Odense Pilot River Basin
Reporting phase 1B
GD 2.2: Heavily Modified Water Bodies
GD 2.7: Monitoring
GD 2.9: - Best Practices
- Public Participation
GD: Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands
TOR for Phase 1b
1. Terms of Reference: Scope of the work
The overall objective of integrated testing (WG 4.1) is to contribute to the implementation of the WFD directive in the selected Pilot River Basins, leading in the long-term to the development of River Basin Management Plans. The specificity of the testing versus the real implementation is that the testing should be a front-runner of the actual implementation, with focus on Key Issues felt to be of particular relevance. Reporting in the context of the PRB activities will concentrate only on these Key Issues. It is important to stress that the integrated testing contributes to applying the many operational issues mentioned in the Guidance Documents (GD). In fact, many of the questions arising from the Key Issues will refer to operational aspects and therefore, they will be only solved after the guidance's application to real cases.
The objectives of the integrated testing are set around two deadlines: the first covering the 2002-third quarter of 2003 period, and the second aiming at mid 2004. These deadlines are based on the considerations that the actual implementation of the WFD is already taking place in many countries and that reporting from Member States to the Commission on specific issues of the Directive such as Article 5 and its Annexes is required in a relative short time. The WFD implementation should then take advantage as much as possible of the Pilot River Basin activities. To be useful, the integrated testing should start as early as possible.
2. A phased approach
Two Phases are envisaged to reach the predefined objectives:
Phase 1a: Focus on testing of Key Issues related to the reporting commitments on Article 5, set up an on-line dynamic feedback and information exchange, and identify new Issues as the testing process evolves and additional cross cutting problems appear.
The time frame of Phase 1a goes till the third quarter of 2003, concentrating primarily on issues in the Guidance Documents related to the reporting commitments on Article 5 due March 2005. A list of general and specific Key Issues reported in the Annex 1 of the ToR has been developed in collaboration with the different WG leaders. The information acquired during this phase should flow among the different PRBs concerning experience on how Key Issues will be addressed, but also between PRB and WG leaders on the interpretation, implementation, checking for coherence, etc. of specific technical issues of the GDs. Furthermore, this information will be made available to the river basins involved in the “regular” implementation of the WFD, so that they can benefit from the pilot testing experience. The end product will be a document based on the elaboration of the reports dealing with the Key Issues addressed during the testing phase.
Phase 1b: Testing of the guidance documents not tested in Phase 1a (to be run in parallel with Phase 1a). Continuation of information exchange.
During Phase 1b the work will concentrate on the Guidance Documents not included in Phase 1a. This work will run in parallel with Phase 1a. However, it will extend until mid-2004. The simultaneous testing to be done in Phases 1a,b will allow an integrated testing of all GDs. The reporting will also be based on the list of general and specific Key Issues reported in the Annex 1 of the ToR that was developed in collaboration with the different WG leaders. A similar approach will be used to ensure the flow of information between the PRBs and the WG leaders.
Phase 2: Further develop integrated testing to contribute to producing Program of Measures and a River Basin Management Plan.
The work envisaged during this Phase would initiate during the second half of 2004. In this context, it is important to remember that a Guidance Manual on planning process will be produced by the end of 2005 by WG 2.9. A merging of activities between 4.1 and 2.9 is foreseen in order to establish a new key activity “Integrated River Basin Management”. Because of the restructuring of the CIS organisation, additional details on the timetable would be provided at a later stage.
3. Deliverables
· D1.Electronic platform for on-line dynamic feedback and information exchange
· D2.Intermediate reports concerning specific issues that had to be addressed by the PRBs (Phase 1)
· D3.Comprehensive report concerning the testing of the technical Guidance Documents including also a proposal for update. The manual should describe the implementation process through the various stages, from preliminary set-up and information gathering to the actual testing of the guidance and recommendation for improvement of the GDs. This document should be exhaustive and serve as a basis for possible modification of the GDs, and, at a later stage, for the establishment of Programme of Measures and the development of River Basin Management Plans.
· D4. Programme of Measures/RBMP (to be agreed upon for delivery date)
Timetable
Time / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006Actions / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Information Exchange
Testing related to Article 5 commitment (Phase 1a)
Integrated testing of other GDs (Phase 1b)
Programme of measures/RBMP (Phase 2)
Deliverables / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
D1 / X
D2 / X
D3 / X / X
D4 / ?
Specific issues (Phase 1b)
Notes: During the PRB leaders Stearing Group Meeting held in Brussell at the 23 of Febbrary 2004 it was decided to change the format of the ToR in order to make easier answering for the PRBs. Please, feel free to use all the space you need to answer to every single question, also providing case studies or any kind of information related with the single issues. The questions were directlty copied from the ToR distributed during the phase 1a. This means that there are not any change in the content but only in the format of the ToR.
gd 2.2: Heavily modified Water Bodies
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: In our opinion the GDs are generally understandable with instructive tables and figures, but are generally too long and often repetitive GD 2.2 (+ toolbox) in particular is rather difficult to follow. We suggest that the GDs should be shortened in such a way as to only contain clear, easily understandable messages and examples, with a short reference to the other GDs and the WFD. Many terms used in the GD need more stringent definitions, e.g “ hydromorphology”. The case studies given lack a description of the watercourse size and the specific problems, see also answer to B5.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: Yes. However, we wonder whether Chapter 1 in GD 2.2 is really needed (see remarks to B3).
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: Yes.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4
We do not fully understand the question. If good/best practice is not an issue in the WFD, why this question? The meaning of good/best practice is difficult to define.
Not mentioned in the IMPRES GD!
We think that the GD’s do not contain a full description of good/best practices. Thus far, the GD’s appears rather theoretical on this issue.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: More precision is needed on many terms, e.g ‘watercourses’, ‘artificial watercourses’, ‘hydromorphology’, ‘disproportional costs’, to mention the most important terms, should be defined more precisely in GD 2.2 (see also specific remarks in 2.2).
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: There are several redundancies – actually too many to be specified.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: Water bodies/HMWB: Yes.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: The methods in the GD are somewhat theoretical and difficult to handle, and hence are not sufficiently operational. For example, step 5 uses expressions such as "is it likely" that a water body cannot attain good ecological status, which is a subjective criterion. Moreover, it is very difficult to answer in that many factors other than changes in hydromorphology play a role. It appears that the test is unnecessarily subdivided into steps 5 and 6. In step 5 it is exclusively hydromorphology that determines the failure to attain good ecological status. Lack of attainment of good ecological status might just as well be due to physical changes. The subdivision therefore seems illogical. The test should use clearer, less ambiguous words. For example, what exactly is meant by hydromorphology? (see 2.2).
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: The GD toolbox can give some inspiration, but the toolbox is too voluminous
We recommend a toolbox with:
- a shorter and more specific text
- more examples from smaller catchments and from smaller watercourses
- Examples where the main impact is caused by intensive agricultural land use.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: We find the designation test in GD 2.2 rather difficult to handle especially regarding step 8, "Designation test". The methods are very abstract and non-operational. The methods mentioned appear to be very resource-heavy and are virtually impossible to carry out as part of a planning process. For example, to determine whether an "other means" is technically feasible might necessitate carrying out extremely expensive and laborious technical investigations. Once it has been determined whether "other means" are technical feasible, cost estimates have to be prepared. What is the meaning of "disproportionately costly" of "other means" in step 8? This is a very diffuse term. The magnitude of the financing allocated to improving the aquatic environment in Denmark is decisive for determining where to draw the line for "disproportionately costly" in the WFD. Finally, political consideration has to be given to the economic framework and possibilities in relation to the WFD and other activities under the responsibility of the political authorities (see 2.2).
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: See earlier remarks.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: See 2.2.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: See 2.2.
Lakes and coastal waters: See watercourses.
GD 2.2
Not relevant in our Pilot River Basin.
In areas with transboundary river basins, however, it will depend on how the individual authorities define terms from the test such as “significant physical alterations”, “disproportionate costs” etc. The GD does not help to achieve a common approach to the WFD with regard to these central definitions.
------
2.2-1 Availability of an Infrastructure.
Question 1. Please give information on the availability of an infra structure consisting of:
§ Expertise
§ Databases
§ Models and other tools
§ Organisational structure
Question 2. If the infrastructure was not (sufficiently) available, have you set up a group of experts for matters related to reference conditions and classification, ecological, chemical, hydrological, economical and statistical expertise as well as expertise on modelling, GIS and databases.
Clarification: Databases are needed for the identification of relevant water bodies and characterisation of pressure and state. State variables would be those required in the WFD for characterisation and classification of water bodies (Annex II and V) plus optional variables suggested in the WFD or other variables preferred by MSs. Pressure variables would include measures of land-use, point source discharges, hydro morphological alterations, etc. It should be stressed that without access to data, an orderly implementation of the WFD is impossible.
Watercourses, lakes and coastal waters:
1. Most of the experts needed are on hand in Fyn County. Further knowledge is collected in cooperation with consultants and specialists from national institutions. Data for identification of water bodies and physical modification originate from national and regional monitoring, watercourse maintenance regulations, and investigations carried out in connection with restoration projects of water courses and lakes. Some of these data are only accessible in paper format, however, or have to be collected from the Municipalities. For some of the smaller watercourses, lakes and coastal waters the data are sparse or even lacking.
Lack of data/information on economics related to specific agricultural areas and agricultural benefits on drainage, river maintenance etc. is also an important problem.
2. We find the infrastructure available within the competent staff. We have done a lot of work in working groups comprised of in- house specialists in monitoring, data processing, GIS, stream maintenance and stream/wetland restoration. In case of lack of expertise cooperation with external consultants will be initiated.
------
2.2-2 Practical qualitative “pressure criteria”.
Question 1. Did you use the qualitative “practical pressure criteria” as clues to agree on anthropogenic disturbance (HMW guidance, table 1 of par 4.7).
Question 2. Is the list sufficiently adequate to establish insight that the water body is probably heavily modified (and may identify provisionally as a HMWb)
Question 3. Failing the GES could be a consequence of (a) morphological alterations, (b) other impacts or (c) a combination (and sum) of (a) and (b). Is it possible to distinguish the real pressure, which is responsible for the likelihood in not achieving the GES
Clarification: Describe how to distinguish between different pressures
Watercourses:
1. The table has been a good inspiration for our work. However, more specific criteria are needed in order to evaluate the degree of heavy modification, especially in small watercourses. The national work on this subject has not been completed yet.
2. The list is OK. The list needs to be supplemented with a number of physical alterations e.g.
· Culverts
· Sluices and floodgates