue of permits added

17 to take plae even if the Member States national law does not require a new authorization. The deisive fator is only the impat on the Water Body, not the Member States authorization system. Existing stressors must not lead to the deterioration of the status of a water body. That is also the ase, when Art. 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 are applied. Therefore, if an existing stressor e.g. on-going dredging of a river, the emission of bioaumulating substanes or abstration for agriulture lead to a deterioration of the status, the Member States has to limit that ativity, exept for ases where the onditions of Art. 4.7 are met. 462 (e.g. modifiations or extensions at an existing hydropower plant dams/weirs) It needs to be larified further what happens if due to a new projet your natural water body beomes designated as HMWB It follows that assessments as to whether a modifiation potentially leads to deterioration / non- ahievement of good status / potential need to be determined in advane (ex-ante) representing the sreening phase. ativities do not need new permits, therefore the are often forgotten by Members States. Hydropower plants represent only a small part (approx. 10%) of all transverse strutures in rivers (dams and weirs). The rest, up to 90% serve other objetives suh as flood protetion, land use, agriulture, river bed stabilization, navigation, et. All these forms have to be inluded in report. It needs to be larified that if it is foreseen that this is going to happen due to the projet, this needs to be onsidered during Art 4.7 assessment. This should also be onsidered in the ost-benefits analysis, along with other elements. etri WW F Amended Issue is addressed in later hapter of the Guidane. To make the link with sreening approah RO Comment taken on board and text hanged Also to make referene to the sreening phase throughout the Chapter 3.2 (where the ase may be). 464 Insert after potential : preferably and insert after (ex-ante) : although an appeal for this exemption ould also be made afterwards, if the assessment of the effets turns out to be wrong, as long as all of the requirements of Artile 4(7) are met. 466 Rather, aartifiial and HMWB is onsidered a speifi water body ategory with its own lassifiation sheme and objetives 478 No referene to alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater The WFD doesn t stritly require an appeal to Artile 4(7) WFD to be made beforehand. Although this is ertainly the preferable option, we should leave the option open to do so after the fat. This is espeially relevant beause of the unertainty mentioned in setion 3.6. Unertainty an lead to assessments that turn out te be inorret. If deterioration were to our unexpetedly, but all riteria of Artile 4(7) are still met, usage of this exemption should remain possible. A ommon understanding of this issue is a fundamental one and it has to be learly mentioned Can guidane help to larify, as it does for new modifiations, what ativity might result in hanges to levels of groundwater, for example, whether this overs inreased abstration from existing boreholes & lienes as well as new boreholes and abstration. And also links to hanges in surfae waters, both those affeting groundwater levels and those being affeted by the groundwater over-ride NL RO UK Text amended, pointing out that authorisation an be granted in absene of an Artile 4(7) Test if there is no reasonable doubt that status/potential will not deteriorate. Comment taken on board and text hanged Aspet added

18 We suggest adding a sentene to new modifiations that it should be sustainable development ativities or else the new modifiation annot pass Art. 4(7) assessment ( ) We see a need to more learly define what is to onsider as a new modifiation. This speifially so onerning hanges in already existing and permitted operations/ativities. Are all extensions of already existing operations to be onsidered as new ativities or should there be some kind of extent riteria attahed to this? The larifiation in the paragraph fouses only on the term Modifiations. It is still unlear to the reader when a modifiation is deemed to be new. If a projet or plan/programme does not result progress in environment and/or soiety and/or eonomy then that projet/plan should not be supported. If an ativity is not sustainable then it is not in line with WFD objetives. This is an important issue to onsider. As an illustrating example it an be mentioned that in Sweden there are very few new hydro power plants being onstruted, thus in this field the main modifiations are already in plae sine several enturies. Continuous modifiations are however taking plae, e.g. to inrease energy-effiieny (hange of turbines, hanges in flows et). Are all those modifiations (whih are mostly subjet to a permitting proedure onduted by the land and environmental ourts) to be onsidered as new modifiations? Or is there rather a threshold for when a modifiation is signifiant enough to be onsidered as a new modifiation in the sense of art. 4 (7). Or should this be up to eah Member State to deide on the basis of the support of other national legislation? We would like some elaboration on this. HU SE Not speified by the WFD in relation to new modifiations. The issue is addressed in a paragraph further above and others The text above (line ) seems to imply that it does not matter whether the modifiation stems from a ompletely new operation/ativity or from an alteration of an already existing one. But this is not refleted in the definition. The hydro-morphologial alteration of a surfae water body ould be produed out of others, by intensive abstration. All mentions in the guide seem to forget this issue. 481 Insert a new sentene before The impats.. : There is no requirement here regarding the size of the modifiations brought about by the projet. Also relatively small modifiations are overed by this provision Meaning of the following sentene is unlear: These may be different from those in a natural water body These may be different from those in a natural water body. 491 Clarify here that in suh a ase Artile 4(7) an be applied for the assoiated surfae water body, even though the modifiation/abstration takes plae elsewhere. Refer to setion 3.4 for more information. 493 This setion is too vague. It is unlear if it says that if an ativity abides by the priniples mentioned here, then it ould be determined a Mention abstration as a possible ause of physial alteration/modifiation of a surfae water body. This was disussed during the first meeting of the Ad-ho Task Group and is relevant to mention here. It is mentioned in line 577, but is worthwhile also mentioning in line 481. Rephrase the sentene for larity reasons / alternatively delete ES NL etri BE- FL Aspet has been added Sentene has been added Natural has been replaed by unmodified Whih point is being made here? Natural has been replaed by unmodified Although this is overed in setion 3.4, it is worthwhile to mention here as well. NL Comment taken on board and text hanged NL As stated in the text the Diretive does not give a definition. The text aims to make some referenes and is taken

19 sustainable ativity. If so: please state that more learly. If not: then larify what is meant instead. 493 Poliies of the European Commission suh as those reated to answer 2020 Strategy ould be onsidered as New sustainable human development ativities. Partiularly poliies to impulse maritime transport, renewable energy or infrastrutures for alternative uses. Detailed examples of a orret identifiation of new sustainable human development ativities ould be interesting. Role of Member States in the definition of the riteria to delare exemptions of Artile 4(7) is not lear enough. Development and sustainable development onepts are forms of many legislative initiatives of the European Commission, suh as those referred to energy and transport. Likewise, 2020 Strategy defines a series of priorities in this sense. So, it seems adequate to reinfore the riteria given aording to that legislation. The fat that per se human development ativities annot be defined, makes interesting to inlude a different example other than a sewage treatment plant, beause generally, it will reate a pollution input to water bodies that is not inluded in the Artile 4(7) aording to lines of the draft doument. Member States are the organisms that should define setorial poliies and the role of those poliies on sustainable development and the overriding publi interest. In the end this is a politial deision. ES from CIS Guidane Doument No. 20. The infrastruture examples should be overed by the first limb "new modifiations". New sustainable human development ativities seem therefore to mainly be relevant for pollution aspets, therefore the wastewater treatment plant example. Deterioration due to pollution ould be authorised in ase the 4(7) onditions are met, but only for deterioration from high to good It diffiult to understand what new sustainable human development ativities ould be and therefore diffiult to make it operational. It would be useful with examples, for instane a type of industrial faility. The guidane doument aims at larifying different aspets of Artile 4.7 and the intention is to further guidane on issues that are not lear in existing guidane douments. The draft is an attempt to further give guidane to the understanding of the term sustainable development ativities, but we annot see that the text bring any larifiation or more pratial information on how to understand this provision of artile 4.7. NO MS will be asked to provide further examples for NSD The attempt to larify what sustainable development ativity is, in the guidane doument seems now even more ompliated than the desription given in Guidane doument No. 20. One way to larify that sustainable development ativity is, ould be that the industry would be able to operate without ompromising the ahievement of the environmental objetives of the diretive, exept preventing the deterioration from high to good eologial status. This means that any ativity ould fall under this alternative. In addition, most examples in the guidane doument onern modifiations to the physial harateristis. It would be very useful if the doument ould also give examples on new sustainable ativity, for example emissions from an industry faility.

20 Sope of Artile 4(7) Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters The remarks onerning new sustainable human development ativities are vague and indeisive; request for nearer desription or for examples of New sustainable human development ativities if possible AT Some larifiation is provided (e.g. relevane for pollution aspets). MS will be asked to provide further examples for NSD Clarify to inlude three pillars of sustainable development. The desription is unlear and even misleading, the three pillars of sustainable development are missing, should be larified. See omments related to lines 161 to 169. et ri The three pillars have been added thus depend on a set of riteria suh as time, sale. The list of riteria to take into aount should be unlimited. Text has been modified Change sentene: Note that Artile 4(7) does not provide an exemption if deterioration aused by inputs of pollutants from point or diffuse soures drives the water body to a status below good. Art. 4 (7), however applies if alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater ould ause a deterioration of the hemial status The text larifying new sustainable human development ativities is too vague. Although it is diffiult to learly state what a sustainable human ativity is some guiding priniples ould be inserted in this text instead of referring bak to e.g. Communiation on the next steps for a sustainable European future. Considering the word new we refer to the same arguments as above The exat definition for an ativity falling under sustainable development will thus depend on the time, sale, involved stakeholders and information available. Relevant proess requirements are provided in the WFD itself, the Strategi Environment Assessment, This general statement in line 509 is inomplete. It does not onsider indiret impats of substanes aused by alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater. Alterations to the groundwater level may ertainly have an impat on the hemial status of groundwater bodies. Different groundwater layers transport fresh air (oxygen!) into the aquifer whih results in hemial reations (solution,...), hanges of minerals, leahing of reation produts, hanges of the onentration of substanes... This an our in large sales. Our suggestion is to sharpen this text and add suggestions on guiding starting points/referenes to other piees of ommunity legislation with similar onepts that the permitting authorities should use when assessing this requisites. Please, inlude good examples of the ases and proess for the new sustainable human development ativities. DE SE FI Quotation of Guidane 20. It is about inputs of pollutants. Indiret effets are addressed later on. Some examples have been given. MS will be asked to provide further examples for NSD Some examples have been given. MS will be asked to provide further examples for NSD

21 Environmental Impat Assessment and Aarhus Diretives and should be guided by the priniples of the EC Treaty, being the polluter pays priniple, the preautionary priniple and preventive ation, and the priniple of retifiation of pollution at soure. This text above and part of the doument urges good illustrative examples. 497 How does the involvement of different stakeholders or the availability/lak of information determine the sustainability of an ativity? Please larify. 506 A generi approah for 506 small business developments affeting the same water body may be onsidered when applying 507 the seond point of 4(7). remove It is positive that it is highlighted in the text that art 4(7) does not enompass possible exemptions for deterioration below good status due to disharges of pollutants sine this has been a subjet of disussion in Sweden. It would however be benefiial to have the reasoning for this delimitation briefly elaborated in the text that is the reasons for the atual formulation of artile 4(7). NL Sustainability is a wide term and should therefore onsider a wide range of aspets. Guidane priniples are given Not neessary, ould lead to very superfluous assessments. EEB Quotation from Guidane Doument No. 20 The issue of the urban waste water treatment plants has been a soure of anxiety in Sweden sine these plants mainly if not always disharge in the oastal areas where the status very often has been lassified to a status below good. Any extension of their operations will therefore in pratise not be possible sine this will likely ontribute to more nutrient disharges and thus hinder the fulfilment of good status. (These plants are addressed in lines ) It is questioned in the publi debate why these ould not be subjet to exemptions as well as for example hydro power plants under ertain onditions might be. A short larifiation on this subjet would therefore be welomed. SE Explanation added. 510 Clarify: Diffuse soures inlude pollution by air. Often forgotten EEB Comment rejeted as this would lead to a normative list of diffuse pollution soures 514 Please add a larifiation of the meaning of indiret and diret impats in this speifi ontext. 517 Change sentene: Potential indiret impats on the hemial status of surfae or groundwater bodies are unlikely/unlear possible. 520 Similar point to Line 478. Can the guidane larify the definition of the alteration to the level of groundwater. For example, is this a physial hange in groundwater level or a ondition from a groundwater balane; is it a loalised impat or groundwater body sale trend impats , 536, table 2 Change sentene: Potential indiret impats on the hemial status of surfae or groundwater 522 bodies are unlikely/unlear possible. In the EIA and SEA ontext, the definition of indiret and diret impats is distint. A larifiation might failitate the understanding of indiret and diret impats on different quality elements. SE Example added See line 509. DE Text amended Clarity is required UK Cross ref to See also hapter has been added See line 509. DE Text amended

22 525 New sustainable human development ativities example of new UWWTP should be larified. Are there any other relevant examples to be mentioned. 525 More examples of new sustainable human development ativities should be added Art 4.7 ould be relevant for a new urban waste water treatment plant is disharging into a high status surfae body, where deterioration from high to good eologial status ( but not below) if 4(7) riteria are met and it is also a general omment Having in view the expliite indiations regarding status and potential (whih were impliitly in the ontext of sustainable ativities) from lines , it would be very useful that throughout the text, be indiated where is about status or about potential of water bodies OR To mention that the status inludes also potential, unless it is otherwise indiated 536 In table 2, for hemial status of surfae water bodies the potential impat of 1) Modifiation to the physial harateristis of a body of surfae water, is reported to be Unlikely/unlear. This kind of modifiation/ativity an ause indiret effets to hemial status. For instane, onstrution of a reservoir for hydropower in Northern Europe with peatlands is likely to lead inreased release of merury to surfae waters whih also ends up to fish. 536 Similar table with potential impats of types of projets (e.g. dam, hydroeletri power station, flood protetion measure) on quality elements should be added. 536 Saline intrusion is a hemial status element that is affeted by alterations to the groundwater body. Similarly, the quality to a Natura 2000 site. New UWWTP Guidane doument nr. 20 expliitly ontains that disharge from point soures is not a trigger under Art. 4.7 WFD. It should be explained. CZ Potentially relevant under 4(7) for deterioration but only from high to good. Further explanation added. The term is rather vague, and MS would benefit from having more examples. CZ MS will be asked to provide further examples for NSD EUrEAU Right, this is an example in the guidane It would be very useful to be learly indiated throughout the text where is about status or about potential, in order to avoid any misunderstanding Also this misunderstanding is generated by the fat that in most of the ases, the general understanding supposed that the status also overs potential RO It is larified in the beginning that Art 4.7 refers to potential and status Please, replae Unlikely/unlear with Potential indiret impats FI Has been hanged aording to your suggestion In order to have the guidane doument more pratial, we suggest to expand the example of potential impats presented in Table 2. The table needs to be amended to inlude those likely outomes, or the text needs to be lear that these are out of sope. Corret table 2: Eologial potential 536 As explained in detail in lines , the impat of new sustainable human 3) New Potential Potential Potential Potential Not Not sustainable diret and/or diret and/or diret and/or diret and/or appliable appliable human indiret indiret indiret indiret (beause no (beause not development ativities on HMWD/AWB is not overed; hene lear distintion should development impats impats impats impats definition of addressed in ativities* Not Not Not Not high status) this speifi appliable appliable appliable appliable ontext) (beause not (beause not (beause not (beause not addressed in addressed in addressed in addressed in be made also in table 2, orresponding to explanation in text. this speifi this speifi this speifi this speifi ontext) ontext) ontext) ontext) Colum eologial status/potential has to be separated in 2 olumns: eologial status and eologial potential. In olumn eologial potential and rows new CZ UK et ri Impossible as not all types of projets and situations an be overed. The detailed assessment of pressures impats should have been already assessed in the Art 5 assessments Table amended Yes, but please see explanation in the footnote

23 the eologial potential sine addresses only deterioration Temporary versus permanent impats sustainable human development ativities, Hymo elements, General phys.hem. quality elements and River basin speifi pollutants there has to be marked not appliable beause not addressed in this speifi ontext Delete word sine as it makes no sense in the sentene et ri Sine has been deleted Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters 542 Temporary impats should be detailed, text These temporary impats should be explained in a more straightforward way. ES Chapter was revised refers only to monitoring frequenies of Water Framework Diretive (2000/60/CE) Annex V. 542 Temporary versus permanent impats There is also a need for examples in this ase RO MS will be asked to provide further examples 542 and elsewhere Chapter was revised Not all effets are learly temporary or permanent if temporary is defined with referene to the monitoring frequenies. Short period of time is not defined other than by referene to monitoring frequenies, so the question of natural onditions preluding reovery in a short period of time is not overed. It would be better to disuss medium to long term reovery and be lear about the role of natural onditions from the outset. There is also a need to ensure onsisteny with the ongoing disussions on natural onditions in relation to the use of exemptions beyond And, see omment on line 562 below There is a lear inonsisteny between what is required by WFD to justify temporary deterioration in ase of irumstanes of natural ause or fore majeure whih are exeptional or ould not reasonably have been foreseen [art 4(6)]and what this guidane doument propose, no need for justifiation, when temporary deterioration is aused by onstrution or maintenane works. Maybe this ase doesn t fit in 4(6) neither in 4(7) assessments or justifiations, but at least the Guidane should highlight this as something that needs to be onsidered in future revision of WFD in Insert before Artile 4(6) : Where temporary effets do onstitute deterioration,. 551 Delete part of sentene: in the water body or parts of the water body. Artile 4(6) provides Using Artile 4(6) when there is deterioration should be distinguished from the temporary effets mentioned above, sine they don t onstitute deterioration. WFD aims at water bodies and not at parts of water bodies. If a loal adverse effet does not imply an alteration of the status of a JB, Chair Navi TG ES NL DE Chapter was revised and larified Chapter was revised and larified Chapter was revised

24 551 Why is Artile 4(6) disussed here (i.e. in the ontext of reovery from a modifiation)? Suggest deleting referene to Artile 4(6) for the avoidane of doubt 551 For example, temporary impats due to the establishment of the modifiation during the building phase are not required to be addressed if no deterioration of status or potential ould be expeted thereafter in the water body or parts of the water body Move these two sentenes down to the end of this setion. -Insert before Artile 4(6) provides : Where temporary effets do onstitute deterioration,. quality element, there is no need for Art. 4(7) assessment. The effets of a modifiation an hardly be desribed as unforeseen (at least not if the assessment is done properly) The status is assessed at the water body level, impliitly the nedeterioration/deterioration is assessed at the same level, respetively the water body level. -Moving this text makes more sene, sine first the temporary effets not being deterioration are disussed and then temporary effets onstituting deterioration are disussed as far as Artile 4(6) is onerned. -Using Artile 4(6) when there is deterioration should be distinguished from the temporary effets mentioned above, sine they don t onstitute deterioration Delete 560 et 561 The planning and setting in time of maintenane works should in the spirit of WFD not refer to organization and time setting of monitoring yles. On the ontrary, their potential impat on environment should be in the entre of its planning. Hene the strit lassifiation in 6-years-yles ould even hinder reahing long-term eologial goals Inlude sediment dredging Important maintenane. Good and important to have these in the doument. etri 562 maintenane works annot automatially be EuRE assumed as a "permanent" deterioration U 562 These are two separate points (see below). This setion mixes them up. (i) Maintenane, if it has not been arried out regularly or reently, an have the same effets on eologial status/potential as new works. In other words, if the eology has reovered/stabilised sine the last time maintenane was arried out, the fat it is onsidered to be maintenane from an engineering perspetive does not mean it annot affet water body status. In suh ases, maintenane ativity should be assessed in the same way as a proposed (new) physial modifiation. This point should be made in the text (ii) Both maintenane as referred to in point (i) above, and proposed (new) JB, Chair Navi TG RO NL etri JB, Chair Navi TG Chapter was revised and larified Chapter was revised Chapter was revised and larified Chapter was revised Dredging is addressed Chapter was larified Chapter was revised and larified

25 modifiations an lead to temporary, medium-term/non-temporary (e.g. natural or failitated reovery, but takes longer than the monitoring frequeny for the element) or permanent (fundamentally hanged or will not reover) effets on water body status. In fat, the whole of setion would benefit from more larity in this respet (see also omment on 542 above) 565 seq For heavily modified or artifiial water bodies, maintenane works (e.g. 565 maintenane dredging) might already be onsidered for the definition of good eologial potential CLARIFY/REWRITE 566 (sine disontinuing with the maintenane dredging ativity ould be a signifiant adverse effet on the 567 use), and would in suh a ase not be onsidered as deterioration TO: If that definition expliitly inludes shortterm deteriorations due to maintenane work that DOES NOT impat the water quality long term (e.g. the overall water quality within the 6 years yle has to be stable, espeially flora and fauna) than those deteriorations do not have to be onsidered under Art.4.7. The definition of the good potential has to inlude expliitly under whih irumstanes a negative hange may show up in the monitoring and how long that impat may last. The lassifiation of a water body as A/HMWB DOES NOT allow for deterioration of the water body. Work that leads to a deterioration of a water body annot be lassified as maintenane work as it doesn t maintain the water quality but worsens it. Suh work is only possible if the onditions of Art. 4.7 WFD are met This would only be the ase where the volume of material to be dredged during the maintenane dredge event being the same or less than previously This part should be larified further as It is not fully lear what extent of hanges in hydromorphology triggers Art 4.7 sreening (i.e. The appliation of Art. 4.3 WFD does NOT allow for a deterioration! It is only an alternative objetive to Art lit.a (ii) - good eologial potential instead of good eologial status. See Art. 4.1 lit. a (i) whih lists the onditions when it is possible to take an exemption from the priniple of no deteroriation subjet to the appliation of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudie to paragraph 8; It an be the ase, that the definition of the good potential ontains short-term deteriorations due to dredging -temporary effets, that an be seen, beause a very frequent monitoring has to our. But there may not lead to an overall deterioration. It must be possible that the water body reovers within at least the 6 years. E.g. if the normal maintainane dredging leads to a hange in the river dynamis, e.g. inrease of veloity and therefore a deepening of a river whih has effets on the flora and fauna, that is a deterioration. The good eologial potential is a quality status that has to be ahieved. It is not possible, that the water quality deteriorates. EEB Artile 4(7) also applies to HMWB/AWB. This is larified in previous hapters. Regular maintenane works (e.g. maintenane dredging) an lead to failure of ahieving good eologial status. In ase disontinued maintenane works ould allow reahing good status but would lead to a "signifiant adverse effet on the use" in the meaning of Artile 4(3), regular maintenane works ould qualify to be part of the justifiation for the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies. For larity UK Chapter was revised From our experiene there are ases where this fat might lead to justifying projets to not adhere to Art 4.7 onditions. It s should be expliitly stated that every modifiation in hydromorphology in a water body would need (at least) to undergo Art 4.7 sreening. This WW F Chapter was revised

26 extent of hanges to be onsidered as auses of deterioration of water body onditions) Not lear under what irumstanes an extension under Art 4.4 would be required if the deterioration was a temporary one. Could a ase study or example be provided to help larify the irumstanes when this might be appropriate We would advoate that mitigation measures ontributing to reahing good status/potential but having temporary negative effets, do not onstitute deterioration. This seems to be the message of this paragraph. If so, please state this more learly. is partly larified further in the text, but would benefit from further larity. A ase study would help larity UK MS are requested to send ase studies NL Chapter was revised to gain larity Considerations regarding the size of a modifiation and water body delineation Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters the relevant approh is to assess if a given projet will result in deterioration of the status of body of surfae water or groundwater from high status to good status EURE AU Comment unlear We suggest adding to this setion that the appliation of same methodologies/rules are reommended in the ontext of the size of a new modifiation than it has been established in the pressure impat assessment during the RBMP planning proess of the MS. The appliation of DPSIR analytial framework is reommended as well. There is no differene in the impats of an old or a new pressure. The assessment of the effets an be the same and the methodologial issues related to the size are the same. It is not neessary to arry out other evaluation for new modifiations than used for existing pressures Important to keep and larify further. Espeially relevant for small hydropower, experiening a boom in Europe. They are often planned in strethes with high or good eologial stats and are too small in some MS to go through an EIA proedure In assessing whether or not a projet may fall under an exemption regarding Art. 4.7., the WFD learly desribes the method by desribing the onditions to be met. Hene, the so-alled relevant approah inludes the assessment of overriding publi interest (Art. 4.7.) as well as the assessment of tehnial feasibility and disproportionate osts (Art. 4.7.d). OK for mentioning that not only size of a projet matters. But missing the larifiation on what to inlude in assessing if projet may fall under Art ( onditions to be met, esp. ) and d)) HU WW F etri Referene to pressures-impats assessment added. Setion has been amended to address this point This is addressed in hapter 4.

27 581 (see line 817, , ; 1043) Inlude a referene to the sreening, where a list of lear-ut ases ould help (see line 817) This proess should be as objetive and transparent as possible. An ad-ho assessment of all ases without any further guidane ould leave to subjetivity and differenes in the appliation riteria between RBDs and EEMM. 581 There should be examples of types of modifiations that annot trigger Artile 4(7). It is lear that the size of the projet is not the riteria to trigger 4(7). But a list of types of water related projets onerned, inluding an indiative threshold an help to identify lear-ut ases in the sreening phase. This ould be helpful both in the sense of identifying projets learly triggering 4(7) assessment and also disarding small ones irrelevant for this purpose. If no disarding list exist, then every projet being it small or large, related to water or loated far away from any water body will need at least to be doumented. (see line 898). That will reate a huge burden of work, impossible to assume. This is already happening in our RBDs that are reeiving onsultations about absolutely and learly non water related projets in order to ertify the they don t require a 4(7) assessment. This guidane doument ould help in this sense. An analysis of HyMo pressure thresholds that determine HMWB identified in RBMPs ould be helpful. It ould be inluded as a referene in oming 3 rd yle RBMPs There are ertainly types of modifiation that annot possibly trigger Artile 4(7) suh as e.g. eletri vehile harging stations. The possibility to reate a list of modifiations that will not trigger Artile 4(7) should be inluded. 581 Limits setting is essential It may be a ompetene of the Member States or the European Commission but the limits should be set The reasoning ould be more learly onneted with the status of the water body to ensure larity. 586 Relevane of water body delineation. It remains unlear, at least to some extent, whether the size of a water body an be taken into aount for when onsidering the appliation of artile 4.7. or not. Please larify how to relate to the potential impat. For example, by adding a disussion of the importane that the impat is shown in hange in BQE for fish fauna on water body level. ES The hapter inluding points on sreening/soping (hapter 3.7) has been revised, taking into aount that further detailed assessments should only be required for projets whih may affet status. CZ It is onsidered to be diffiult to reate suh a list whih would in any ase be non-exhaustive. Chapter 3.7 has been revised, taking into aount that further detailed assessments should only be required for projets whih may affet status. Common sense should help during the sreening phase. SK The size of a modifiation is not a relevant riterion to trigger Artile 4(7). The relevant approah is to assess if a given projet, whatever its importane is, will result in deterioration of the status of a body of surfae water or groundwater or prevent the ahievement of good eologial status, good eologial potential or good groundwater status or ause deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surfae water. Thus, projets of any size may fall under artile 4(7). SE This point is addressed in hapter 3.3 Try to larify hapter and onnet it better to hapter FI In the sentene: For the assessment of deterioration or non-ahievement of good status / potential, the size or share of a water body whih is proposed to be modified should not be the relevant riterion, the word neessary has been removed. Should

28 Some examples or riteria are needed, not about WB delineation whih may vary from one RBD to another, but at least about the size of the river reah deteriorated or the lake surfae affeted by the modifiation that leads to a 4(7) assessment. For lakes the riteria an be derived from the text in the diretive. A deterioration of a surfae of lake greater than 0.5 Km2 (WFD Annex II.1.2.2) should trigger 4(7) assessment. In the ase of rivers a similar riteria should be proposed. In Spain we have river WB ranging from a length of 0.36 Km to Km, and an average length of km. The same physial modifiation would not be pereive in the same way in the smaller one than in the bigger one, and the appliation of artile 4(7) should not depend on the size of the WB, so an indiation of the size of the modifiation that triggers 4(7) assessment is needed in this guidane doument. If it is intended to be helpful Clarify further as it is urrently onfusing. - Delineation of a water body may have importane also in terms of measuring the deterioration aused by a planned projet. However, it is to be mentioned that the delineation may not be appropriate if it is used to hide the effets of harmful projets. - For the assessment of deterioration or non-ahievement of good status / potential, the size or share of a water body whih is proposed to be modified should not neessarily be the relevant riterion / / The relevant riterion should be the (eologial) effet of a proposed modifiation ; are you here trying to say that if a projet has a deterioration effet on eology, even if it doesn t lead to deterioration of the whole water body status, but only a part/setion of it, it falls under 4.7 assessment? - Clarify what it means not neessarily (591, 592). - Stronger language and further larifiation needed ( ): should be is too weak (propose to say is ); moreover, the last sentene to be hanged, so it doesn t suggest that it is due to lak of understanding that this is not being handled adequately by MS, but due to intentional avoidane of obligations. 590 Change text: For the assessment of deterioration or nonahievement of good status / potential, the size or share of a water body whih is proposed to be modified should not neessarily be the is a relevant riterion. This beause riteria whih are only linked to the size or shares of a water body are not neessarily eologially meaningful (e.g. a proposed flood protetion measure would have the same eologial impat, independently whether the orresponding water body would be delineated with a length of 5 km or 20 km). The Another relevant riterion should be the (eologial) effet of a proposed modifiation of the affeted water body. Otherwise Member States will be unable to apply the Diretive s objetives orretly, inluding the priniple of non-deterioration 591 How does groundwater sale fit into this disussion? Size of a water body is a relevant riterion beause deterioration of status only refers to the whole water body not just loal modifiations. ES WW F DE lead to more larifiation Valid omment. See relevant guidane on water body delineation where this aspet is addressed. Eah yle allows to hange the delineation to address these issues. However, sine effets on water body status an be very ase speifi, an indiation of the size a modifiation is not deemed to be possible. Text has been amended Text has been amended Clarity is required UK Referene to groundwater example added Missing is between This beause Error in text UK Text has been amended 595 The relevant riterion should be the (eologial) As said in the beginning of this hapter: 577 the relevant approah is to assess if a given Text has been amended

29 effet of a proposed modifiation on the water body or water bodies at issue 595 To larify the text the following wording is suggested The relevant riterion should be the eologial effet, that is, if there was a hange in status of the quality elements. Talking about the eologial impat suggests that this is something else that should be onsidered besides the lassified status, and this is a deviation from the aim and struture of the diretive. There is more to eology than what is neessarily overed by annex V of the WFD. 595 Suggest a hange of wording from The relevant riterion should be the (eologial) effet of a proposed modifiation. To The relevant riterion is whether or not the proposed modifiation will affet the eologial status of the water body And maybe add i.e. ause deterioration or ompromise the ahievement of the relevant WFD eologial objetive whih might be below good if exemptions have been applied for other reasons Relationship of Artile 4(7) to Artile 4(4) and 4(5) projet, whatever its importane is, will result in deterioration of the status of a body 578 of surfae water or groundwater or prevent the ahievement of good eologial status, good eologial 579 potential In pratie the size of the water body is essential when determining if there will be a deterioration of status due to new modifiations sine deterioration should be assessed on water body level. This question is losely linked to the disussion on HMWBs regarding water storage. The WFD is only onerned with (eologial) effet of a proposed modifiation in speifi irumstanes i.e. when status is affeted. It is at best questionable whether Artile 4(7) an be used to prevent a development going ahead that has only a very loal effet: Artile 4(7) is very lear that it relates to the status of a body of surfae water or groundwater. etri SE JB, Chair Navi TG Text has been amended Text has been amended Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters 598 Output from WGs (ECOSTAT, Chemials and CZ Will be onsidered if relevant. Groundwater expeted in 2 nd half of 2017) foused on appliation of natural onditions under Art and 4.5. WFD should be inluded and HU Text was further speified. We suggest ompleting one of these hapters to provide more larifiations (e.g. with a flow hart) to the relationship among the Art. 4(7) and Art. 4(5), Art. 4(4) and Art. 4(3) taking into onsideration also the provision of Art 4(5) ) (no further deterioration). The existing CIS GD No. 20 deals only the internal logi of the different paragraphs of artile 4 exemptions. The line states that it is possible to apply the Art. 4(7) exemption for waterbodies that have already a less stringent objetive. How is it possible without further deterioration? If there is no further deterioration there is no need to apply the Art. 4(7) exemption only heking proedure to ensure that new modifiation is not a signifiant pressure. It an be assumed that if a pressure is ausing an Art. 4(5) exemption it will be terminated then the other pressures inluding the new modifiation ones annot hinder ahievement of good status/potential. With this method it is possible to speify insignifiant pressure limit value in ase of deteriorated water bodies as well. When (whih kinds of human ativities) an the Art. 4(5) be applied? For those ativities where the Art 4(7) not appliable e.g. for hemial status (rows ), or also for those ativities overed by Art. 4(7)? Is there a possibility to apply the lower objetive also to the HMWB when a new human ativity (even aording to Art. 4(7) (line ) ours?

30 This part shoul also explain the possible use of exempletion under artile 4(4) and 4(4) after the artile 4(7) So, does this mean a developer an rely on Artile 4(4) to apply a mitigation measure(s) that is effetive, but the water body takes longer than the relevant monitoring interval or river basin planning period to reover to its premodifiation status, and not therefore have to apply the Artile 4(7) tests? This was a very big question during the workshop. It is important to explain how to manage water bodies after the appliation of exemption under artile 4(7). Can we use artile 4(4) and 4(5)? How? This guidane doument ould provide a methodology. FR JB, Chair Navi TG Text was further speified This aspet is addressed in the hapter Interlinkages between 4(4) or 4(5) and 4(7). Diffiult to understand, how to do in pratise. Example needed. FI MS are requested to provide an example This part would benefit from a pratial example that illustrates how these different exemptions interat. From a stritly natural siene perspetive there ould be a need for reloating a planned measure from one operation to another. In pratie due to national liening or permitting proedures this is however diffiult to see being taken into onsideration during the assessment proedure. (Kan man t.ex. tänka sig att ett kraftverk bekostar åtgärder i reningsverk för att minimera näringstillförsel t.ex. om mark tas i anspråk för kraftproduktionen som tidigare planerats för näringsfällor.) SE MS are requested to provide an example 613 Also, the inter-relation with existing pressures deriving from ativities of all onerned stakeholders on a water body need to be onsidered Please exhange Finally, it might be useful to onsider how mitigation measures for a new projet ould be ombined with other measures neessary to improve status (e.g. a fish ladder ombined with morphologial measures for habitat reation). With Finally, the ombination of mitigation measures with other measures neessary to improve status ( ) needs to be onsidered More larifiation is needed with regard to what is meant here. Suggestion to hange wording from habitat reation to habitat rehabilitation. Make it lear that existing pressures from all ativities should be onsidered. It has shown that generally, the mere onstrution of a fish ladder does not re-establish ontinuity or in the best ase lead to an improvement of status; the WFD goals an only be ahieved through a ombination of measures to establish/guarantee river ontinuity with establishing minimum residual flow and habitat reation through morphologial improvement. Combining these measures should therefore beome state of the art. Is the fish ladder seen as a mitigation measure or as a ompensation measure in this ontext. Is off-site measures an option here? This needs to be larified. Conditions triggering the need for an Artile 4(7) assessment etri EEB SE Text amended Wording was amended The WFD does not require ompensation measures, see relevant setion further below Suggestion to amend wording has been taken on board Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters Sub-hapters RO Issue now further addressed and It would be useful to introdue some issues about preventing the ahievement of environmental objetives aused by a new projet/ativity. In the sub-hapters si 3.3.2, the issues presented over only the aspets linked to deterioration, without no mention/indiation about preventing the ahievement of environmental objetives.

31 Chapter 3.3. It is very important to introdue in this hapters the notion impat on water status/potential (in the ontext of Conditions triggering the need for an Artile 4(7) assessment). The notion impat is introdued diretly in the hapter 3.4 Impats on other water bodies, whih is referring to other water bodies. The notion impat is introdued /used in the hapter 3.4 Impats on other water bodies, where it is about the other water bodies, without any indiation in the hapter 3.3. RO Referene to hapter 3.2 added, where the notion of new developments in the meaning of Artile 4(7) and potential effets are explained. 626 Needs to be further larified by adding: As regards HMWBs the basis for the assessment of deterioration should be the impat of a projet on the status and not on the potential of surfae or groundwater bodies. As regards HMWBs it is neessary to make a distintion between the method of evaluation of deterioration of water bodies by a projet and prevention of the ahievement of good eologial potential by a projet. Evaluation of deterioration of water bodies by a projet For the appliation of non-deterioration priniple in HMWBs the evaluation of the impat of a projet on the surfae or groundwater body should be based on the status and not on the potential. For the assessment whether a projet auses a fall by one lass of a quality element it has to be evaluated to whih extent the impat of a projet inreases deviation from the referene ondition. Otherwise it will not be possible to prevent deterioration of HMWB. Reasons for this are: The referene onditions are fixed and verifiable. The definition of the potential depends on the aepted human ativities and the extent of effetive measures to improve the eologial situation. The extent of effetive measures depends on the urrent soial and politial onditions. These onditions are not fixed. Due to the onsideration of the human ativities, the lassifiation of the eologial potential of a waterbody is less strit than of the eologial status. In onsequene, the same water body ould be evaluated as of medium eologial potential and of bad eologial status (like in the ase of the deepening of the Elbe in Germany). Below you an see a opy of a doument of the grid sheets of the Elbe proedure: WW F HMWB/AWB is a speifi water body ategory with its own lassifiation sheme and objetives. Appropriate quality elements need to be hosen from the losest omparable surfae water body ategories (e.g. if a river is turned into a lake), whereas losest omparable water body types are used to help determine the value of the quality elements. This is relevant, beause every negative impat of a projet on a water body whih is lassified as bad eologial status/potential triggers the need for Art. 4.7 assessment. For example, in the ase of the deepening of the Elbe one reason why the biggest German

32 infrastruture projet did not trigger the Art. 4.7 assessment was the approah to use the potential and not the status of the water body as a basis for the assessment of deterioration Please onsider adding more larifiation about the onsequenes of the EUTI ruling and how to take that into aount in WFD planning proess. 631 and 645 ff, 665/ Please larify: Deterioration relates to any element of the quality elements (line 631), quality elements ontained in Annex V (line 665/666) but in the following tables 3-7 the supporting elements are treated as one single element. QE shown in the examples should be in detail in aordane with the Weser-Judgment of the European Court (C-461/13) This point need more explanations. Does this point is part of the judgment of the ourt as the point just before? Preventing the ahievement of good potential of HMWB by a projet Definition and evaluation of eologial potential is important for defining the eologial objetives of HMWB (Art. 4.1 WFD) and the measures to implement the objetives. RBMP for HMWB will justify measures whih are able and neessary to bring the water body in a good eologial potential (Art. 4.1). For obligation to reah good eologial potential it is neessary to analyse the impat of a projet on the possibility to implement the objetives. The definition of the eologial potential onsiders human ativities unlike the definition of the eologial status ; therefore onditions for reahing the goals of the eologial potential are lower than for reahing the goals for the eologial status. For example by taking also into aount the timeframe and potential mitigation measures implemented. How does it work for projet falling under artile 4(7) exemption? Whih authority must authorise loal projets? 632 Add a link to Annex V of the WFD or list all quality elements. WW F 639 The Weser ruling should be ited here. This point was not learly artiulated prior to the Weser ruling. JB, Chair Navi TG If the quality element is already in the lowest Experiene shows it may be diffiult to apply. Further investigations are needed to find lass, any deterioration of that element solutions to make it more pratiable (ex: de-minimis thresholds for different quality etri represents deterioration of status elements ) FI AT FR Please larify what is meant by EUTI ruling Tables and text has been amended The bullet points are from the ruling (see footnote). Deision on ompetenes an differ between Member States and it is within their ompetenes to deide. Tables have been amended Referene is provided in the footnote tot he bullet points abovet Some narrative was added to the related example For groundwater status there are only two status lasses so further explanation as to what this means in pratie for groundwater bodies at poor quantitative status would be helpful. In Can the guidane provide a pratial example or ase study of what deterioration means for groundwater bodies at poor quantitative status. UK Disussed by WG Groundwater; text on groundwater amended

33 theory any further additional abstration in a body at poor quantitative status ould be lassed as deterioration Case C-346/14 has larified when there is a deterioration in the status when the quality element Is already in the lowest lass: When a quality element is in the lowest lass, any deterioration of that element onstitutes a deterioration. It would be useful to speify what any deterioration is in this ontext, sine deterioration overall is defined as a quality element falling by one lass. See also our remark to sentene 793 managing unertainty. Unertainty relating to sampling methodology will make it hallenging to assess whether it might be any deterioration. The guidane use many different terms any deterioration, adverse effet, signifiant impat, but it is easier to understand if the use of terminology is onsistent, unless the meaning intends to be different. The terms must be defined properly and the term used onsistently. Any deterioration, ref Weser ould be interpreted in different ways: - As any new or inreased emission. - Negative hange in status (quality elements/eqs), verified by samplings (note: unertainty relating to analysis). - Negative hange in status (quality elements/eqs), verified by trend monitoring (note: unertainty relating to analysis). - Change in status (quality elements/eqs) that will jeopardise the attainment of good status. NO Some narrative was added to the related example It should avoided defining deterioration by using the word deterioration. Considerations for surfae water bodies Line Nr. Comment/hange request Justifiation of the omment/hange request MS Comment by drafters 641 For all tables within this setion, suggest using letters orresponding to status, instead of numbers (i.e. use H,G,M,P,B), as has been done further on in the doument for the groundwater table examples The numbering is potentially onfusing and is inonsistent with the groundwater senarios UK For better understanding we would stik to the urrent version. There is a explanation below the table We propose to delete the tables in this pages or at least pass them to an Annex. They introdue a lot of noise in the doument and are not suitable as a helping tool. 641ff Please split HyMo into its three omponents hydrologial regime, river ontinuity, and morphologial onditions. AND The examples shown in pages 22, 23 and 24, tables 3 to 7 are absolutely orret, but they are as orret as irrelevant and useless. The tables enlighten the Court of Justie Sentene C-146/13, and give a theoretial approah to the problem. But the examples are not very useful in pratie, as the assessment of possible deterioration is an ex-ante assessment and it should be based on the experiene gained in RBDs with years of work and probably on modelling. Nowadays even the more advane models are far away from reproduing the preise relationship between BQE and Ph-Ch-QE and HyMo QE. So, the sreening in whih the deision about triggering 4(7) assessment should be based on rough estimates and assumptions, proess in whih those examples give little input. Maybe they an be used in an ex-post analysis to hek if the hypothesis that determined the use or not of artile 4(7) were orret The fat that onrete examples of onditions under whih Artile 4 (7) assessment is required are provided here, is highly appreiated. However, it is inomprehensible why, throughout all examples provided, HyMo is ES EEB The tables are onsidered by many MS as very important and therefore should stay in the main text Tables have been amended

34 Please provide a lear perimeter of what is to be defined as a QE in the light of deterioration of status. treated as a QE at the same level as the three separate BQEs. Following Annex V WFD, HyMo is not a QE itself, yet omprises three Qes, namely hydrologial regime, river ontinuity, and morphologial onditions just like Biologial quality elements omprises benthi invertebrate fauna, aquati flora, and fish fauna. When it omes to the implementation of Artile 4(7) and the examples given in the Guidane, HyMo should be split into its three omponents hydrologial regime, river ontinuity, and morphologial onditions sine a deterioration of any of these three Qes would trigger an Artile 4(7) assessment. If the three omponents remained summed up and HyMo is, for instane, >2** due to a >2** in one of the three hydromorphologial omponents (morphologial onditions), the deterioration of at least one other of the three omponents (ontinuity and/or hydrologial regime) would not be displayed (sine HyMo is already >2**) and ould thus not be onsidered as triggering an Artile 4(7) assessment. Instead, in the assessment proess, a potential deterioration of eah of the three omponents should expliitly be examined and therefore also be displayed in the tables provided. Unfortunately, neither Annex V WFD nor the Weser ruling (ase C-461/13) do give a lear answer to the question of what a quality element really is (see also the divergene in the listing of elements between points 1.1 Quality elements for the lassifiation of eologial status and 1.2 Normative definitions of eologial status lassifiations in Annex V). 641 The need to evaluate the options deterioration of hydro-morphologial onditions with no deterioration in the eologial status in a ase of new sustainable human development ativities 641 Comments to part Analysis of eologial status/potential hanges on quality elements level: 1. Derease of eologial estatus/potential annot be determined by supporting quality elements 2. For determination of eologial quality derease anlyses based on modelling are needed for individual biologial quality elements. Estimation of eologial quality is vague and inaurate as not all BQEs are able to distinguish the individual pressures beaause of ummulative impats and their multistressor effet. 3. For determination of eologial quality of individual BQEs we suggest on EC level to use preditive models/model whih should be unified for entire EU (in the frame of broad ommon typology e.g. from interalibration proess) and these would be available to all member states. Within interalibration robust databases of needed biologial and supportive (hemial, hydromorphologial) data were reated for setting of models. Unified model is very important for the ompatibility of estimation and preditions of status deterioration of individual BQEs within EU. 4. Analysis of BQEs eologial quality deterioration based on estimation an lead to inorret results of analysis. 5. Member states would appreiate the above desribed unified approah to the analysis of individual BQEs eologial quality deterioration, that ould enhane also SK Sk Chapter has been further elaborated and amended Ad 1+2 Further narrative and ase study added Ad 3: Preditive model at EU level onsidered as very unlikely to be ahievable Ad 4: Risk-based and preautionary approah is needed see respetive ase study whih was added Ad 5: Further work on linkage hymo and BQEs ongoing in frame of CIS Ad 6: See omment on 4

35 to the analysis aording artile 4 (7) in individual EU ountries. 6. In total it si very ontroversial to predit eologial status/potential deterioration at the site of the projet realisation as the status assessment of water body is normally performed in representative sampling site Comment rows 645, 649, 653, 658, 662: Add title supporting quality element to Example table over HyMo and Psy. Chem. Hydromorphologial quality elements are supporting, they lassify only from High status to Good status. In the ase of Water body in good or worse status, the impat of projet on the values of biologial quality elements is the trigger for 4.7. assessment. etri Tables have been modified Illustration Table 3 : example 1 Deterioration of overall status of a surfae water body All 5 tables should be hanged following the illustration. Starting point: Overall eologial statu Due to the modifiation overall status expeted triggering an Artile 4(7) assessment. The examp Biologial Quality E Quality element Benthi invertebrate fauna Aquati flo Starting point 2 2 Expeted effet due to modifiation 3 2 ** Conditions not onsistent with the ahievement of the values speified for good status 1: High; 2: Good; 3: Moderate; 4: Poor; 5: Bad 644 and/or 667 Inlude new lines: Deterioration of a supporting quality element has not to be taken under onsideration as long as there is no deterioration of a biologial quality element as a resulting (exept for high status). Clarifiation needed etri Chapter was updated; understanding the linkage between the supporting quality elements and biologial quality elements is important in pratial terms (see ase study whih was added)

36 645, fig 3 Column: River basin speifi pollutants River basin speifi pollutants are lassified as "good" or "failing to ahieve good status". Referene number and the legend in line 647 imply a five stage lassifiation. Proposal: addition of an extra legend for the speifi pollutants. 646 Add a desription explaining the "supporting" funtion of the HyMo and physio-hemial quality elements (see below) Table 4 (Example 2) shows, that an Artile 4(7) assessment will be also triggered by the fall of only one biologial quality element, whilst the overall eologial status will stay the same (good eologial status). In our view, this is a typial ase, where the prodution of renewable energy from hydropower will be of overriding publi interest in most ases. We request to mention this irumstane in the text in hapter & The ase onstellation shown in Table 6 does not lead to a deterioration of any biologial, physiohemial quality elements and speifi pollutants. In our view, this is a typial ase, where the prodution of renewable energy from hydropower will be of overriding publi interest in all ases. We request to mention this irumstane in the text in hapter & et sqq., Table 6, Example 4 Add as follows: Starting point: Overall eologial status high sine all quality elements in high status lass. Due to the new modifiation the hydromorphologial onditions are not expeted to meet high status anymore and therefore triggering an Artile 4(7) assessment, despite the biologial quality elements meeting referene onditions and the physio-hemial onditions meeting high status. This example would also lead to a hange of the overall eologial status from high to good. This is a speial situation. In general biologial quality element status is lower than high and lowering of HyMo status does not neessarily lead to an alteration of status of biologial quality elements. (Table 6 HyMo hange from 1 zo 2 ) 1. The effet on the water body is very modest. In addition, there is not neessarily a deterioration of the status of benthi organisms from 1 (high) to 2 (good), when there is enough residual respetively eologial flow left in the river. 2. All quality elements and the overall status are at least in good ondition, meaning that a self-sustaining eosystem is in plae. 3. A larifiation in the text would help member states to design a generi approah in order to redue the assessment burden (referring to Line Nr an 1045 in the draft). Suh an approah an be inferred from C-361/14 (Shwarze Sulm ase). 1. There is no impat on the status of biologial, physio- hemial quality elements and speifi pollutants of the water body. All quality elements exept the hydromorphology are in high status. 2. Hydromorphology itself is defined as a supporting quality element (Annex V in WFD). The question arises whether a nullity limit ould be introdued for suh ases. To hange/disuss. The deterioration of the status lass of a supporting hydromorphologial or physio-hemial quality element is an indiation that also an adverse alteration of the relevant biologial quality element is to be expeted. This leads to an overall deterioration only in ase this adverse alteration of the biologial quality element means a hange of its status lass DE DE EREF EREF DE Aording to Annex V RBSPs are lassified as high, good or failing to ahieve good. Indiation now in last example "Conditions not onsistent with the ahievement of the values speified for good status" Further desription added The Artile 4(7) test is addressed in hapter 4. The Artile 4(7) test is addressed in hapter 4. Example was adapted. Member States should have methodologies that ensure that onditions of supporting elements are onsistent with biologial quality elements.

37 Or: delete example. Or: Insert a further example with starting point good eologial status, all quality elements at good status Table 6: Example 4 Deterioration of the hydromorphologial ondition of a surfae water body whih is not expeted to meet high status anymore: The table is not right aording to the WFD, Overall eologial status ould not be good, if all biologial elements and physio-hemial onditions are high. If only hydromorphologial ondition is good and biologial and physiohemial are high, there is an inonsistene between the elements and they should be revised. Please onsider hanging the Table 6 (Overall eologial status should be? ), add info about inonsistene. 657ff. Please add an example with the following starting point and hanges due to a new modifiation: Overall eologial status good determined by QE in worst ondition (good). Due to the modifiation at least one hydromorphologial QE is expeted not to meet high status anymore, therefore triggering an Artile 4(7) assessment, despite none of the biologial quality elements expeted to deteriorate and the physio-hemial onditions meeting high status! 661 Some of these tables are not very lear in their message, or in the intended differenes between them Table 7: Example 5 Deterioration of quality element of a surfae water body whih is already in the lowest lass. Due to the impats of the modifiation the quality element whih is already in the lowest lass (bad), any deterioration of that element represents deterioration: WFD, Annex V, Art Presentation of monitoring results and lassifiation of eologial status and eologial potential (786) For surfae water ategories, the eologial status lassifiation for the body of water shall be represented by the lower of the values for the biologial and physio-hemial monitoring results for the relevant quality elements. Thus: Hydromorphologial elements are supporting only (but important). The display of EXAMPLE 4 is highly appreiated due to the offiial interpretation of the Weser ruling in Austria, aording to whih a deterioration triggering an Artile 4(7) assessment is limited to the deterioration of at least one of the biologial quality elements, while the sole deterioration of a supporting (hydromorphologial or physiohemial) element does not lead to an Artile 4(7) assessment. However, to meet the WFD goals (good status), deterioration of any of the three hydromorphologial quality elements irrespetive of a parallel deterioration of biologial elements is also relevant, not only with a starting point of high eologial status, but also with the starting point of only overall good eologial status! Even if biologial elements might not be expeted to instantly respond to a deterioration in hydromorphologial onditions, with every deterioration of a hydromorphologial element the biologial deterioration (over time) beomes more likely and with it the deterioration of the overall eologial status from good to moderate (= failure of WFD goals). Classifiation results of biologial elements naturally vary without hanges of anthropogeni pressures (and without effetive measures). CZ EEB JB, Chair Navi TG CZ Example was adapted. Member States should have methodologies that ensure that onditions of supporting elements are onsistent with biologial quality elements. Further desriptive text was added. Some further desriptive text was added. Some narrative added. This is only disussed only in the ontext of new modifiation and not natural variation

38 The deterioration should be signifiant based on more results (more years would be better). Please add a text about signifiane of deterioration. 661 Example 5 Deterioration of quality element of a surfae water body whih is already in the lowest lass 662/ Table 7 Please larify deterioration in bad status: does this mean any new modifiation or only those whih would mean an impat on biologial elements? 662 Example 5 Starting point: Overall eologial status bad sine one quality element in bad status lass There is a need for more explanations. The example presents a deterioration but the 38uppose are the same (before and after modifiation). It is 38upposed to be a deterioration in the frame of a lass? RO AT DE This is a result from the Weser Ruling. See text in the introdution of hapter 3.3 Further desriptive text was added. Added Add as follows: Due to the impats of the modifiation the quality element whih is already in the lowest lass (bad), any deterioration of that element represents deterioration, triggering an Artile 4 (7) assessment. 662 Text in table under starting point refers to overall status being poor but should say bad 664 The above examples all larify orretly when deterioration ours. However, one question remains: the box speifi pollutants houses several sub-boxes, namely the speifi pollutants themselves. If the speifi pollutants box is oloured red beause several of the pollutants are red, and more pollutants would be oloured red, would this be deterioration (even though the olour of the box speifi pollutants as a whole doesn t hange? If this would indeed be deterioration, it would be worthwhile to add this as one of the examples, as it leads to many questions in pratie Very important to keep; nevertheless the need for a more targeted methodology relating speifially to these supporting quality elements should be further emphasised (due to urrent experiene). Error in text UK Correted As remarked before on the key issue paper, this question also arises for the general physio-hemial quality elements. It should be kept in mind (and preferably expliitly speified here) that this is formally a group of quality elements and not a quality element on its own (Annex V uses the plural form of quality elements ). This makes a differene. For instane, suppose this group is in moderate status beause O2 is moderate. If it is expeted that both O2 and nutrients will be moderate due to modifiations: is that a problem? Below is an example of the supporting quality element of hymo that has been developed by Lower Saxony authorities. NL WW F Chapter updated with additional information on supporting quality elements. Example was adapted and desriptive text and a ase study added. Member States should have methodologies that ensure that onditions of supporting elements are onsistent with biologial quality elements.

39 To move the paragraph Deterioration of the status should be assessed at quality element level, i.e. those ontained in Annex V of the WFD. Competent authorities should be in the position to judge whether in a given ase the supporting quality element has onditions onsistent with the values speified for the biologial quality elements. This onsideration presupposes that assessment methods for the biologial quality elements are able to apture modifiations in hydromorphologial and physio-hemial elements in order to determine whether these would be tantamount to deterioration of the status and that status lass boundaries are properly understood. If not, a more targeted methodology relating speifially to these supporting quality elements is neessary. Otherwise, there is a risk of not deteting deterioration of the eologial status. After LINE 640 (at the beginning of ) 666ff. Please add a all addressed at Member States to invest more in the development of adequate assessment methods (de fato assessment of waterbodies instead of interalibration) and provide best pratie examples (e.g. Austria assessment of fish biomass). It s lassifiation system of the implementation of the WFD in transitional and oastal waters. In a ase where a projet sales down the extent of front area, suh a lassifiation system would enable a verifiable and transparent evaluation of the impat on the hydromorphology of a water body and answer the question whether there is a need for an Art. 4.7 assessment. It is suggested to move the respetive paragraph after LINE 640 at the beginning of , having in view that the explanation of meaning of Annex V of the WFD is a very important one and in this way a better link with this issue is ensured Assessment methods for the biologial quality elements in many Member states are not sensitive enough to apture modifiations in hydromorphologial and physio-hemial elements (e.g. Germany). Due to these shortomings, these ountries risk to ignore negative impats of projets. Austria offers best pratie in the field of assessment of biologial quality elements, espeially fish fauna, by onsidering fish biomass instead of, for instane, the mere RO EEB Chapter was revised Narrative and a ase study were added