Miljøudvalget 2011-12
MIU Alm.del Bilag 116
Offentligt
European Commission
Common Implementation Strategy for theWater Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
Guidance document n.o4
Identification and Designation of Heavily Modifiedand Artificial Water Bodies
COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGYFOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (2000/60/EC)
Guidance Document No 4
Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesProduced by Working Group 2.2 - HMWB
Disclaimer:This technical document has been developed through a collaborative programme involving the EuropeanCommission, all the Member States, the Accession Countries, Norway and other stakeholders and Non-Governmental Organisations. The document should be regarded as presenting an informal consensus position onbest practice agreed by all partners. However, the document does not necessarily represent the official, formalposition of any of the partners. Hence, the views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the viewsof the European Commission.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answersto your questions about the European UnionNew freephone number:
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2003ISBN 92-894-5124-6ISSN 1725-1087� European Communities, 2003Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
FOREWORDThe EU Member States, Norway and the European Commission have jointlydeveloped a common strategy for supporting the implementation of the Directive2000/60/EC, “establishing a framework for Community action in the field of waterpolicy” (theWater Framework Directive).The main aim of this strategy is to allow acoherent and harmonious implementation of the Directive. Focus is on methodologicalquestions related to a common understanding of the technical and scientificimplications of theWater Framework Directive.One of the main short-term objectives of the strategy is the development of non-legallybinding and practical Guidance Documents on various technical issues of theDirective. These Guidance Documents are targeted to those experts who are directly orindirectly implementing theWater Framework Directivein river basins. The structure,presentation and terminology is therefore adapted to the needs of these experts andformal, legalistic language is avoided wherever possible.In the context of the above-mentioned strategy, an informal working group dedicatedto the identification and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodieswithin implementation of theWater Framework Directivewas set up in April 2000 andnamed HMWB WG 2.2. The United Kingdom and Germany (Joint Chair) have theresponsibility of the secretariat and co-ordination of the Working Group that iscomposed of representatives from 12 Member States and Norway as well asstakeholders and a limited number of Accession Country representatives.The present Guidance Document is the outcome of this Working Group. It contains themain output of the HMWB Working Group activities and discussions that have takenplace since April 2000. It builds on 34 case studies and on the input and feedback froma wide range of experts and stakeholders that have been involved throughout theprocess of the Guidance development through meetings, workshops, conferences orelectronic communication media, without binding them in any way to its content.We, the water directors of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and thecountries applying for accession to the European Union, have examined and endorsedthis Guidance during our informal meeting under the Danish Presidency inCopenhagen (21/22 November 2002). We would like to thank the participants of theWorking Group and, in particular, the leaders, Martin Marsden (Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency, UK), Dr. David Forrow (Environment Agency of England & Wales,UK), Dr. Ulrich Irmer and Dr. Bettina Rechenberg (Umweltbundesamt, D), forpreparing this high quality document.We strongly believe that this and other Guidance Documents developed under theCommon Implementation Strategy will play a key role in the process of implementingtheWater Framework Directive.This Guidance Document is aliving documentthat will need continuous input andimprovements as application and experience build up in all countries of the EuropeanUnion and beyond. We agree, however, that this document will be made publiclyi
available in its current form in order to present it to a wider public as a basis forcarrying forward ongoing implementation work.Moreover, we welcome that several volunteers have committed themselves to test andvalidate this and other documents in the so-called pilot river basins across Europeduring 2003 and 2004 in order to ensure that the Guidance is applicable in practice.We also commit ourselves to assess and decide upon the necessity for reviewing thisdocument following the pilot testing exercises and the first experiences gained in theinitial stages of the implementation.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. ITABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. IIILIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ VLIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... VABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... VI12STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT .................................................................................. 1IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE: SETTING THE SCENE ............................................ 22.12.22.32.43December 2000: A Milestone for water policy...........................................................2The Water Framework Directive: new challenges in EU water policy.................... 2What has been done to support implementation?.................................................... 5Introduction - A Guidance Document: What For?.................................................... 8
HMWB AND AWB IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE................................... 113.13.2Importance of AWB and HMWB in the implementation of the WFD.................. 11Links to other working groups of the Common ImplementationStrategy...................................................................................................................... 16
45
STEPWISE APPROACH FOR DESIGNATION OF HMWB AND AWB ......................... 19STEPS LEADING TO THE PROVISIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF HMWB.................... 245.15.25.35.45.55.65.7Introduction...............................................................................................................24Water body identification (Step 1)........................................................................... 24Is the water body artificial (Step 2)?........................................................................ 25Screening (Step 3)..................................................................................................... 26Significant changes in hydromorphology (Step 4)..................................................26Likelihood of failing good ecological status (Step 5)..............................................28Is the water body substantially changed in character due to physicalalterations by human activity (step 6)? Provisional identification ofHMWB.......................................................................................................................30
6
TESTS LEADING TO THE DESIGNATION OF HMWB (Steps 7 - 9) ........................... 356.16.2Timing for designation tests.................................................................................... 35Designation is optional and iterative.......................................................................35iii
6.36.46.56.66.76.87
The designation tests................................................................................................ 36Designation test 4(3)(a) (Step 7)................................................................................38Designation test according to Article 4(3)(b) (Step 8)............................................. 43Designation of HMWB in 2008 (Step 9)...................................................................47Guidance on methods for applying the designation tests 4(3)(a) & (b)(for Steps 7 and 8)......................................................................................................48Designation of artificial water bodies (Step 9)........................................................51
REFERENCE CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES FORHMWB & AWB (Steps 10 & 11) ....................................................................................... 537.17.27.37.4Introduction...............................................................................................................53Establishing the Maximum Ecological Potential - MEP (Step 10)..........................53Establishing the Good Ecological Potential – GEP (Step 11)..................................60Reporting and mapping for HMWB and AWB.......................................................61
8
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND OUTLOOK .................................................................. 648.18.28.38.4Overview of measures and their costs in the HMWB and AWB process.............. 64Timing in the first River Basin Planning Cycle...................................................... 66HMWB & AWB in future RBMP Cycles................................................................. 68Conclusion and Outlook.......................................................................................... 71
9
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 72
ANNEX I - GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................. 74ANNEX II - HMWB AND RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS (FIRSTCYCLE) .............................................................................................................................. 76ANNEX III - ELEMENTS OF HMWB IN THE WFD (ORIGINAL TEXT) .................................. 77ANNEX IV - LIST OF WORKING GROUP MEMBERS............................................................ 91ANNEX V – LIST OF CASE STUDIES AND CONTACTS....................................................... 99ANNEX VI - CASE STUDY REPORTS................................................................................... 104
iv
LIST OF TABLESTable 1:Table 2:Table 3:Table 4:Overview of the main specified uses, physical alterations and impacts................................. 31Preliminary guidance on the selection of methods for Article 4(3)(a) test.............................. 49Preliminary guidance on the selection of methods for Article 4(3)(b) test.............................. 50Overview of measures and cost considerations in the overall HMWB andAWB identification and designation process ............................................................................ 65
LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1:Figure 2:Figure 3:Figure 4:Figure 5:Figure 6:Figure 7:Figure 8:Figure 9:Steps of the HMWB & AWB identification and designation process ...................................... 20Steps leading to the provisional identification of HMWB......................................................... 24Example 1, no subdivision of the water body .......................................................................... 33Example 2, subdivision of the water body ............................................................................... 33Example 3, no division of water body ...................................................................................... 34Steps leading to the designation of HMWB (steps 7-9) .......................................................... 37Process for defining MEP (Steps 10.1 – 10.4) ........................................................................ 54Example showing an estuary turned into a freshwater lake ................................................... 54Example for choosing quality elements for MEP (s 10.1) ....................................................... 56
Figure 10: Reporting System ..................................................................................................................... 62Figure 11: Major deadlines in the timetable for the identification and designation ofHMWB and AWB in the first planning cycle ............................................................................. 67Figure 12: Consideration of HMWB during the second River Basin Management Plan .......................... 70
v
ABBREVIATIONSAAWABCOASTCISDAustriaArtificial Water Body/BodiesBelgiumWG 2.4 Typology and Classification of Transitional and CoastalWatersCommon Implementation StrategyGermany
Designation testDesignation test according to Article 4(3)(a) / (b) of the Water4(3)(a) / (b)Framework DirectiveEECEEBEQRESEUEUREAUSpainEuropean CommissionEuropean Environmental BureauEcological Quality RatioEcological StatusEuropean UnionEuropean Union of National Associations of Water Suppliers andWaste Water ServicesEngland & Wales, UKFranceFauna Flora Habitat DirectiveGood Ecological PotentialGood Ecological StatusWG 3.0 on Geographical Information SystemsGreeceHigh Ecological StatusHeavily Modified Water Body/BodiesWG 2.1 Analysis of Pressures and ImpactsKilometreSquare-kilometresMaximum Ecological PotentialMember StateNon Governmental OrganisationNorthern Ireland, UK
EURELECTRICUnion of the Electricity IndustryE&WFFFHGEPGESGISGRHESHMWBIMPRESSkmkm�MEPMSNGONI
vi
NLNOPAPOMRBDRBMPRHSREFCONDSSCGScotSFUKWATECOWFDWGWWF
NetherlandsNorwayPhysical AlterationProgramme of MeasuresRiver Basin DistrictRiver Basin Management PlanRiver Habitat Survey, UKWG 2.3 on Reference Conditions for Surface and Inland WatersSwedenStrategic Co-ordination GroupScotland, UKFinlandUnited KingdomWG 2.6 on Economic AnalysisWater Framework DirectiveWorking GroupWorld Wildlife Fund for Nature
vii
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
1•
STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENTSection 1gives an introduction to the purpose and key objectives of theWaterFramework Directiveand describes what has been done to support theimplementation of Directive. For this purpose, the Section illustrates thedevelopment of a Common Implementation Strategy and the establishment of CISWorking Group (WG) 2.2 on HMWB, the activities and outputs of the WorkingGroup and the purpose of this Guidance Document.
•
Section 2
offers explanations of the importance and consequences of AWBand HMWB designation in the implementation of the WFD and gives insight intothe links between the HMWB & AWB WG and other CIS working groups.describes the overall HMWB & AWB designation process,giving a short description of the individual steps leading to the identification ofHMWB and AWB. The Section describes the function of provisional identificationin the first cycle of the River Basin Management and presents some importantissues of the designation process.gives details of the six steps leading to the provisionalidentification of HMWB, from water body identification (step 1) to the question asto whether the changes in the water body characteristics are substantial and resultfrom physical alterations by human activity (step 6).describes the steps 7-9, leading to the designation of HMWB.
•
Section 3
•
Section 4
•
Section 5Section 6
•
describes the requirement to establish reference conditions andenvironmental objectives on which status classification is based, and presents thesteps leading to the establishment of appropriate values for the quality elements ofMEP and GEP. The Section also describes the appropriate timing for identificationof MEP and GEP (steps 10-11).summarises some important issues regarding measures andrelated cost considerations throughout the process. It sets the HMWB and AWBprocess into a time and river basin planning context and gives an outlook to theHMWB process in future RBMP-cycles.contain a glossary of important terms used in this GuidanceDocument, a Section on information required for the river basin management plan,a list of WFD citations relevant to HMWB and AWB designation, a list of referencesused in the production of the Guidance, a list of contact details of the WorkingGroup members and a list of case studies produced in the context of the HMWBWorking Group.
•
Section 7
•
Annexes
1
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
2
IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVE: SETTING THE SCENE
This Section introduces you to the overall context for the implementation of theWaterFramework Directiveand informs you of the initiatives that led to the production ofthis Guidance Document.2.12.1.1DECEMBER 2000: A MILESTONE FOR WATER POLICYA long negotiation process
December 22, 2000, will remain a milestone in the history of water policies in Europe:on that date, theWater Framework Directive(or the Directive 2000/60/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a frameworkfor Community action in the field of water policy) was published in the Official Journalof the European Communities and thereby entered into force!This Directive is the result of a process of more than five years of discussions andnegotiations between a wide range of experts, stakeholders and policy makers. Thisprocess has stressed the widespread agreement on key principles of modern watermanagement that today form the foundation of theWater Framework Directive.2.2THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: NEW CHALLENGES IN EUWATER POLICYWhat is the purpose of the Directive?
2.2.1
The Directive establishes a framework for the protection of all waters (including inlandsurface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater) which:•••Prevents further deterioration of, protects and enhances the status of waterresources;Promotes sustainable water use based on long-term protection of water resources;Aims at enhancing protection and improvement of the aquatic environmentthrough specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissionsand losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges,emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;Ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents itsfurther pollution; andContributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.…and what is the key objective?
••
2.2.2
Overall, the Directive aims at achievinggood water statusfor all waters by 2015.
2
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
2.2.3•
What are the key actions that Member States need to take?
To identify the individual river basins lying within their national territory, assignthem to individual River Basin Districts (RBDs) and identify competent authoritiesby 2003 [Art. 3, Art. 24];To characterise river basin districts in terms of pressures, impacts and economics ofwater uses, including a register of protected areas lying within the river basindistrict, by 2004 [Art. 5, Art. 6, Annex II, Annex III];To carry out, together with the European Commission, the intercalibration of theecological status classification systems by 2006 [Art. 2(22), Annex V];To make operational the monitoring networks by 2006 [Art. 8];Based on sound monitoring and the analysis of the characteristics of the riverbasin, to identify by 2009 a programme of measures for achieving theenvironmental objectives of theWater Framework Directivecost-effectively [Art.11, Annex III];To produce and publish River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for each RBD,including the designation of heavily modified water bodies, by 2009 [Art. 13, Art.4(3)];To implement water pricing policies that enhance the sustainability of waterresources by 2010 [Art. 9];To make the measures of the programme operational by 2012 [Art. 11];To implement the programmes of measures and achieve the environmentalobjectives by 2015 [Art. 4].
•
•••
•
•••
Look out!Member States may not always reach good water status for all waterbodies of a river basin district by 2015, for reasons of technical feasibility,disproportionate costs or natural conditions. Under such conditions thatwill be specifically explained in the RBMPs, theWater FrameworkDirectiveoffers the possibility to Member States to engage into twofurther six- year cycles of planning and implementation of measures.2.2.4Changing the management process – information, consultation andparticipation
Article 14 of the Directive specifies that Member States shall encourage the activeinvolvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive anddevelopment of river basin management plans. Also, Member States will inform andconsult the public, including users, in particular about:
3
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
•••
The timetable and work programme for the production of river basin managementplans and the role of consultation at the latest by 2006;The overview of the significant water management issues in the river basin at thelatest by 2007;The draft river basin management plan, at the latest by 2008.Integration: a key concept underlying the Water Framework Directive
2.2.5
The central concept to theWater Framework Directiveis the concept ofintegrationthatis seen as the key to the management of water protection within the river basin district:Integration of environmental objectives,combining qualitative and quantitativeecological objectives for protecting highly valuable aquatic ecosystems and ensuring ageneral good status of other waters;Integration of all water resources,combining fresh surface water and groundwaterbodies, wetlands, coastal water resourcesat the river basin scale;Integration of all water uses, functions and valuesinto a common policy framework,i.e. considering water for the environment, water for health and human consumption,water for economic sectors, transport, leisure, as well as water as a social good;Integration of disciplines, analyses and expertise,combining hydrology, hydraulics,ecology, chemistry, soil sciences, technology engineering and economics to assesscurrent pressures and impacts on water resources and identify measures for achievingthe environmental objectives of the Directive in the most cost-effective manner;Integration of water legislation into a common and coherent framework.Therequirements of some old water legislation (e.g. the Fishwater Directive) have beenreformulated in theWater Framework Directiveto match modern ecological thinking.After a transitional period, these old Directives will be repealed. Other pieces oflegislation (e.g. the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive)must be co-ordinated in river basin management plans where they form the basis ofthe programmes of measures;Integration of all significant management and ecological aspectsrelevant tosustainable river basin planning including those which are beyond the scope of theWater Framework Directivesuch as flood protection and prevention;Integration of a wide range of measures,including pricing and economic andfinancial instruments, in a common management approach for achieving theenvironmental objectives of the Directive. Programmes of measures are defined inRiver Basin Management Plans developed for each river basin district;Integration of stakeholders and the civil society in decision making,by promotingtransparency and information to the public, and by offering a unique opportunity forinvolving stakeholders in the development of river basin management plans;
4
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Integration of different decision-making levelsthat influence water resources andwater status, be they local, regional or national, for an effective management of allwaters;Integration of water management from different Member States,for river basinsshared by several countries, existing and/or future Member States of the EuropeanUnion.
2.3
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION?
Activities to support the implementation of theWater Framework Directiveare underway in both Member States and in countries candidate for accession to the EuropeanUnion. Examples of activities include consultation of the public, development ofnational Guidance, pilot activities for testing specific elements of the Directive or theoverall planning process, discussions on the institutional framework or launching ofresearch programmes dedicated to theWater Framework Directive.2.3.1May 2001 – Sweden: Member States, Norway and the European Commissionagreed on a Common Implementation Strategy
The main objective of this strategy is to provide support to the implementation of theWater Framework Directiveby developing coherent and common understanding andguidance on key elements of this Directive. Key principles in this common strategyinclude sharing information and experiences, developing common methodologies andapproaches, involving experts from candidate countries and involving stakeholdersfrom the water community.In the context of this common implementation strategy, a series of working groups andjoint activities have been launched for the development and testing of non-legallybinding Guidance. A strategic co-ordination group oversees these working groups andreports directly to the water directors of the European Union and Commission whotake on the role of overall decision body for the Common Implementation Strategy.2.3.2The HMWB Working Group
In accordance with Article 4(3), theWater Framework Directive(WFD) allows MemberStates to designate surface water bodies, which have been physically altered by humanactivity, as “heavily modified” under specific circumstances. If the specified uses ofsuch water bodies (i.e. navigation, hydropower, water supply or flood defence) or the“wider environment” would be significantly affected by the restoration measuresrequired to achieve good ecological status and if no other better, technically feasibleand cost-effective, environmental options exist, then these water bodies may bedesignated as “heavily modified” and good ecological potential is the environmentalobjective.
5
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
As part of the EU WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), a working group wasestablished to develop Guidance on the process of HMWB and AWB designation. TheCIS Working Group 2.2 on “Heavily Modified Water Bodies” (HMWB) is jointlymanaged by the United Kingdom and Germany and involves the participation of 12Member States (MS),1Norway, some Accession Countries2as well as a number ofStakeholders.3A number of distinct “sub projects” were progressed by the WorkingGroup:•Production of 12 "Guidance papers" by the joint chair of the HMWB WG that werediscussed at several Working Group meetings;•thirty-four case study projects, carried out in the MS and Norway, that tested the"Guidance papers";•a synthesis of the case study reports;•production of this HMWB & AWB Guidance Document;•production of a policy summary; and•production of a toolbox supporting the Guidance Document.Based on the main uses within the case studies, two "case study subgroups" wereestablished, one concentrating mainly on "navigation", the other one on "hydropower"(see Annex V). The Working Group members and/or contractors responsible for thesecase studies exchanged their experiences during their work in extra subgroupmeetings and in email discussions.2.3.3Production of 12 Guidance papers
The joint chair of the HMWB WG produced 12 Guidance papers covering the keyaspects of the HMWB & AWB identification and designation process. Four meetingswere organised involving the Working Group members and the EuropeanCommission to discuss and agree on these Guidance papers and to exchangeexperiences. The meetings were held on 12th April, 10th October 2000, 4th September2001 and 18-19th June 2002 in Brussels. The Guidance papers were to help theproduction of the case studies which tested these papers. The Guidance papers servedas the basis for this Guidance Document.2.3.4Case Study Project
In thirty-four case studies from different Member States and Norway a draftprovisional identification and designation process for heavily modified water bodieswas tested, supported by reference to the Guidance papers produced by the joint chairAustria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Finlandand UK.Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. The other seven Accession Countries are also members of the groupbut have so far not attended a working group meeting or the workshop.EEB, EUREAU, Eurelectric and WWF.
1
2
3
6
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
of the HMWB WG. In these case studies, ecological reference conditions (maximumecological potential) and objectives (good ecological potential) for HMWB were alsodefined, as far as possible. The case studies focused on the main specified uses(navigation, flood/coastal protection, hydropower generation, agriculture, forestry,urbanisation, recreation and water supply) that result in physical alterations across theMS. The case studies covered mainly rivers, only a few case studies were carried outon coastal waters (1), estuaries (2) and lakes (3). The case study projects started inOctober 2000 and were finalised in June 2002. For a list of case studies see Annex V.2.3.5European Synthesis Project
The synthesis project performed an analysis of the case studies and a synthesis ofapproaches taken in the individual case studies, identifying commonality anddifferences in approach. The analysis started in February 2002 and a first draft wasdistributed by the end of April 2002 (Hansenet al.2002). A second draft will beproduced as soon as possible and the final document will be published. The first draftof the synthesis project formed the basis for the production of this Guidance Documentand the toolbox, providing examples of different designation approaches.2.3.6Production of the Guidance Document
Based on the draft synthesis report and on the twelve Working Group papers preparedby the Joint Chair (UK and D) and discussed during the first three meetings of thisWG, a first draft Guidance on the designation of heavily modified and artificial waterbodies was produced on 27th May 2002.4A workshop was held on the 30-31st May2002 for Working Group members, case-study managers, and the other CIS WGmembers to discuss a number of outstanding issues of the draft Guidance Document.The discussions during the workshop served as a basis for the revision of the draftGuidance Document. A second draft5was then discussed at the last WG meeting inJune 2002. A third draft6was produced and circulated to the WG for comments inAugust 2002. A final version of the Guidance7was produced and submitted to theStrategic Co-ordination Group meeting on 30th September 2002. It was then revisedand presented to the Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting on 7-8th November 2002.This final version was agreed at the Water Directors meeting on 21st-22ndNovember 2002.
4
5
6
7
Guidance Document on identification and designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies, First draft,CIS Working Group 2.2 on Heavily Modified Water Bodies, 27 May 2002.Guidance Document on identification and designation of [Artificial and] Heavily Modified WaterBodies, Second draft, CIS Working Group 2.2 on Heavily Modified Water Bodies, 15 June 2002. Directlyafter the WG meeting in June, a Second Draft dated 20 June was sent to the WG, including a differentversion of Section 6.Guidance Document on identification and designation of Artificial and Heavily Modified WaterBodies, Third draft, CIS Working Group 2.2 on Heavily Modified Water Bodies, 2 August 2002.Guidance Document on identification and designation of Artificial and Heavily Modified WaterBodies, Final draft, CIS Working Group 2.2 on Heavily Modified Water Bodies, 13 September 2002.
7
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
2.3.7
Production of the Policy Summary
The policy summary is an executive summary of the HMWB and AWB GuidanceDocument, addressed to the Water Directors. The document summarises the mainissues of the HMWB and AWB designation process and is derived directly from theGuidance Document. It was presented and agreed at the Water Directors meetingtogether with the Guidance Document in November 2002.2.3.8Production of the Toolbox
To support the Guidance Document with practical examples illustrating the differentsteps of the HMWB and AWB designation process, a toolbox has been produced,extracting examples from the case studies. Working Group members have been askedto provide additional examples that help illustrate certain steps of the GuidanceDocument. A first draft was produced for the WG meeting in June 2002. A seconddraft was sent out for comments in October 2002 and a final toolbox has been issued inJanuary 2003. The applicability of the toolbox will depend on the examples and willdiffer between the Member States. The toolbox does not constitute part of theGuidance Document and has hence not been subject to the agreement of the HMWBWorking Group.
Look out! You can contact the experts involved in the HMWB activities.The list of members of the Working Group with full contact details can befound in Annex 8.5. If you need more information on specific issues andinput into your own activities, contact a member of the Working Group inyour country. If you need more information on specific case studies, youcan also directly contact the people in charge of carrying out these studies(contacts can be found in Table 5, Annex 8.6). You can find the case studyreports on the following webpage:http://www.sepa.org.uk/hmwbworkinggroup.2.4INTRODUCTION - A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: WHAT FOR?
This document aims at guiding experts and stakeholders in the implementation of theDirective 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field ofwater policy (theWater Framework Directive– “the Directive”). It focuses on theidentification and designation of artificial and heavily modified water bodies in thebroader context of the development of integrated river basin management plans asrequired by the Directive.The purpose of this Guidance is to introduce the requirements of the WFD with respectto HMWB and AWB identification and designation and to serve as a practicalimplementation guide for those who will be actively involved in the implementation ofthe WFD including the designation of HMWB and AWB. As the WFD does not alwaysdefine or describe the terms and approaches to be used, and because some parts are8
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ambiguous, this Guidance aims to develop a common understanding andinterpretation of the WFD for the HMWB and AWB designation process and may, inpart, describe pragmatic operational approaches to meet the WFD requirements.2.4.1To whom is this Guidance Document addressed?
The Guidance Document is addressed to:•••••administrative bodies responsible for implementing the WFD;administrative bodies influenced by the implementation of the WFD;planning engineers and other technical experts;interested public; andother stakeholders affected by the implementation of the WFD, especially withregards to the designation of HMWB (NGOs, water supply companies,hydropower, shipping, industry).What can you find in this Guidance Document?
2.4.2
1. An introduction to the role of HMWB and AWB designation in theWaterFramework Directive:•What are the key regulations of theWater Framework Directiveconcerning theidentification and designation of HMWB and AWB? (see Annex III). What arethe reference conditions and environmental objectives for these water bodies?Links to other CIS working groups (see Section 3.2).
•
2. Practical Guidance on the stepwise approach of identifying and designatingHMWB and AWB and setting reference conditions and environmental qualityobjectives:••Overall step-by-step approach of the HMWB and AWB identification anddesignation process (see Section 4).Guidance on how to implement the different steps:•••Provisional identification of HMWB (see Section 5);Designation of HMWB and AWB (see Section 6);Identification of reference conditions (MEP) and environmental qualityobjectives (GEP) for HMWB and AWB (see Section 7).
3. Cross-cutting issues and outlook (see Section 8).
9
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Look out! The approaches and methodology in this Guidance Documentmust be adapted to regional and national circumstances.The Guidance Document proposes an overall step-by-step approach.Because of the diversity of circumstances within the European Union,specific application may vary between the different water bodies acrossEurope. This proposed approach will therefore need to be tailored tospecific circumstances.
Look out! What you will not find in this Guidance DocumentThis Guidance Document is concerned with the designation of HMWBand AWB resulting from existing physical modifications. Implicationsfrom planned, new modifications [Art. 4(7)] are not considered in thisdocument; the Guidance focuses on the first river basin managementplanning cycle (2008/9). The Guidance does not cover physically modifiedor artificial water bodies that Member States do not choose to designate.The Guidance is only concerned with water bodies wherehydromorphological changes are a direct or indirect consequence ofphysical alterations which serve a specified use or the widerenvironmental interests.
10
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
3
HMWB AND AWB IN THE WATER FRAMEWORKDIRECTIVEIMPORTANCE OF AWB AND HMWB IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE WFD
3.1
For surface waters the overall goal of theWater Framework Directive(WFD) is forMember States to achieve "good ecological and chemical status" in all bodies of surfacewater by 2015. Some water bodies may not achieve this objective for different reasons.Under certain conditions the WFD permits Member States to identify and designateartificial water bodies (AWB) and heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) accordingto Article 4(3) WFD. The assignment of less stringent objectives to water bodies and anextension of the timing for achieving the objectives is possible under other particularcircumstances. These derogations are laid out in Articles 4(4) and 4(5) of the WFD.HMWB are bodies of water which, as a result of physical alterations by human activity,are substantially changed in character and cannot, therefore, meet "good ecologicalstatus" (GES). AWB are water bodies created by human activity. Instead of "goodecological status", the environmental objective for HMWB and for AWB is goodecological potential (GEP), which has to be achieved by 2015.
Look out! Purpose of Article 4(3) and its links to Article 4(4) and 4(5)Article 4(3) is intended to be applied to major infrastructure projectsassociated with the listed specified uses. Such water bodies must besubstantially changed in character because of hydromorphologicalalterations. Under these circumstances the tests specified in Article 4(3)may allow other objectives (GEP) for these waters because GES cannot beachievedArticle 4(5) deals with derogations for all waters including thoseconcerned with hydromorphological alterations. Less stringent objectivescan be set under specific circumstances. Article 4(4) allows for an extensionof the deadline to achieve the environmental objective under certainconditions.Where it is not possible to designate a water body subject tohydromorphological changes as HMWB then Article 4(4) or 4(5)derogations may apply. If a water body is designated as HMWB or AWBthen Article 4(5) and/or 4(4) may be applied if GEP cannot be achieved.
11
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
The designation of HMWB and AWB is optional; Member States do not have todesignate modified water bodies as HMWB or AWB.8The designation will not be anopportunity to avoid achieving ecological and chemical objectives, since GEP is anecological objective which may often, in itself, be challenging to achieve.The designation may, in some instances, help to protect wider environmental interests;e.g. when the removal of a modification would lead to the destruction of valuableenvironmental features.93.1.1What is a Heavily Modified Water?
The concept of HMWB was introduced into the WFD in recognition that many waterbodies in Europe have been subject to major physical alterations so as to allow for arange of water uses. Article 4(3)(a) lists the following types of activities which wereconsidered likely to result in a water body being designated as a HMWB:•navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;•activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply,power generation or irrigation;•water regulation, flood protection, land drainage;•other equally important sustainable human development activities.These specified uses tend to require considerable hydromorphological changes towater bodies of such a scale that restoration to “good ecological status” (GES) may notbe achievable even in the long-term without preventing the continuation of thespecified use. The concept of HMWB was created to allow for the continuation of thesespecified uses which provide valuable social and economic benefits but at the sametime allow mitigation measures to improve water quality.The designation tests can be applied when a:---specified use results in a modification of a water body and restoration affects thespecified use;non specified use results in the modification of a water body but restoration affectsa specified use;non-specified or specified use results in the modification of a water body butrestoration affects the wider environment.
89
Where modified or artificial waters are not designated the objective will be good ecological status.The removal of a weir or dam may, for example, impact significant ecological (e.g. biodiversity) orhistorical (old mill) features. By designating the water body as heavily modified, the weir or damprobably will not have to be removed.
12
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Article 2(9)“Heavily modified water body means a body of surface water which as a result ofphysical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character asdesignated by the Member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II”.
According to Article 2(9), there are three components to the definition of HMWB. To bea HMWB a water body must be:•••physically altered by human activity;substantially changed in character;designated under Annex II (Art. 4(3))10.
The definition of HMWB provided in Article 2(9) emphasises that HMWB areconsidered to be water bodies that have been subject to physical alteration as a result ofhuman activity. Article 4(3)(a) indicates that the relevant physical alterations result inhydromorphological changes that would have to be restored to achieve goodecological status. Consequently, this Guidance considers that hydromorphologicalchanges result from physical alterations to the water body.It is important to emphasise that changes in hydromorphology must be not onlysignificant, but also result in a substantial change in the character of a water body, astypically found when a river is extensively modified for navigation, a lake modified forwater storage or a transitional water when subject to major modifications for coastaldefence. Such water bodies can be seen to be obviously modified and the modificationsare neither temporary nor intermittent.Considering the specified uses given under Article 4(3)(a) it is concluded that a“substantial” change in hydromorphology is one that is:•extensive/widespread or profound; or•very obvious in the sense of a major deviation from the hydromorphologicalcharacteristics that would have been there before the alterations.It is clear that a water body could be described as substantially changed in character ifboth its morphology and hydrology were subject to substantial changes. It is less clearthat a water body should be considered as substantially changed in character if only itsmorphology or its hydrology is substantially changed.If the morphology of a water body is substantially changed in character, then thechanges are likely to be long-term. Such changes in morphology are very likely toresult in changes in hydrology, though these changes in hydrology may not necessarily
10
The reference to Annex II is an error in the text. The early version of the WFD included the designationtest in Annex II. The reference was not updated when the European Parliament Amendment movedthe designation to Article 4(3).
13
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
be substantial. A common sense approach would suggest that such water bodiesshould be considered as substantially changed in character.The situation is more difficult for water bodies subject to substantial changes inhydrology as such changes may only be temporary or short term. The water body maylook substantially changed on one occasion but it may look like a normal water bodyon another occasion. In cases of temporary or intermittent substantial hydrologicalchanges the water body is not to be considered substantially changed in character.Nevertheless, it may be that in some limited circumstances substantial hydrologicalalterations may result in long-term or permanent changes with additional substantialchanges in morphology. In such specific cases, the application of the HMWBdesignation tests may be justified. Justification for the decision of a HMWB and AWBdesignation should always be provided.Notwithstanding the agreed general approach described in the paragraph above, itwas agreed that a slightly different approach could be taken for limited stretches ofrivers, e.g. downstream of dams. Under these circumstances, substantial hydrologicalchanges that are accompanied by subsequent non-substantial morphological changeswould be sufficient to consider the water body for a provisional identification asHMWB.
Look out! A HMWB is substantially changed in character as a result ofphysical alterationsIn the context of HMWB designation physical alterations mean anysignificant alterations that have resulted in substantial changes to thehydromorphology of a water body such that the water body issubstantially changed in character. In general these hydromorphologicalcharacteristics are long-term and alter morphological and hydrologicalcharacteristics.3.1.2What is an artificial water body ?
The WFD takes a very similar approach to AWB and HMWB. AWB must have beencreated by the same specified uses listed in Article 4(3)(a).Article 2(8)"Artificialwater body means a body of surface water created by human activity”.A key question in order to differentiate between AWB and HMWB is the meaning ofthe word "created" as used in Article 2(8). More specifically, the question is whether"created" refers to creating a new water body from previously dry land (e.g. a canal), orwhether it could also denote a water body that has changed in category (e.g. river intoa lake as a consequence of damming, or coastal water into a freshwater lake due toreclaiming).
14
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
This Guidance interprets an AWB "as a surface water body which has been created in alocation where no water body existed before and which has not been created by thedirect physical alteration or movement or realignment of an existing water body".Note, this does not mean that there was only dry land present before. There may havebeen minor ponds, tributaries or ditches which were not regarded as discrete andsignificant elements of surface water. Where an existing water body is modified andmoved to a new location (i.e. where previously there was dry land) it should still beregarded as a HMWB and not an AWB. The same applies to water bodies that havechanged category as a result of physical modifications; such water bodies (e.g. areservoir created by damming a river) are to be regarded as HMWB and not as AWB.
Look out! An AWB is created by human activityAn artificial water body is a surface water body which has been created ina location where no water body existed before and which has not beencreated by the direct physical alteration, movement or realignment of anexisting water body.3.1.3Environmental objectives and designation of HMWB and AWB
Where a water body is substantially changed in character as a result of physicalalterations by human activity, the WFD allows Member States to designate it as aHMWB. If a water body has been created by human activity then it may be designatedas AWB. In order to designate a water body, it must undergo tests defined withinArticle 4(3). These tests require consideration of whether the restoration measuresrequired to achieve “Good Ecological Status” (GES) have a significant adverse effect onthe activity (use) and whether there are other means of undertaking the activity.Once designated as HMWB or AWB, the environmental objectives are “goodecological potential” (GEP) and good chemical status, which also have to be achievedby 2015.GEP is a less stringent objective than GES because it makes allowances for theecological impacts resulting from those physical alterations that (i) are necessary tosupport a specified use or (ii) must be maintained to avoid adverse effects on the widerenvironment. This means that appropriate objectives can be set for the management ofother pressures, including physical pressures, not associated with the specified use,while ensuring that the adverse ecological effects of the physical alteration can beappropriately mitigated without undermining the benefits they serve.The objective setting process for HMWB and AWB should be in line with the samegeneral principles as applied for natural water bodies.The environmental objectives for natural, artificial and heavily modified water bodiesare set in relation to reference conditions. For HMWB and AWB the reference
15
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
condition is the maximum ecological potential (MEP).11The MEP is the state where thebiological status reflects, as far as possible, that of the closest comparable surface waterbody taking into account the modified characteristics of the water body. With regardsto its biological status the GEP accommodates “slight changes” from the MEP.The designation of HMWB and AWB, the definition of the MEP, the identification ofGEP as well as the programme of measures to achieve the relevant environmentalobjectives will be part of the River Basin Management Plans that are to be published by2008 as first consultation drafts and 2009 as final plans. These have to be revised everysix years.3.2LINKS TO OTHER WORKINGIMPLEMENTATION STRATEGYGROUPSOFTHECOMMON
It is important to read the HMWB & AWB Guidance in the context of the Guidanceproduced by the other CIS working groups. This Section describes the most importantlinks between the HMWB and other working groups within the CommonImplementation Strategy (CIS) and identifies those areas where a commonunderstanding has been developed.3.2.1Pressures and Impacts Working Group 2.1 (IMPRESS)
The provisional identification of heavily modified water bodies is carried out in thecharacterisation process as specified in Article 5 and Annex II. The WG 2.1 IMPRESSprovides the guidance on the description of pressures and impacts and theidentification of water bodies which are at risk of failing their environmental objectives("risk assessment") (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 3).It has been agreed that the HMWB Working Group would develop Guidance on thataspect of the characterisation process which is related to physical alterations of waterbodies and their possible identification as HMWB. The HMWB & AWB Guidancetogether with the information provided by the HMWB case studies would then beused by IMPRESS to develop an integrated approach to the entire characterisationprocess. Within the overall risk assessment of IMPRESS, the HMWB WG will provideguidance on the identification and description of specified uses and related physicalalterations (pressures) as well as their impacts on hydromorphology and biology.Further integration of processes developed by the HMWB and IMPRESS workinggroups may be required. This should be done in co-operation with WG 2.9 on "bestpractice in river basin planning".
11
For natural water bodies the reference condition is the "high ecological status" (HES).
16
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
3.2.2
Freshwater reference condition Working Group 2.3 (REFCOND) & Coastalwaters typology, reference and classification Working Group 2.4 (COAST)
The "status" and "potential" WFD objectives and classifications are based on similarprinciples. Reference conditions are identified and then similar normative definitions(Annex V) are used to define the deviation from reference for each classificationcategory. It is clearly important to ensure that this deviation is of a similar scale forHMWB and AWB as it is for "natural" waters (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 10 –REFCONDandWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 5 – COAST).3.2.3Intercalibration Working Group 2.5
The Intercalibration Working Group will ensure that the interpretation of the WFD'snormative definitions of high, good and moderate (Annex V) result in comparabledeviation from reference conditions (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 6).Inparticular, the WG 2.5 should ensure that the sensitivity boundaries between thehigh/good and good/moderate borders are comparable across Europe. The referenceconditions for HMWB and AWB are determined by the nearest natural equivalent tothe modified water body. This means that reference conditions for HMWB and AWBwill be variable depending on the degree and type of modification. Discussionsbetween the HMWB and Intercalibration working groups have led to an agreementthat in most cases intercalibration of ecological potential boundaries is not required.Nevertheless an intercalibration exercise for HMWB and AWB could be useful, if thosewater bodies are the dominating water types.3.2.4Economic Analysis Working Group 2.6 (WATECO)
Another part of the Article 5 characterisation process is the economic analysis of wateruse. This forms the basis of the Article 9 on recovery of costs for water services and theconsideration of the Article 4(3) tests for HMWB designation and Article 4(4), (5) and(7) derogations. The HMWB and WATECO working groups have worked together toensure that the Guidance on the HMWB & AWB designation tests is based on acommon understanding which ensures consistent applications of economic termsacross the WFD requirements (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 1).3.2.5Monitoring Working Group 2.7
The monitoring regime forms the basis for the definition of status according to theWFD. The Guidance produced by the Monitoring Working Group will therefore assistMember States in understanding the monitoring requirements for the identification ofpotential HMWB (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 7).In the first planning cycle,WFD-compliant monitoring/classification tools will not be available, so Guidance onbest practice is needed to ensure that existing data/methods are used to the best effect.The monitoring group could also help to identify the appropriate monitoring approachfor heavily modified and artificial waters. The HMWB & AWB Guidance will providerecommendations for the use of the most sensitive biological elements concerningphysical alterations.
17
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
3.2.6
River Basin Management Best Practice Working Group 2.9
The HMWB and AWB designation process is only one aspect of the RBMP and mustbe fully integrated with the key components of the Plan, for example: settingenvironmental objectives and identification of the most cost effective combination ofmeasures. The HMWB & AWB Guidance provides a timetable based on the Directive'srequirements. However, substantial changes to this timetable will be necessary inorder to ensure that the sequence of tasks required by the RBMP can be delivered(WFDCIS Guidance Document No.s 8and11).This revised timetable is providedwithin the Best Practice Guidance.3.2.7Geographical Information System Working Group 3.0 (GIS)
The links to the GIS Working Group are relatively straightforward and relate to therequirements to map the distribution of provisional identified HMWB and AWB (by2004) and designated water bodies (in 2008/9) (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 9).It may also be helpful to map the distribution of the relevant pressures which result inthe designation of HMWB & AWB.
18
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
4
STEPWISE APPROACH FOR DESIGNATION OF HMWBAND AWB
A very large number of water bodies will have to be assessed for possible designationas AWB or HMWB between now and 2008/2009 (publication of the first draft/finalRBMP) (for timing and RBMP see Sections 8.2, 8.3, and Annex II). It will be importanttherefore to ensure that the approaches and methods used for the designation processare practicable and comparable in all Member States. Moreover, it is important todevelop appropriate options so that the complexity of the assessment methodologycan be made proportionate to the circumstances. In the first planning cycle, there areserious practical difficulties in designating the HMWB, in defining MEP and GEP andin performing an assessment of the likelihood of not achieving the relevantenvironmental quality objectives in 2004 as required by Article 5 (and Annex II). TheIMPRESS and HMWB working groups have therefore recommended, that for theprovisional identification in 2004, the assessment for HMWB will be carried out againstGES. This helps to overcome the practical difficulties of defining the MEP & GEP forHMWB at this early stage. For the assessments it might, under certain circumstances,be possible and advisable to group water bodies and assess them together.Figure 1 illustrates the proposed overall stepwise approach to the identification anddesignation of HMWB and AWB as identified by HMWB-WG 2.2. In this Section, thesteps of the general approach are summarised (steps 1 – 11), while the followingSections 5 - 7 describe the steps in more detail, including some proposed methods andexplanations. It should be noted that step 1 and 3-5 are broader than the HMWB andAWB process. Step 1 is applicable to all water bodies and involves the application oftheWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 2on water body identification. Steps 3-5 arepart of the broader Annex II (1.4 & 1.5) assessment of pressures and impacts, which isdescribed in the IMPRESS Guidance (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 3).Noadditional work beyond that required under IMPRESS is required as part of thesesteps.
Look out! Processes should be integrated to ensure consistency andavoid duplication in effortThe HMWB and AWB designation process described in this Guidance,when put into operational guidance by MS, should be integrated withother Guidance (e.g. CIS Guidance Document No. 3 - IMPRESS) to ensureconsistency in approach and avoid duplication in effort.
19
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Water bodyguidance
step 1: Water body identification [Art. 2(10)] (iterative process).step 2: Is the water body artificial? [Art. 2(8)]nonostep 3: "Screening": Are there any changes in hydromorphology?yesstep 4: Description of significant changes in hydromorphology. [Annex II No. 1(4)]nostep 5: Is it likely that water body will fail good ecological status due to changes inhydromorphology? [Annex II No. 1(5)]yesnostep 6: Is the water body substantially changed in character due to physicalalterations by human activity? [Art. 2(9)]yesIdentify provisionally as HMWB[Art. 5(1) and Annex II No. 1(1)(i)]yes
Relevant environmental objective: .GES[Art. 4(1)] or less stringent [Art 4(5)].
no
step 7: "Designation test 4(3)(a)": Identify restoration measures necessary to achieveGES. Do these measures have significant adverse effects on the wider environment orthe "specified uses“? [Art. 4(3)(a)]yesstep 8: "Designation test 4(3)(b)": Canthe beneficial objectives served by themodifications of the HMWB beachieved by other means, which are asignificantly better environmentaloption, technically feasible and notdisproportionately costly? [Article4(3)(b)]nostep 9: Designate as HMWB [Art.4(3)]Designate as AWB [Art. 4(3)]"Designation test 4(3)(b)": Can thebeneficial objectives served by the AWBbe achieved by other means, which are asignificantly better environmental option,technically feasible and notdisproportionately costly? [Art. 4(3)(b)]
yes
step 10: Establishment of Maximum Ecological Potential. Comparison with closestcomparable surface water body [Annex V No. 1(2)(5)], considering all mitigationmeasures which do not have a significant adverse effect on the specified uses or thewider environment.step 11: Establishment of GEP. Only slight changes in the biological elements foundat MEP, otherwise measures have to be taken to ensure GEP is achieved.[Art. 4(1)(a)(iii) and Annex V No. 1(2)(5)]Draft River Basin Management Plan by 2008 (final RBMP by 2009)
Figure 1:
Steps of the HMWB & AWB identification and designation process
20
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
•
Step 1:Distinct water bodies are to be identified and described according to theWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 2on water body identification. Water bodyidentification is an iterative procedure with possible adaptations in later stages ofthe designation process (mainly after step 6, the provisional identification ofHMWB). The water body identification has to be done for all surface waters(natural, heavily modified and artificial waters), and is significant, because waterbodies are the units for which status is being assessed, objectives established andachievement of objectives of the WFD checked.Step 2:The WFD gives distinct definitions for AWB and HMWB [Art. 2(8) and Art.2(9) respectively]. In this second step it should be identified whether the waterbody concerned has been "created by human activity". If this is the case, MemberStates will have the option to identify it as AWB and consider it for designation or,in some circumstances, identify it as a natural water body. Where the intention is todesignate as AWB, the first designation test (step 7) is not relevant and AWBshould continue directly with the second designation test (step 8).Step 3:A screening process is proposed to reduce effort and time in identifyingwater bodies which should not be considered for the HMWB designation tests.This will include those water bodies that are likely to fail to achieve GES but whichshow no hydromorphological changes. This step is part of the Annex II (1.4)assessment of pressures.Step 4:For those water bodies which have not been "screened out" in step 3,significant changes in hydromorphology and resulting impacts should be furtherinvestigated and described. This includes the description of hydromorphologicalchanges and the assessment of resulting impacts. This step is part of the Annex II(1.4 & 1.5) assessment of pressures and impacts.Step 5:Based on the information gathered in step 4 and an assessment of theecological status of the water body, the likelihood of failing to achieve goodecological status (or an estimate of what GES may be, based on current knowledge)should be assessed. Within this step it has to be assessed whether the reasons forfailing the GES are hydromorphological changes and not other pressures such astoxic substances or other quality problems. This step is part of the Annex II (1.5)assessment of impacts process to be completed by 22 December 2004.
•
•
•
•
The Guidance Document of IMPRESS12will give more explicit guidance for steps 3-5;in particular, guidance on the "risk assessment". The Monitoring Working Group willdeal with the monitoring requirements for water bodies "at risk" as well as for all otherwater bodies.•Step 6:The purpose of this step is to select those water bodies where the changes inhydromorphology result in the water body being substantially changed incharacter. Such water bodies can be provisionally identified as HMWB. Theremaining water bodies likely to fail GES, which are not substantially changed incharacter, will be identified as natural water bodies. Environmental objectives forsuch water bodies will be GES or other less stringent environmental objectives.
12
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 3 - IMPRESS.
21
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
It is only necessary to collect sufficient information during steps 1, 3, 4 & 5 todemonstrate that pressures and impacts result in a failure to achieve good status (asdescribed by theWFD CIS Guidance Document No 3. - IMPRESS)and in step 6 (firststep of the HMWB process) that the water body is substantially changed in character.These requirements can be satisfied in a simple descriptive manner in clear cut cases.For example, if a water body has irreversibly and definitely changed category, then it iseasy to demonstrate that pressures and impacts prevent the achievement of GES (of theoriginal water body category) and that it is substantially changed in character.•Steps 7-8-9:Where Member States wish to designate a water body as heavilymodified they must then consider them for the designation tests specified underArticle 4(3)(a) & Article 4(3)(b). Artificial water bodies are only considered for thetest under Article 4(3)(b). In the first "designation test" (step7)necessaryhydromorphological changes ("restoration measures") to achieve "good ecologicalstatus" should be identified. In the first test it has to be assessed whether these"measures" have significant adverse effects on either the "specified uses" or the"wider environment". If they do, then the second designation test (step8)is to becarried out.The second designation test consists of several sub-tests. Firstly, "other means" toachieve the beneficial objective (e.g. replacement of surface water for drinkingwater supply with groundwater) are to be considered. Then, it has to be assessedwhether the "other means" are a) technically feasible, b) a better environmentaloption and c) not disproportionately costly. If any of the sub-tests a), b) or c) arenegative, the water bodies may be designated as heavily modified (step9).If eitherthe mitigation measures have no significant adverse effects (see step 7) or if "othermeans" can be found that fulfil the criteria a), b) or c) (see step 8), the water bodymust not be designated as heavily modified and the relevant environmentalobjective would be GES or a less stringent objective.•Steps 10-11:These steps are not part of the designation process. However, they arerelevant to AWB and HMWB only and are therefore covered in this GuidanceDocument. They concern the definition of reference conditions and the setting ofthe environmental quality objectives for heavily modified and artificial waterbodies. Instep 10the reference condition for HMWB and AWB, the MaximumEcological Potential (MEP), is defined. Based on the MEP, the environmentalquality objective, the Good Ecological Potential (GEP), is defined (step11).
The information gathered in the different steps (1-11) summarised above willcontribute to the RBMP. The RBMP will contain programmes of measures [Art. 11] thatare required to ensure the achievement of the environmental objectives for natural,heavily modified and artificial water bodies.In following the flow chart, it is clearly important to avoid unnecessary andsuperfluous administrative actions. For example, it will not always be necessary toundertake the assessment for each individual water body. Indeed in many situations itmay be more effective to apply the tests to a group of water bodies where theenvironmental concerns and specified uses are similar. For example, for a rivermodified for navigation it may not be helpful to apply the process to individual water
22
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
bodies. A larger scale assessment may produce a more effective and more completeassessment.Similarly, for a major estuarine flood protection scheme, it may be more effectivelyassessed at the multi-water body level than by considering each individual waterbody.
Look out! Information on the measures and related costs and on timingand future RBMP cycles is given in Section 7!Throughout the entire process different measures are considered indifferent steps. Related to these different measures there are differing costconsiderations applicable; a summary is given in Section 8.1. Timing aswell as changes in the future RBMP cycles are important when dealingwith HMWB and AWB; these issues are covered in Sections 8.2 and 8.3.
23
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
5
STEPS LEADING TO THE PROVISIONALIDENTIFICATION OF HMWBINTRODUCTION
5.1
This Section considers steps 1 to 6 which lead to the provisional identification ofHMWB in more detail.These steps are part of the characterisation of River Basin District requirements asdefined in Annex II of the WFD. Consequently the steps are closely linked to the workof the IMPRESS Working Group. A summary of the process is illustrated in Figure 2.
Water bodyguidance
1.
Water body identification [Art. 2(10)] (iterative process).
2.
Is the water body artificial? [Art. 2(8)]no
yes
Relevant environmental objective:GES [Art. 4(1)] or less stringent [Art.4(5)].
no3.4.
"Screening": Are there any changes in hydromorphology?yesDescription of significant changes in hydromorphology. [Annex II No. 1(4)]
no5.
Is it likely that water body will fail good ecological status due to changes inhydromorphology? [Annex II No. 1(5)]yes
no6.
Is the water body substantially changed in character due to physical alterationsby human activity? [Art. 2(9)]yes
Identify provisionally as HMWB[Art. 5(1) and Annex II No. 1(1)(i)]
8. Designation test 4(3)(b)
Figure 2:
Steps leading to the provisional identification of HMWB
5.2
WATER BODY IDENTIFICATION (Step 1)
Water bodies have to be identified for all surface waters (natural, heavily modified andartificial waters). This step is of major importance for the implementation process,because water bodies represent the units that will be used for reporting and assessingcompliance with the Directive's principal environmental objectives. Overall
24
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
recommendations on how to identify distinct water bodies are given in theWFD CISGuidance Document No. 2on water body identification. This Guidance Document onHMWB and AWB discusses issues specifically relevant to water body identification for"physically altered" waters, as far as these are not included in theWFD CIS GuidanceDocument No. 2(Examples in the toolbox).
Look out! Possibility to group water bodies for assessmentIn some cases it will be possible to group water bodies for theidentification and / or designation of HMWB and AWB. This could help toreduce the overall work load. TheWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 2onwater bodies will indicate under which circumstances water bodies can begrouped for the assessments.5.3IS THE WATER BODY ARTIFICIAL (Step 2)?
The WFD gives distinct definitions for AWB and HMWB [Art. 2(8) and Art. 2(9)respectively] (see Section 3.1). In this second step it should be identified whether thewater body concerned is an AWB, i.e. has been "created by human activity".An artificial water body is defined, in this Guidance, as a surface water body which hasbeen created in a location where no significant surface water existed before and whichhas not been created by the direct physical alteration of an existing water body ormovement or realignment of an existing water body. Note, this does not mean thatthere was only dry land present before. There may have been minor ponds, tributariesor ditches, which were not regarded as a discrete and significant element of surfacewater and therefore not identified as a water body.If the above characterisation of a water body is fulfilled, Member States will have theoption to identify them as AWB and consider them for designation or, in somecircumstances, identify them as natural water bodies. If a Member State considers thatGES can be achieved in an AWB, then the Member State may wish to consider theAWB as a natural water body. This would allow GES to be defined for the water bodyrather than GEP (Examples in the toolbox).5.3.1Examples
AWB:Examples of AWB include canals constructed for navigation, drainage channelsfor irrigation, man-made ponds and dug ponds, harbours and docks, constructeddredging pools, gravel pits, surface mining lakes, storage reservoir for peak demandhydropower production or waters that are directed to the reservoir via diversions, andwater bodies created by ancient human activities.Not AWB:A water body that has changed category as a result of physicalmodifications is not an AWB, it is considered to be a HMWB (e.g. creation of areservoir due to the damming of a river). AWB are not water bodies that have been
25
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
moved or realigned, for example, a realigned river going through a newly developedchannel on previously dry land. Such realignments involve the modification of anexisting water body and consequently the new channels may be regarded as a HMWB.Where the intention is to designate as AWB, the first designation test (step 7) is notrelevant and the AWB should continue directly with the second designation test(step 8).5.4SCREENING (Step 3)
A screening process (step 3) is proposed to reduce effort and time in identifying waterbodies which should not be considered for the HMWB designation tests. This willinclude those water bodies that are likely to fail to achieve GES but which show nohydromorphological changes (Examples in the toolbox).5.5SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN HYDROMORPHOLOGY (Step 4)
For those water bodies which have not been "screened out" in step 3, significantanthropogenic pressures and the resulting impacts should be further investigated anddescribed [Annex II No. 1.4]. This step 4 is part of the characterisation of surface watersas required in Art. 5(1) by December 2004.5.5.1This characterisation involves the identification and description of:
1. the main "specified uses" of the water body;2. significant anthropogenic pressures [Annex II No. 1.4]; and3. significant impacts of these pressures on hydromorphology [Annex II No. 1.5].5.5.2••••5.5.31. Identification and description ofthe main "specified uses" of the waterbody:navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-watersupply, power generation or irrigation;water regulation, flood protection, land drainage; orother equally important sustainable development activities.2. Identification and description ofsignificant anthropogenic pressures[Annex II No. 1.4]:
Specified uses of water bodies generally result in pressures that might impact thestatus of the water body. In the context of HMWB and AWB identification anddesignation process, changes to hydromorphology resulting from "physicalalterations" are relevant [Art. 2(9)].26
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Physical alterations include alterations in the morphology and hydrology of thewater regime (compare glossary and step 6). For example, the most commonphysical alterations include dams and weirs, which disrupt the river continuumand cause alterations of the hydrologic and hydraulic regime. Physical alterationsshould usually serve a specified use, such as straightening for the purpose ofnavigation. However, physical alterations which do not serve a particular specifieduse any longer, should also be identified and described in the characterisation (e.g.weirs used to maintain water levels for mills which are no longer in use).For the characterisation it is important to find out which pressures are of"significance", because only significant pressures (or physical alterations) are to beconsidered. Member States may use qualitative or quantitative approaches todescribe the degree and level of significance of the physical alterations (Examplesin the toolbox).5.5.4 3. Identification and description ofsignificant impacts on hydromorphology[Annex II No. 1.5]:The significant impacts on hydromorphology should be further investigated. Bothqualitative and quantitative appraisal techniques can be used for assessingimpacts on hydromorphology resulting from physical alterations (Examples in thetoolbox). The elements examined should include the elements required by theWFD [Annex V No. 1.1: river continuity, hydrological regime, morphologicalconditions, tidal regime], as far as data are available.Special attention should be given to cumulative effects of hydromorphologicalchanges. Small-scale hydromorphological changes may not cause extensivehydromorphological impacts on their own, but may have a significant impactwhen acting together. To assess the significant impacts on hydromorphology, anappropriate scale should be chosen (see also Guidance of the WG 2.113). Thefollowing issues in scaling should be considered in assessing impacts and in theidentification and designation of HMWB and AWB:•Scaling due to impact assessment changes according to the pressure and impactcharacteristics, i.e. some pressures have lower thresholds for wide-scaleimpacts than others;•Scaling may change according to the water body type and ecosystemsusceptibility. Spatial and temporal scale (resolution of impact assessment)should be more precise in such water body types and specific ecosystemswhich are considered susceptible to the pressure.
13
WFD CIS Guidance Document No, 3"Analysis of Pressures and Impacts in the Water FrameworkDirective - Common Understanding", produced by the CIS WG 2.1.
27
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
5.6
LIKELIHOOD OF FAILING GOOD ECOLOGICAL STATUS (Step 5)
Based on the information gathered in step 4 and an assessment of the ecological status,the likelihood of failing to achieve good ecological status (or an estimate of what GESmay be, based on current knowledge) should be assessed [Annex II No. 1.5]. Thisshould consider whether the risk of failing GES is due to hydromorphological changesand not other pressures such as toxic substances or other quality problems. Step 5 ispart of the "risk assessment"14process to be completed by 22 December 2004.In order to assess the likelihood of failing to achieve GES, the ecological impacts ofphysical alterations on the water bodies in question should be estimated (Example inthe toolbox). The effort expended in the assessments should be proportionate (i.e. atiered assessment approach should be used). For water bodies which are likely not toachieve GES (e. g. water bodies which have changed category due to physicalalterations), effort expended estimating GES should be limited and conclusions of non-achievement of GES should be rapidly reached. In these cases more effort can beexpended in assessing GEP early and the risk of not achieving it could be investigated.Likewise, through risk screening, a conclusion on excluding those water bodies whichare clearly going to reach GES from the HMWB or AWB identification and designationprocess should be reached early and with minimal effort.5.6.1Data requirements
For the implementation of the WFD a large amount of data is needed. The qualityelements for water bodies are listed in Annex II No. 1 and includehydromorphological, chemical as well as biological data. The quality elements differaccording to the water categories. For the HMWB identification and designationprocess data are not only necessary in step 5, but also in the different designation tests(steps 7 and 8), the establishment of MEP (step 10) and of GEP (step 11).The assessment of the ecological status, necessary for the "risk assessment", can bebased directly on biology. Alternatively indicative data (hydromorphological andphysicochemical elements) can be used in situations where only these data areavailable (Example in Section 2.6 of the toolbox on provisional identification ofregulated lakes in Finland is of relevance). According to the WFD, the biological statusof a surface water is to be assessed using the appropriate elements in the differentwater categories [Annex V No. 1.1]. It is suggested that the preliminary assessment ofthe ecological status, to be completed by 2004, should be based on the most sensitivequality elements with respect to the existing physical alterations. It must be noted,however, that this procedure concentrates on the effects of physical alterations onsome sensitive elements of the aquatic ecosystem.To detect the reason for the possible failure of the environmental objective (i.e. thegood status or potential) of a water body, indicative parameters differ according to thecauses. The HMWB & AWB Guidance is particularly concerned with indicative data to14
The "risk assessment" is undertaken as part of the Article 5 characterisation process and identifies thelikelihood of water bodies to fail the environmental quality objectives set under Article 4.
28
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
detect hydromorphological changes. Effects resulting from other impacts (e.g. toxiceffects on macroinvertebrates, eutrophication concerning macrophytes) should bedifferentiated as far as possible. Some suggestions on the suitability of biologicalelements as indicators for physical alterations are made below:•••Benthic invertebrate fauna and fish are the most relevant groups for the assessmentof hydropower generation impacts in freshwater systems;Long distance migrating fish species can serve as a criteria for the assessment ofdisruption in river continuity;Macrophytes are good indicators of changes in flow downstream of reservoirs aswell as for the assessment of regulated lakes because they are sensitive to waterlevel fluctuation;For linear physical alterations such as coastal defence work, benthic invertebratesand macroalgae might be the most appropriate indicators.
•
Defining the extent of ecological damage in the manner required by the WFD will notbe possible until common ecological monitoring is in place by 2006. Since step 5 of theHMWB identification and designation process should be completed by 2004 (in timefor the initial characterisation as in Art. 5), assessments may be estimates based onexisting biological monitoring data and ecological classification systems.WetlandsWetland ecosystems are ecologically and functionally parts of the water environment,with potentially an important role to play in helping to achieve sustainable river basinmanagement. TheWater Framework Directivedoes not set environmental objectivesfor wetlands. However, wetlands that are dependent on groundwater bodies, formpart of a surface water body, or are Protected Areas, will benefit from WFD obligationsto protect and restore the status of water. Relevant definitions are developed in theWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 2on water bodies and further considered in theGuidance on wetlands (currently under preparation).Pressures on wetlands (for example physical modification or pollution) can result inimpacts on the ecological status of water bodies. Measures to manage such pressuresmay therefore need to be considered as part of the river basin management plans,where they are necessary to meet the environmental objectives of the Directive.Wetland creation and enhancement can in appropriate circumstances offer sustainable,cost-effective and socially acceptable mechanisms for helping to achieve theenvironmental objectives of the Directive. In particular, wetlands can help to abatepollution impacts, contribute to mitigating the effects of droughts and floods, help toachieve sustainable coastal management and to promote groundwater recharge. Therelevance of wetlands within the programmes of measures is examined further in aseparate horizontal Guidance paper on wetlands (currently under preparation).
29
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Look out! Links to other CIS working groupsGuidance on how to define reference conditions for assessing theecological status of surface water bodies is being developed by the CISWGs 2.3 (REFCOND) inWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 10and WG 2.4inWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 5 (COAST).TheWFD CIS GuidanceDocument No. 3 of WG 2.1 IMPRESSwill give more explicit Guidance forcarrying out the "characterisation" and the "risk assessment". TheMonitoring Working Group WG 2.7 (WFDCIS Guidance Document No. 7)will set the monitoring requirements for water bodies "at risk" as well asfor all other water bodies.5.7IS THE WATER BODY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED IN CHARACTERDUE TO PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS BY HUMAN ACTIVITY (step 6)?PROVISIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF HMWB
If it is likely that the water body will fail to achieve good ecological status due tohydromorphological changes then a range of options exist for objective setting. Insome cases, restoration measures can be taken before 2015, which will allow the waterbody to reach GES. In other circumstances, an extension of the deadline by theapplication of the Article 4(4) derogation will allow the water body to achieve GESlater.15Clearly, less stringent environmental objectives can also be set if an Article 4(5)derogation is appropriate. These approaches will be required in those circumstanceswhere a water body is subject to significant changes in hydromorphology but is notsubstantially changed in character.If a water body is to be provisionally identified as heavily modified (Examples in thetoolbox) the following criteria apply:1. The failure to achieve good status results fromphysical alterationsto thehydromorphological characteristics of a water body. It must not be due to otherimpacts, such as physico-chemical impacts (pollution);2. The water body must besubstantially changed in character.This is the case whenthere is a major change in the appearance of the water body. It is clearly a partlysubjective decision as to whether a water body is (a) only significantly changed incharacter (e.g. water abstraction without morphological alterations) or (b)substantially changed in character when provisional identification as HMWB maybe appropriate (e.g. long-term hydromorphological changes caused by a weir).Both may be likely not to achieve GES. However, the following considerationsshould be borne in mind:•When visiting a water body that is substantially changed in character, itshould be very obvious that the water body is substantially changed from itsnatural condition;
15
According to Article 4(4) the maximum extension of the deadline is 2027.
30
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
•
The change in character must be extensive/widespread or profound.Typically this should involve substantial change to both the hydrology andmorphology of the water body;The change in character must be permanent and not temporary orintermittent;Many alterations to the hydrological characteristics of water bodies, such asabstractions and discharges, are not associated with morphological changes,and may therefore often be easily reversible, temporary or short-term.Consequently, such alterations would not constitute substantial changes inthe character of water bodies and hence the application of HMWBdesignation would not be considered;The modification must be consistent with the scale of change that resultsfrom the activities listed in Article 4(3)(a): a canalised river, a harbour, ariver constrained for flood protection or a dammed river or lake.
••
•
3. The substantial change in character must be the result of thespecified uses.It musthave been created by uses listed in Article 4(3) or uses which represent equallyimportant sustainable human development activities (either singly or incombination).In Table 1, an overview of the main specified uses and the connected physicalalterations and impacts on hydromorphology as well as on biology is given. A moreextensive list of physical alterations and impacts on hydromorphology and biology canbe found in the HMWB synthesis report (Hansenet al.,2002).Table 1:Overview of the main specified uses, physical alterations andimpactsNaviga-tionFloodprotectionHydro-powergenerationAgriculture/Forestry/Fish farmsWatersupplyRecreationUrbani-sation16
Specified Uses
Physical Alterations (pressures)Dams & weirsChannelmaintenance/dredging/removal of materialShipping channelsChannelisation/straighteningBank reinforcement/fixation/embankmentsLand drainageLand claimXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
16
Urbanisation is not mentioned in Article 4(3)(a), but has been identified as an important use in theHMWB case studies. Therefore it presumes that it is an important sustainable human developmentactivity.
31
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesSpecified UsesNaviga-tionXFloodprotectionHydro-powergenerationAgriculture/Forestry/Fish farmsWatersupplyRecreationUrbani-sation16X
Creation of back watersthrough embankmentsImpacts on hydromorphologyand biologyDisruption in river continuum& sediment transportChange in river profileDetachment of ox-bowlakes/wetlandsRestriction/Loss of flood plainsLow/reduced flowsDirect mechanical damage tofauna/floraArtificial discharge regimeChange in groundwater levelSoil erosion/silting
X
XXX
XXXX
XXXXX
XXX
X
XX
X
XX
X
XX
XX
XXXXXXX
XX
X
X
If a water body is not designated and it becomes apparent later on that it probably isheavily modified, provisional identification as HMWB and application of thedesignation tests is still possible after 2004. Similarly if a water body is provisionallyidentified as HMWB, Member States do not have to complete designation. They can atany time consider it as a non-heavily modified water body and set appropriateobjectives under Article 4(1)(a)(ii), 4(4) or 4(5).5.7.1Scope, scale and extent of provisional identification
Within the provisional HMWB identification, the scale, scope and extent of water bodyidentification should be considered. It may be necessary to adapt the boundaries of theinitially identified water bodies (step 1) according to the substantial changes inhydromorphology. More specifically, where the hydromorphogical changes do notcoincide with the boundaries of a surface water body, it may be appropriate tosubdivide the water body in order to separate heavily modified stretches from theunaffected areas of the water body.The following three examples may be helpful for the decision on whether to subdividewater bodies or not under different circumstances (Figure 3 - Figure 5):•In Figure 3, two physically altered areas cover a major percentage of the absolutelength/area of the original water body (8 km out of 10 km). The water body is, to alarge extent, impacted by the same pressure and it would therefore be suggestednot to splitthe original water body, but to apply provisional HMWB identificationto the whole water body;In Figure 4, the original water body is modified by a physically altered area (6 km)covering a major percentage of the entire length/area of the original water body. In32
•
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
this case it would be recommendedto splitthe original water body into twodistinct water bodies (1a & 1b). Water body 1b, impacted by the physical alteration,would be provisionally identified as heavily modified. The water body 1a wouldbe regarded as a natural water body;•In Figure 5, a series of small physically altered areas each covering < 1 km arepresent at a small stretch of the entire water body length. Here the question occurs,whether those < 1 km stretches should be identified as distinct water bodies and beprovisionally identified as HMWB, or whether the overall impact is low andtherefore the whole water body should be regarded as a natural water body. It issuggestednot to splitthe water body and regard the entire water body as natural.
water body 1physicallyalteredarea 1physicallyaltered area 2
10 km provisionally identified as HMWB
Figure 3:
Example 1, no subdivision of the water body
water waterwaterbody 1a
water body 1b
physicallyaltered area
4 km Natural WB6 km prov. identified as HMWB
Figure 4:
Example 2, subdivision of the water body
33
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
water body 1
10 km, Natural WB: objective is good status
Figure 5:
Example 3, no division of water body
Note: The provisional identification of HMWB refers to river stretches and not to thecatchments or sub-catchments. In the three figures above the catchments are marked because itis difficult to only mark river stretches; the latter would be more appropriate.Another important issue is that only water bodies which are substantially changed incharacter (due to physical alterations) themselves, may be provisionally identified asHMWB. If a physical alteration (e.g. dam) impacts the biological quality elements inthe upstream part of a river system (for example fish migration is hindered), thisupstream part may not be considered for provisional HMWB identification. If the GEScannot be achieved in this water body upstream of a physical alteration, theenvironmental objective may be less stringent.
34
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
66.1
TESTS LEADING TO THE DESIGNATION OF HMWB(Steps 7 - 9)TIMING FOR DESIGNATION TESTS
Water bodies that have been provisionally identified as heavily modified (cf. Section 5)may be considered for designation.17The designation process must be completed intime for the consultation of the draft RBMP in 2008 and final publication of the RBMPin 2009. The designation process should be undertaken as soon as possible after theprovisional identification. In addition it will be important to co-ordinate thedesignation process with the other requirements of the RBM planning process. Inparticular, the links to the following requirements should be considered:•The designation process helps to identify which "restoration measures" or "othermeans" may be required to meet the environmental quality objective. Additionally,"mitigation measures" will be identified in the reference condition and objectivesetting process (cf. Section 7). These "mitigation measures" must be identified intime to allow for the assessment of the most cost effective programmes of measuresfor the draft RBMP in 2008 and for ensuring that the programmes of measures areoperational by 2012 [Art. 11(7)];It may be efficient to undertake the designation process at the same time as thesetting of less-stringent environmental objectives [Art. 4(5)] for both natural andHMWB which include similar tests (e.g. consideration of disproportionate costs).DESIGNATION IS OPTIONAL AND ITERATIVE
•
6.2
It is stressed that Member Statesmaydesignate a water body as artificial or heavilymodified.Provisionally identified HMWB do not, therefore, necessarily have to be considered forthe designation tests, in this Section 6. Member States may decide not to proceed withthe designation process at any stage, and may decide to consider the water body asnatural, having to achieve GES. This decision may be influenced by additionalinformation that may have become available since the identification process wasperformed.
17
Also other water bodies that have not been provisionally identified as HMWB may additionally beconsidered if evidence shows that they are at risk to fail the GES due to physical alterations (seeSection 6.2).
35
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Look out! Designation is optional!The designation of HMWB and AWB is optional. Member States canchoose not to designate a water body as a AWB or HMWB. Thedesignation tests can be stopped at any point in the process. In this case thewater body would be treated as a natural water body and theenvironmental quality objective would be GES.
For several reasons, water bodies designated as heavily modified in the first cycle maybe regarded as natural water bodies in future cycles and vice-versa (Section 8).Designation is hence an iterative process. It should also be pointed out that new dataor information may reveal water bodies, which have not been provisionally identified(in steps 1-6), as heavily modified, that should be considered for the designation tests.In future RBMP cycles, the designation of HMWB must be reviewed (cf. Section 8).6.3THE DESIGNATION TESTS
A water body may be designated as heavily modified if it has passed through thedesignation procedure involving both designation tests as specified under Article4(3)(a) & (b) (steps 7 and 8). In some cases both tests do not have to be carried outentirely, see Figure 6.For AWB only the designation test 4(3)(b) applies (see Section 6.8).The designation tests are designed to ensure that HMWB are only designated wherethere are no reasonable opportunities for achieving good status within a water body.They are therefore water body specific. However, where the designation tests areapplied at a regional or national scale it may be appropriate to apply the test to groupsof water bodies, to reduce the overall work load involved in the designation tests. Forexample, if the main stem of a river was being considered for designation as a series ofHMWB because it is used for navigation, it should be possible to consider the tests forgroups of water bodies within the affected stretch. If water bodies are grouped, theremust be no differences in the characteristics of the water bodies or the specified useswhich could affect the outcome of the designation tests. Justification for groupingwater bodies should be provided.A step-wise approach for the identification and designation of HMWB and AWBwhich includes the designation tests is presented in Section 4. Figure 6 is based onFigure 1 but identifies more detail on the "Designation test 4(3)(a)" (step 7) and"Designation test 4(3)(b)" (step 8), which consist of several sub-steps.
36
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Provisionally identified HMWB
step 7.1: Identification of „restoration measures“ to achieve GESStep 7: „Designation test 4(3)(a)“
Is the physical alteration connected to a current "specified use"?yesyes1step 7.2: Would the restoration measures have significant adverseeffects on the "specified uses"?nostep 7.3: Would the „restoration measures“ have significant adverseeffects on the wider environment?yesnostep 8.1: Are there „other means“ of providing the beneficialobjectives served by the physical alteration?yesnostep 8.2: Are these „other means“ technically feasible?yesnostep 8.3: Are these „other means“ a better environmental option?yesyesstep 8.4: Are these „other means“ disproportionately costly?nostep 8.5: Will the "other means" allow the achievement of GES?noIs the failure to achieve GES caused by physical alterations?yesstep 9: Designate as HMWBno”Natural Water Bodies”
no
no
Step 8: „Designation test 4(3)(b)“
yes
Preparation of River Basin Management Plans2
Figure 6:
Steps leading to the designation of HMWB (steps 7-9)
Note 1: Step 7.2:If the restoration measures would have significant adverse effects on the "specified uses" you coulddirectly proceed to the "Designation test 4(3)(b)", step 8.1. But for a better justification for designation you mayalso want to apply step 7.3.Note 2: Preparation of River Basin Management Plansincluding: identifying objectives, identifying programmes ofmeasures (POM), cost effectiveness analysis, derogation for an extended timetable and less stringent objective,consideration of Article 4(8), to ensure no deterioration of other water bodies.
37
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
6.4
DESIGNATION TEST 4(3)(a) (Step 7)
The designation test 4(3)(a) has three components, and is divided into sub-steps 7.1-7.3,accordingly (see Figure 6):•First, the "restoration measures" for achieving GES are to be identified (step 7.1, seeSection 6.4.1);•Then, the adverse effects of these restoration measures on the specified uses have tobe assessed (step 7.2, see Section 6.4.2); if the adverse effects on the specified usesare significant,you may go directly to step 8 (see Section 6.5), but you could alsoproceed to step 7.3 (see Note 1 to Figure 6). If they arenot significantyou proceedwith:•step 7.3 and assess whether the application of restoration measures would havesignificant adverse effects on the wider environment (see Section 5.4.3).6.4.1Identification of "restoration measures" to achieve GES (Step 7.1)
The first sub-step 7.1 of the designation test 4(3)(a) is to identify thehydromorphological changes which could lead to the achievement of GES. Thisprocess is complicated by the fact that water bodies will frequently be impacted bydifferent pressures. Consequently, it will be necessary (but not always possible) toseparate:•measures to change hydromorphology;•measures to improve the physico-chemical status; and•direct measures to improve the biological status (such as manipulation of fishpopulation or planting macrophytes).18
Look out! Hydromorphological conditions!The Guidance Document for HMWB and AWB is dealing withhydromorphological conditions that result from physical alterations andwith "restoration measures" which improve these hydromorphologicalconditions. The non-hydromorphological measures will not be consideredin this Guidance Document but will be part of the programmes ofmeasures (POM) to be set up for the RBMP.
The hydromorphological changes for achieving GES (hereafter called restorationmeasures) may range from measures aimed at reducing the environmental impact of18
All measures (including hydromorphological and physico-chemical improvements) ultimately aim toimprove the biological status.
38
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
the physical alteration (e.g. increased compensation flows or fish passages) tomeasures resulting in the complete removal of the physical alteration. Measures can bedirectly related to the physical alteration (e.g. changing the physical alteration) orenhance the general ecological conditions (e.g. creation of habitats). In this sub-step thecontribution that an individual measure could make towards achieving GES needs tobe predicted. It should also be assessed whether an overall package of proposedrestoration measures could lead to GES (Examples in the toolbox).The measures should be well-defined (e.g. exact percentage of compensation flow) andshould include an assessment of whether GES status will be delivered (full or partialdelivery) (Example in the toolbox). Combinations of “partial” measures may allowGES to be achieved. The identification of suitable measures can be difficult, becauseinformation on the cause-effect relationship of measures is often not sufficient.The costs of restoration measures are not considered here (see substep 7.2 andSection 8.1).A list of examples for restoration measures for different specified uses (“navigation”and “hydropower”) is given in the toolbox. This list can be used as an initial check list.6.4.2Significant adverse effects on specified uses (Step 7.2)
The second sub-step 7.2 of the designation test 4(3)(a) requires an assessment ofwhether the necessary "restoration measures" to achieve GES will have significantadverse effects on the specified uses (e.g. on navigation, on hydropower, on recreation,or on other specified uses).It should be emphasised that the application of the test should consider the full rangeof possible restoration measures. For example, in a river, which has been modified fornavigation that has artificial vertical embankments, it may be possible to create morenatural banks which may allow GES to be achieved without causing significantadverse effects upon the use.This sub-step 7.2 can only be applied to water bodies that have a current specified use-related physical alteration. If the physical alteration to the water body is due to ahistoric specified use which no longer exists, then you may directly proceed to step 7.3(see Figure 6 and Section 6.4.7). Clearly, the specified uses of a water body may alsochange over time. For example, an abandoned drinking water supply reservoir maydevelop an important new specified use as a recreational resource (e.g. sailing). Then,the possible adverse effects on this changed specified use should be assessed in thissub-step 7.2.6.4.3What effects are to be considered?
Adverse effects on the specified uses are losses of/in important services (e.g. floodprotection, recreation or navigation) or production losses (e.g. hydropower oragricultural goods) (Examples in the toolbox). In assessing "significant adverse effects"on the specified uses, economic effects will play an important role, but also social
39
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
aspects may need to be considered (e.g. removal of flood defences may lead todisplacement of population).6.4.4What aspects are not relevant in this sub-step?
In assessing whether the restoration measures have "significant adverse effects" on thespecified use not all aspects are relevant. For example, when considering an estuaryused for navigation, the focus of the test should be on the effect of restoration measuresupon the movement of ships. The ability of the user to pay is not relevant at this stageas this would potentially discriminate against efficient and profitable enterprises.Similarly, at this stage disproportionate costs cannot be used as an additionalconsideration beyond the assessment of significant adverse effects on the specified use(see Section 8.1).6.4.5What is significant?
It is not considered possible to derive a standard definition for "significant" adverseeffect. “Significance” will vary between sectors and will be influenced by the socio-economic priorities of Member States.It is possible to give an indication of the difference between “significant adverse effect”and “adverse effect”. A significant adverse effect on the specified use should not besmall or unnoticeable but should make a notable difference to the use. For example, aneffect should not normally be considered significant, where the effect on the specifieduse is smaller than the normal short-term variability in performance (e.g. output perkilowatt hour, level of flood protection, quantity of drinking water provided).However, the effect would clearly be significant if it compromised the long-termviability of the specified use by significantly reducing its performance. It is importantto undertake this assessment at the appropriate scale. Effects can be determined at thelevel of a water body, a group of water bodies, a region, a RBD or at national scale. Theappropriate scale will vary according to the situation and the type of specified use orsector. It will depend on the key spatial characteristics of the adverse effects. In somecases it may be appropriate to consider effects at more than one scale in order to ensurethe most appropriate assessment. The starting point will usually be the assessment oflocal effects (Examples in the toolbox).If the adverse effects are considered to be significant, the water body should beconsidered for the designation test 4(3)(b) (cf. Section 6.5). If there was no significantadverse effect on specified uses, the measures have to be checked as to whether theywould have significant adverse effects on the wider environment (see Section 6.4.7,step 7.3).
40
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
6.4.6
If there is no specified use
Although the use for which the physical alteration was intended might not be thereany more, in almost all cases the modified characteristics of the water body serve aspecified use of some form (e.g. a dam originally built for water supply mightalternatively be used for recreation).In the rare cases where no uses whatsoever are served by the modified characteristicsof the water body any more, step 7.2 of the designation test 4(3)(a) does not apply,since no specified uses exist upon which a restoration measure could have a significantadverse effect.Proceeding to step 7.3, the possibility of the significant adverse effects of restorationmeasures on the wider environment needs to be assessed. If the restoration measureshave a significant adverse effect on the environment, then the water body normallyshould be considered for the "designation test 4(3)(b)". However, without a specifieduse, “other means” for delivering the beneficial objectives of the specified use cannotbe defined. Consequently, under these circumstances, if the wider environment issignificantly affected by the restoration measures, the steps 8.2-8.5 are of no relevanceand the water body can directly be designated as a HMWB.6.4.7Significant adverse effect on the wider environment (step 7.3)
The intent of this sub-step 7.3 of the designation test 4(3)(a) is to ensure that restorationmeasures required to achieve GES do not deliver environmental improvements for thewater body whilst creating environmental problems elsewhere (Example in thetoolbox).6.4.8What is the wider environment?
Article 4(3)(a) refers to the wider environment. Consequently a restricted definition ofenvironment would not be appropriate and the environment is considered to includethe natural environment and the human environment including archaeology, heritage,landscape and geomorphology.
Look out!In general, a significant adverse effect on the wider environment wouldexist, if the damage to the wider environment caused by restorationmeasures exceeds the benefits for the improved water status itself (such assignificantly increased C02emissions or the generation and disposal oflarge quantities of demolition waste).
41
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
6.4.9•
Examples of "restoration measures" that have an adverse effect on the widerenvironment
Normally the restoration of flood plains increases the biodiversity of theenvironment. However, there may be some limited circumstances where therestoration of flood plains threatens a specific landscape and biodiversity that hasdeveloped over the years as a result of the elimination of the floods in riparianzones and former floodplains;The removal of a dam may lead to the elimination of wetlands that have developedin connection to the water storage;Building a channel around a physical obstacle to improve ecological continuum(see Section 7.2 MEP) to allow fish migration, may use considerable energy,damage an archaeological site and produce waste materials. It may therefore, insome circumstances, not be appropriate in relation to the benefit;A historical modification, such as a mill or a weir which no longer has a currentspecified use, may now have aesthetic or historical value. This feature should notnecessarily be removed and some may wish to designate the affected water bodyas HMWB.
••
•
In general it has to be prevented that such adverse effects on the wider environmentare significant.This test also has links to Article 4(8) and 4(9) that require measures under the WFD tobe consistent with the requirements of existing Community Environmental legislation.For example, where the modified water body or its floodplain is (or is to be)designated under another directive such as the Fauna Flora Habitat or the BirdsDirective, the requirements for these directives must be taken into account."Restoration measures" that would result in conflicts with these directives should beconsidered as having a "significant effect on the environment".The importance of the improvement which would be delivered by the restorationmeasures relative to the impact on the wider environment has to be considered here. Itwould, for example, not be appropriate if a large environmental improvementprogramme was prevented because of a significant adverse effect on a smallcomponent of the wider environment (e.g. a reservoir that serves no current purposewhich results in a valuable (local) wetland; removing the dam would result in losingthe wetland, but it would allow fish migration for a large river length (region). In thisexample, the fish migration would probably represent a larger improvement to theenvironment than the loss of wetland, but it strongly depends on the circumstances).If there are no significant adverse effects upon the specified use or the widerenvironment, the provisional HMWB should be regarded as a natural water body andrestoration measures should be undertaken to ensure that the GES can be reached. Insome circumstances, Article 4(4) or 4(5) derogations will be appropriate and lessstringent environmental objectives may be set.
42
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
If there are significant adverse effects on either the specified use or on the widerenvironment then the water body should proceed to designation test 4(3)(b).6.4.10 Significant adverse effect and timingThe WFD requires Member States to achieve good status by 2015. Timing is therefore arelevant consideration in the Art.4(3)(a) test. The selection of measures should allowfor the achievement of GES by 2015, or if derogations under Art. 4(4) apply, by 2021 or2027. The assessment should therefore first consider whether there is a significantadverse effect on the specified use or environment up to 2015. If there is a significantadverse effect then the time period up to 2021 and then 2027 should be considered.6.5DESIGNATION TEST ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 4(3)(b) (Step 8)
The designation test 4(3)(b) considers whether the beneficial objectives served by themodified characteristics of the water body can reasonably be achieved by "othermeans" (step 8.1), which are:•••technically feasible (cf. Section 6.5.2, step 8.2);significantly better environmental options (cf. Section 6.5.3, step 8.3); andnot disproportionately costly (cf. Section 6.5.4, step 8.4).
Water bodies for which "other means" can be found that fulfil these three criteria andcan achieve the beneficial objectives of the modified characteristics of the water bodymay not be designated as HMWB. The existing specified use may, in some cases, beabandoned and the physical alterations removed so that good status can be achieved.6.5.1Identification of “other means” for achieving the beneficial objectives(Step 8.1)
In considering the Article 4(3)(b) test it is important to distinguish between:•"restoration measures", which are covered under the "designation test 4(3)(a)" (step7), and involve changes to the existing specified use in order to achieve GES; and•“other means” which will deliver the beneficial objectives of the modifiedcharacteristics of the water body and involve the replacement or displacement ofthe existing specified use.The Article 4(3)(b) test should only consider the potential for "other means" ofdelivering the beneficial objectives of the modified characteristics of the water body,including the benefits of specified uses and the wider environment. Other means mayinclude the following options:•Displacement of the specified use to another water body. For example, thereplacement of a hydropower station with a new one (in another water body) whereit causes less environmental damage. Another example would be stopping43
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
navigation in one river because a canal connection would provide alternativetransport links (Example in the toolbox);•Replacement of the existing specified use with an alternative option to deliver thebeneficial objectives. For example, replacing hydropower with other energy sources,or replacing navigation with rail and road transport at lower environmental costs,alternative flood defence strategies such as restoration of upstream flood-plains toremove flood defence hard engineering downstream, i.e. soft-engineering asopposed to hard-engineering solutions (Example in the toolbox).The partial replacement or displacement of the beneficial objectives of the specified useshould also be considered, while not necessarily allowing the achievement of GES.6.5.2Assessment of "technical feasibility" of "other means" (Step 8.2)
It then has to be assessed whether these "other means" are technically feasible.Technical feasibility is put here as the first check as it represents a relatively simple testand there is clearly no value in assessing the environmental impact of options that arenot technically feasible."Technical feasibility" considerations include the practical, technical and engineeringaspects of implementing the "other means". It addresses the question of whether “othermeans” of delivering the beneficial objectives of an existing specified use exist. Itshould not include consideration of disproportionate costs; these will be assessed aspart of the later component of the test (step 8.4) (Example in the toolbox).There may be some circumstances where it is appropriate to consider social issueswhich constrain the development of “other means”. The use of such social constraintsshould be fully explained within the RBMP.6.5.3Assessment of whether “other means” are better environmental options(Step 8.3)
The purpose of this sub-section 8.3 of the Article 4(3)(b) test is to ensure that proposed“other means” do represent a better environmental option and that one environmentalproblem is not replaced with another. The test is, therefore, similar in concept to theearlier Article 4(3)(a) test, which assessed whether possible measures have a“significant adverse effect on the wider environment” (step 7.3).When assessing other means as better environmental options, the following issuesshould be considered:•Scope of "environment" in better environmental option: It is suggested that in orderto ensure a consistent approach with the Article 4(3)(a) test, the assessment shouldinclude - where appropriate - consideration of the “wider environment” such asarchaeology and urban and other landscapes;•Issue of scale: There is a range of scales at which the question of “betterenvironmental options” can be assessed: local, regional, RBD, national or44
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
international level. Clearly it may be appropriate to consider the impacts andbenefits just on the water environment or on the wider environment (water, land,air). In the first instance it is suggested that the assessment should focus on localoptions. Further considerations should then be considered where appropriate.An example for this is the possible replacement of navigation on a large riversystem. In this instance it may be appropriate to include an assessment at a regional,national or international level taking into account increased road or rail traffic andthe potential impact on C02emissions.It is clear that the most appropriate scale used to assess “better environmentaloption” will depend on the kind of “other means” under consideration. Where thereis uncertainty about the appropriate scale an assessment should be carried out atdifferent scales (Examples in the toolbox).6.5.4Assessment of disproportionate costs of "other means" (Step 8.4)
Those "other means" which are considered to be "technically feasible" and whichrepresent a "significantly better environmental option" should be subject to anassessment of whether they are "disproportionately costly".This assessment is likely to focus on financial/economic costs. However, there may besome circumstances where it may be appropriate to consider social issues as part of theassessment of disproportionality of costs.In undertaking this assessment it is important to take account of likely or plannedcapital expenditures associated with the existing specified use; this should includeplanned expenditures up to 2027, where appropriate. This is particularly appropriate(and important) in cases where the existing specified use is associated with large scaleengineering works which are subject to regular maintenance, replacement orupgrading.This represents a key baseline, against which the incremental costs and benefits of thealternative ‘other means’ are to be analysed and presented.The following two options are recommended for assessing disproportionate cost :6.5.5a) Comparison of cost alternatives
Disproportionate costs can be determined by assessing the incremental costs andenvironmental impacts of the “other means”. The benefits of the existing specified useand the alternative are assumed to be the same. The main cost elements to beconsidered are:••For the existing situation: operational and maintenance costs, and capital costs fornecessary replacements (including investment and interest costs);For each option/alternative ("other means"): capital costs (including investmentand interest costs), operational and maintenance costs, and possible foregonebenefits from changes in economic activities (e.g. reduction in agricultural45
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
production resulting from the development of a retention area as an alternative todikes for preventing floods).6.5.6b) Comparison of overall costs and benefits
Disproportionate costs can be determined by comparing the overall costs and benefitsof the existing modification and the alternative ("other means"). In this assessment theoverall net benefit to society of the modification and of the alternative are compared.The main elements that are to be considered include:•••Costs as listed in a);benefits of the existing specified use; andbenefits of the alternative, especially benefits gained from the higher ecologicalstatus (e.g. angling, recreation).
In order to ensure that the environmental impacts of the existing specified use areproperly compared with the “other means”, it is recommended to consider the:••existing specified use; and“other means”, subject to typical sector-specific best environmental practice.
It will be important to ensure that the economic and environmental appraisal of the"other means" are in line with the best practice techniques customarily used for eachtype of modification (e.g. flood defence, navigation etc.) to ensure that the "othermeans" thereby identified can actually be financed and implemented.After having assessed the costs (and in case b) also the benefits) of the existingspecified use and the "other means" it has to be decided whether the costs aredisproportionate. To pass this test it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the costsexceed the benefits. The costs must be disproportionately greater than the benefits.Clearly it is not possible to define by how much the costs must exceed the benefitsbefore they become disproportionate (Example in the toolbox).In the context of economic assessments, theWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 1produced by the CIS-WG 2.6 on WATECO should be considered.Examples on the assessment of disproportionate costs are provided within the toolbox.6.5.7Will the "other means" allow the achievement of GES? (Step 8.5)
Under some circumstances the "other means" may represent only apartialreplacement/displacement of the use. In these cases "other means" would fulfil allrelevant criteria (steps 8.2 - 8.4) but GES still cannot be achieved due to physicalalterations. This will result in those circumstances where a "better environmentaloption" should be realised, but GES still cannot be achieved. In the following, someexamples are given:
46
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
•
Example (a) If a water body is modified by two uses and it is possible to find “othermeans” of delivering the beneficial objective of one of the uses. The second usemay still require physical alterations that prevent the water body from achievingGES;Example (b) If a water body is modified by a single use and it is possible to find“other means” of delivering a proportion of the beneficial objective of the use. Forexample, if "other means" are available that would supply 50% of the drinkingwater (for example from groundwater) then the variation in water levels will bereduced. This may still not allow the water body to achieve GES but it mayrepresent a "significantly better environmental option". The result may be animprovement in the environmental quality of the reservoir and the riverdownstream and it may allow new additional uses of the reservoir for examplerecreation. Such "other means" which offer "better environmental options" but donot achieve GES should be undertaken as part of the programme of measures.
•
If GES is not achieved by the other means, and this is caused by the physicalalterations, the water body may be designated as HMWB.If GES can be achieved by the other means, the water body must be regarded asnatural.6.5.8“Other means” and timing
The WFD requires Member States to achieve good status by 2015. Timing is also arelevant consideration in step 8 [the Article 4(3)(b) test]. The selection of "other means"(i.e. alternative options in the sense of displacement or replacement) should allow forthe restoration of the site by 2015, or, if derogations under Article 4(4) apply, by 2021 or2027. In particular, the time constraint may influence the decision as to whether the“other means” are technically feasible or disproportionately expensive as part of thisstep 8 [Article 4(3)(b) test].The assessment should therefore firstly consider, whether the "other means" aretechnically feasible and not disproportionately expensive during the period up to 2015.If this is not the case, then it should be considered until 2021 or 2027.6.6DESIGNATION OF HMWB IN 2008 (Step 9)
A water body may be designated as HMWB if it has passed through the designationprocedure involving, if applicable, both designation tests (steps 7 & 8).After applying the designation tests, Member States may still decide that they do notwish to designate the water body as a HMWB.If there are no significant adverse effects neither on the specified uses nor on the widerenvironment, or there are "other means" of delivering the beneficial objectives then thewater body should be regarded as natural.
47
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
6.7
GUIDANCE ON METHODS FOR APPLYING THE DESIGNATION TESTS4(3)(a) & (b) (for Steps 7 and 8)
A very large number of water bodies will have to be assessed for possible designationas HMWB until 2008/9. Consequently, the methods used to comply with therequirements of the designation tests must be proportionate and pragmatic. Thepurpose of this Section is to identify appropriate methodological options so that thecomplexity of the assessment methodology can be made proportionate to thecircumstances.In order to reduce the workload for the designation tests, the possibility exists to groupthe water bodies for the assessment (see Section 6.3). It should be stressed that waterbodies should only be grouped if they require similar levels of assessment, forexample, if purely descriptive methods are to be used because the water body isobviously substantially changed in character. However, it would be entirelyinappropriate to group water bodies which are obviously substantially changed incharacter with others where a more detailed assessment would be necessary to decidewhether they are HMWB.The designation of HMWB will be undertaken as part of the RBM planning processand is therefore subject to the requirements for the provision of public information andconsultation as defined by Article 14. Information provided by the assessmentmethods must be sufficient to ensure that the process of decision-making associatedwith the Article 4(3) designation tests is transparent allowing for the activeparticipation of the public in the planning process based on the provision of necessaryappropriate information. In addition it is clearly important that the information issufficient to demonstrate compliance.Four potentially complementary types of appraisal methods are suggested.1.Descriptive (qualitative) methods- can be applied where the position is clear-cutand detailed analysis is unnecessary. Descriptive methods may also be necessarywhere environmental or social impacts cannot be quantified;2.Simple quantitative measures for assessing the impact or benefit– involves thedescription of relative change. For example, the percentage reduction in thebeneficial output of a specified use. This can be expressed as a function of theoutput (for example kilowatt/hours for hydropower or tonnes transported p.a. fornavigation). However, the preferred output is percentage change expressed interms of EUROs as this allows a comparison between different sectors as well astemporal comparison within sectors. Ideally the absolute value of the outputshould also be included so that the scale of the change can be put into context;3.Benchmarking information– where standard costs and/or benefits can be derivedfor individual sectors or types of measures. In some cases the benchmark will most
48
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
appropriately be considered in terms of the measure19, in other cases it can beexpressed in terms of cost-effectiveness (i.e. as a cost per unit of benefit achieved)20;4.More in-depth economic assessment methods– includes a range of tools ofvarying complexity. These may be used for marginal cases and for situationsrequiring high levels of investment.The extent to which it will be necessary to move down this list of methods will dependon the costs and contentiousness of the options in question. It is considered that thefirst two types of methods will be most frequently used.6.7.1Methods for determining significant adverse effects (for Step 7)
Table 2 provides guidance on the type of analyses that may be considered. Simplequalitative descriptive methods are appropriate where the following situations apply:••The adverse effects on specified uses are relatively small in relation to the specifieduse (clearly not significant); orThe adverse effects on specified uses are very large and prejudice their viability(clearly significant). This is particularly relevant when the necessary "measures"imply the cessation of specified uses, functions and related human activities. Forexample, where the removal of flood defences would lead to widespread floodingof an urban area.
Where the situation is not clear-cut, a simple quantitative assessment should be carriedout using relative assessment of impact.Table 2:Preliminary guidance on the selection of methods for Article 4(3)(a)test.
INCREASING COMPLEXITY (move in this direction only when necessary, i.e. when adecision cannot easily be made with methods on the left of the table).
TestSignificant adverseeffect on specified use(step 7.2)
Descriptive (qualitative)methodsIf abandonment of, or verymajor change in, specifieduse/function/activityIf very limited change inspecified use/function/activity
Simple quantificationWhen partial changein specified use/function
Benchmarkinginformation
EconomicassessmentWheresignificance ofchange inspecifieduse/function isuncertain
Significant adverseeffect on environment(step 7.3)
Description of scale ofimpacts relative to benefitsprovided by restorationmeasures
National / local scalebenchmarking may beof assistance
1920
e.g. annualised costs of a fish ladder in X Euros pa.Y Euros per fish passing etc.
49
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
It may be appropriate to consider the adverse effects at a local level, or at a local levelin relation to regional or national significance. A locally significant adverse effect maybecome insignificant when considered in a regional or national context.21But it couldalso be vice versa.22It is difficult to assess the "significance" of adverse effects on the environment, becausethere is a lack of methods to quantify or cost such effects. It may be appropriate to listthe environmental impacts/benefits of the restoration measures together with asubjective estimate of the scale (e.g. large, moderate, small) (Example in Section 3.1.3 ofthe toolbox is of relevance).To assist the assessment of the “significance” of adverse effects, a standard format isprovided in the toolbox. This table lists the range of issues and information that may beconsidered.6.7.2Methods for evaluating “other means” (Step 8)
Table 3 indicates that technical feasibility and better environmental option wouldnormally be dealt with the use of descriptive methods. In the case of “betterenvironmental options” a simple table may be prepared comparing the existingspecified use and the proposed alternatives with regards to their environmentalimpacts. In some cases, the quantification of the physical impacts of the existingspecified use and alternatives may be possible.Table 3:Preliminary guidance on the selection of methods for Article 4(3)(b)test.
INCREASING COMPLEXITY (move in this direction only when necessary, i.e. when adecision cannot easily be made with methods on the left of the table).
TestTechnicallyfeasible(step 8.2)Better environ-mental options(step 8.3)Dispropor-tionate costs(step 8.4)
Descriptive (qualitative)methodsDescription of practicaldifficulties
Simplequantification
Benchmarking information
Economic assessment
Qualitative assessment forimpact on different media ifconclusion is clearDescription of scale of costsand also benefits if conclusionis clear
If uncertainabout whichoption is bestN.A.
National / local scalebenchmarking may be ofassistanceNational / local scalebenchmarking may providesufficient clarity for goodjudgementWhere local situationsignificantly differentfrom benchmark caseor where otherreasons foruncertainty exist
21
22
The reduction of power production within one particular hydropower station might be regarded assignificant but on a regional scale it might be negligible.If the power production of a hydropower plant is reduced by a small percentage, it might be regardedas not significant locally; but if the energy supply of a region depends mainly on hydropower and theproduction is reduced in each hydropower plant, it might be regarded as significant.
50
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
In many cases, the assessment of disproportionate costs may be quite straightforwardand the qualitative description of the specified use and the consequences of its removalare sufficient to decide on whether the "other means" are disproportionately costly ornot.Where this is not the case, an economic assessment of the costs and benefits (listed inSection 6.5.4) should be undertaken.To ensure that data on costs can be compared between existing modifications and"other means", and because of likely different life-times and temporal distribution ofcosts, all costs have to be annualised using standard discounted cash flow analysis andappropriate discount rates (Example in the toolbox).6.7.3Consultative mechanisms
Many of the designation tests may involve a subjective process involving a descriptiveapproach to the tests. In order to ensure a transparent approach and improve decisionmaking it may be appropriate to use formal consultative mechanisms for decisionmaking.•Consultative for a - involving a participatory approach to identify whether theforeseen impacts on uses are considered as significant. This approach should takesocial issues and cultural/local perceptions into account23These fora wouldoperate within the wider RBM stakeholder engagement and public participationprocess;Representative committees – involving the authorities responsible for watermanagement;Expert group panels - technical assessment of the options by a multi-disciplinaryteam of experts. The selection of this "expert group" is subjective but should bewell-justified and transparent. The group should include stakeholder experts.DESIGNATION OF ARTIFICIAL WATER BODIES (Step 9)
••
6.8
The designation process, in relation to artificial water bodies, is difficult to understand.Therefore this Section has been introduced to consider how to operate the designationprocess for AWB. The suggested approach should be applied to AWB (see Figure 1). Itaims to:•minimise the amount of work involved in the designation of AWB; and•ensure that the purpose of the WFD in protecting and enhancing the waterenvironment is delivered.
23
It is clearly in line with the requirements of Article 14 of the WFD to involve all interested parties.
51
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
6.8.1
Do all artificial water bodies have to be designated?
Article 4(3) states that Member States may designate a water body as artificial. Thissuggests that it may not always be necessary to consider designating waters whichhave been created by man as artificial. There may be some circumstances where longestablished water bodies, which are subject to little or no pressures, areindistinguishable from natural waters. Under such circumstances it may beappropriate to consider their current biological condition as HES or GES.6.8.2Application of "Designation test 4(3)(a)"
It is clear from the text of the Directive that the designation tests of Article 4(3) apply toAWB as well as to HMWB. However, the interpretation of Article 4(3)(a) in relation toAWB is problematic.Article 4(3)(a)the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary forachieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:….In order to undertake the Article 4(3)(a) designation test, the restoration measuresnecessary to deliver GES must be identified. This is not possible for AWB because theywere created in a location where no significant water existed before and therefore theHES natural condition would be "dry land" and a sensible GES could not be derived.Consequently, it should be assumed that test 4.3(a) does not apply to AWB. However,it is considered that the intent of Article 4.3(a) should apply to the process of AWBdesignation. This requires that restoration measures which result from the applicationof the designation process should not have a significant adverse effect on the specifieduse or on the wider environment.6.8.3Application of Article 4.3(b) test
The second "designation test 4(3)(b)" does not impose interpretation difficulties whenapplied to most AWB and should be used as a designation test. Consequently, whendesignating AWB, it should be considered whether there are “other means” which candeliver the beneficial objectives of the AWB.It should be noted that the application of the "designation test 4(3)(b)" for AWB doesnot aim at considering whether water bodies are artificial or natural (or HMWB). Thedesignation test is applied in order to see whether there are "other means" to achieve asignificantly better environmental option for example resulting in an improvement ofthe condition of the water body.
52
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
7
REFERENCE CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES FOR HMWB & AWB (Steps 10 & 11)INTRODUCTION
7.1
In the HMWB and AWB identification and designation process it is necessary toidentify the appropriate reference conditions and environmental objectives for AWBand HMWB (see steps 10 and 11 in Figure 1).For HMWB and AWB the reference conditions on which status classification is basedare called “Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP)”. The MEP represents the maximumecological quality that could be achieved for a HMWB or AWB once all mitigationmeasures, that do not have significant adverse effects on its specified use or on thewider environment, have been applied. HMWB and AWB are required to achieve"good ecological potential" (GEP) and good surface water chemical status. GEPaccommodates ”slight” changes in the values of the relevant biological qualityelements at MEP. Member States must prevent deterioration from one status class toanother, and aim to achieve GEP by 22ndDecember 2015 unless grounds for derogationto a less stringent objective under Article 4(5) or to an extended timescale under Article4(4) are demonstrated. For the timing of establishing MEP and GEP see Sections 8.2and 8.3.7.2ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL - MEP(Step 10)
A series of sub-steps are required to establish appropriate values for the qualityelements at MEP (see Figure 7). In this process it is important to differentiate between“closest comparable surface water category” and “closest comparable surface waterbody type”. The appropriate quality elements are chosen from the closest comparablecategories, whereas closest comparable water body types are used to help determinethe value of these elements for HMWB and AWB.Step 10 - substep 1 (s 10.1):Choose the appropriatequality elementsfor MEP. Identifythe closest comparable natural surface water category. This will either be a “river”,“lake”, “transitional water” or “coastal water”. The appropriate quality elements arethose of the closest comparable natural surface water category and are identified inAnnex V No. 1.1.1- 1.1.4.Step 10 - substep 2 (s 10.2):Establish thehydromorphological conditionsrequired forMEP. The values for the biological and general physico-chemical quality elements atMEP depend on the MEP hydromorphological conditions. Establishing the MEPhydromorphological conditions is one of the first steps in defining MEP since it is theseconditions which are impacted by the physical alterations and which will, primarily,dictate the ecological potential of a HMWB or AWB.
53
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Step 10 - substep 3 (s 10.3):Establish the MEPphysico-chemical conditions.Identifythe closest comparable surface water body type. Physico-chemical conditions at MEPshould be based on the conditions of this comparable type taking account of the MEPhydromorphological conditions. The physico-chemical conditions will be an importantinfluence on the values for the biological quality elements at MEP.Step 10 - substep 4 (s 10.4):Establish the MEPbiological conditionsthat shall reflect,as far as possible, those associated with the closest comparable water body type (cf. S10.3 above). The biological conditions at MEP will be influenced by the MEPhydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions.step 10.1:Choose quality elementsfor MEP (and GEP) based on comparable watercategory.
step 10.2:Establish MEP hydromorphological conditions,applying allhydromorphological mitigation measures which do not have significantadverse effects on the specified use or the wider environment.
step 10.3:Establish MEP physico-chemical conditionsbased on comparable watertype and results of step 10.2.
step 10.4:Establish MEP biological conditionsbased on comparable water type andresults of steps 10.2. and 10.3.
Figure 7:
Process for defining MEP (Steps 10.1 – 10.4)
The following example shows how the establishment of MEP can be achievedaccording to Figure 7.
Figure 8:
Example showing an estuary turned into a freshwater lake54
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
The estuary was altered for flood protection (see Figure 8). It is clearly a substantialchange in the character of the water body due to physical alterations. It is also anArticle 4(3) specified use (flood defence).Substep 10.1: The closest comparable natural water category in the present situation isa lake. The relevant biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical elements of the lake category should be used to establish MEP(see Section 7.2.1Substep 10.2: It is clear that the hydromorphological elements required for MEPdonot reflect the historical situation (estuary)but should reflect thetheoretical improvements which could be undertaken byhydromorphological mitigation measures (which have no significantadverse effect upon the use (flood protection)). The closest comparablelake type should be used to choose the values for those elements as faras possible (see Section 7.2.2).Substep 10.3: The MEP physico-chemical conditions are those values found under thegiven circumstances of step 10.2 but reflect in general the condition athigh ecological status for the most comparable lake water bodies (seeSection 7.2.3).Substep 10.4: The MEP biological conditions are those values found under the givencircumstances of step 10.2 and 10.3 (see Section 7.2.4).7.2.1Choosing the appropriate quality elements for MEP (Step 10.1)
Annex V No. 1.1.5“The quality elements applicable to artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies shall bethose applicable to whichever of the four natural surface water categories above most closelyresembles the heavily modified or artificial water body concerned”.
The relevant hydromorphological, biological and physico-chemical quality elementsare those for the most closely comparable water category (River, Lake, TransitionalWater or Coastal Water) [cf. Annex V No. 1.1.1-1.1.4]. For example, if a river has beenmodified (e.g. impounded) to closely resemble a lake, the relevant quality elementswill be those specified in the Directive for lakes [Annex V No. 1.1.2], rather than thosefor rivers [Annex V No. 1.1.1] (see Figure 9).
55
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Relevant quality elements =Lake (i.e. Annex V No. 1.1.2)
Figure 9:7.2.2
Example for choosing quality elements for MEP (s 10.1)
Establishing MEP hydromorphological conditions (Step 10.2)
Annex V No. 1.2.5"The hydromorphological conditions [of a HMWB or AWB at MEP] are consistent with theonly impacts on the surface water body being those resulting from the artificial or heavilymodified characteristics of the water body once all mitigation measures have been taken toensure the best approximation to ecological continuum, in particular with respect to migrationof fauna and appropriate spawning and breeding grounds.”
The hydromorphological conditions at MEP are the conditions that would exist if allhydromorphological mitigation measures were taken to ensure the best approximationto the ecological continuum. The mitigation measures for defining MEP should:(a) not have a significant adverse effect on the specified use (including maintenanceand operation of the specified use; see Section 6.4.2). This consideration includes anassessment of possible economic effects incurred by mitigation measures but not anassessment of disproportionate cost of the measures themselves or on the widerenvironment (see Section 6.4.7); and(b) ensure the best approximation to ecological continuum, in particular with respect tomigration of fauna and appropriate spawning and breeding grounds (Examples inthe toolbox).For the purpose of this guidance ‘best approximation to ecological continuum, inparticular with respect to migration of fauna and appropriate spawning and breedinggrounds’ is interpreted as having the following requirements:(a) An adequate quantity and quality of usable habitat to ensure that the structure andfunction of the ecosystem is maintained over space and time;
56
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
(b) Longitudinal and lateral continuity/connectivity of water bodies (e.g. rivercontinuity, aquatic – semi-aquatic - terrestrial habitat connectivity) to enable biotaaccess to the habitats on which they depend.The best approximation to ecological continuum therefore requires consideration of allhydromorphological mitigation measures that could reduce any obstacles to migrationand improve the quality, quantity and range of habitats affected by the physicalalterations. This could include connectivity to groundwater and to riparian, shore andintertidal zones. However, the WFD emphasises migration in particular. Priorityshould therefore be given to reducing any obstacles that significantly inhibitlongitudinal and lateral migration of biota.The technical feasibility and the financial costs (i.e. capital costs) that would beincurred if the mitigation measures were implemented is not a consideration in settingthe standards for the hydromorphological quality elements at MEP. Such costconsiderations are relevant when deciding whether the achievement of GEP or a lessstringent objective under Article 4(5) is appropriate for the HMWB or AWB. However,the mitigation measures should not have a significant adverse effect on the specifieduse (including economic effects), or the wider environment according to thedesignation test 4(3)(a). This can include an assessment of the economic effects on thespecified use or the wider environment. Although all mitigation measures should beidentified, it would not be useful to further consider measures that were impractical.Such impractical measures should be excluded from any detailed assessment.The combination of considering only measures which do not have a significant adverseeffect upon the use/environment and of excluding clearly impractical measures willresult in the definition of reasonable values for MEP.In designating and setting objectives for HMWB and AWB, Member States mustensure consistency with the implementation of other Community legislation [cf. Art.4(8)], such as the Fauna Flora Habitat Directive (FFH) Directive (92/43/EEC) and theBirds Directive (79/409/EEC). At the same time, the requirements of the WFD need tobe respected in the implementation of these directives. The definition of MEP mustensure that the achievement of GEP is compatible with the achievement of theobjectives established under such legislation. In the case of the FFH and BirdsDirectives, the mitigation measures used to define MEP hydromorphologicalconditions must consider the needs of those flora, fauna and habitats for which theDirectives have set objectives.
57
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
7.2.3
Establishing MEP physico-chemical conditions (Step 10.3)
Annex V No. 1.2.5“The [general] physico-chemical quality elements correspond totally or nearly totally to theundisturbed conditions associated with the surface water body type most closely comparable tothe artificial or heavily modified water body concerned.Concentrations [of specific non-synthetic pollutants] remain within the range normallyassociated with undisturbed conditions found in the surface water body type most closelycomparable to the artificial or heavily modified body concerned. (background levels = bgl)”.
The general physico-chemical conditions and the values for specific non-syntheticpollutants should correspond to those of the most closely comparable water body type,given the MEP hydromorphological conditions (see above) (Example in the toolbox).For some AWB and HMWB, the values for some of the physico-chemical qualityelements in the closest comparable water body type may be significantly different fromthe values that could be achieved in the HMWB or AWB, given the MEPhydromorphogical characteristics (see above). The following examples illustrate howHMWB may have different physico-chemical conditions than the nearest equivalentnatural water body:•The hydromorphological characteristics of impoundment created forhydropower and water supply can dictate the oxygen and temperatureconditions in the impounded water and in the downstream river. These may bedifferent from those in a natural water body;The hydromorphological characteristics of a freshwater impoundment createdfrom a dammed estuary may result in different levels of turbidity. These maybe different from those in a natural water body.
•
These differences can be taken into account when defining MEP.Since the values for these physico-chemical quality elements would not correspond“totally or even nearly totally to those for the closest comparable water body type” athigh ecological status (HES), such AWB and HMWB would never achieve MEP. Insome cases they would also be unable to achieve GEP and therefore would requirederogation to a less stringent objective under Article 4(5). Where these physico-chemical conditions are directly connected to physical alterations necessary to sustainthe specified use, it is suggested that these differences be taken into account whensetting MEP. These considerations are only applicable to certain physico-chemicalelements such as oxygenation, temperature and turbidity, and should not be applied togeneral pollutants which are not connected to the hydromophological alterations.The requirements for specific synthetic pollutants at MEP are the same as those forunmodified, non-artificial water bodies with “concentrations close to zero and at least
58
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
below the limits of detection of the advanced analytical techniques in general use” [cf.Annex V No. 1.2.5]. CIS WG 2.3 REFCOND and CIS WG 2.4 COAST will providefurther guidance.7.2.4Establishing MEP biological requirements (Step 10.4)
Annex V No. 1.2.5[Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP) is defined as the state where] "the values of therelevant biological quality elements reflect, as far as possible, those associated with the closestcomparable surface water body type, given the physical conditions which result from theartificial or heavily modified characteristics of the water body.”
MEP is intended to describe the best approximation to a natural aquatic ecosystem thatcould be achieved given the hydromorphological characteristics that cannot bechanged without significant adverse effects on the specified use or the widerenvironment. Accordingly, MEP biological conditions should reflect, as far as possible,those associated with the closest comparable water body type given thehydromorphological and resulting physico-chemical conditions at high ecologicalstatus to those established for MEP (see steps 10.2 and 10.3).The Directive allows a number of methods to be used in establishing MEP values forthe biological quality elements. The range of methods should also be used inestablishing MEP values for the general physico-chemical quality elements and specificnon-synthetic pollutants (see above). The methods are the same as those permitted inestablishing the values for quality elements at HES.They consist of:(i) Spatial networks of sites meeting MEP criteria (Example in the toolbox);(ii) Modelling approaches (Example in the toolbox);(iii) A combination of (i) and (ii); or(iv) Where it is not possible to use the above methods, expert judgement (Example inthe toolbox).7.2.5Most comparable water body
A “comparable water body” can be one or more similar water body(s) that is/are,amongst other things, most similar in terms of category, type and other characteristicsto the modified water body and from which spatial or temporal (i.e. hindcasting) datacan be derived to support the establishment of MEP. The "comparable water body"helps to:•choose quality elements to be regarded (derived from most comparable water bodycategory); and
59
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
•
set values for physico-chemical and biological quality elements regarded (derivedfrom most comparable water body type).
The first priority is to look for a comparable natural water body (or a modelled orhistorical situation) (Example in the toolbox).In many cases, the HES hydromorphological and sometimes also the physico-chemicalconditions in the closest comparable water body type will be significantly differentfrom the MEP hydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions. In establishingthe MEP biological values, it will therefore be necessary to adjust the HES biologicalvalues of the closest comparable water body type to take account of the heavilymodified or artificial characteristics.In special cases, comparable natural water bodies will not be available. In these cases,which have to be justified, information from closely comparable HMWB and AWB atMEP (i.e. best possible rather than best available) should be used where it is available(Example in the toolbox). Information from best available sites could be used as long asbest possible conditions can be extrapolated through modelling or expert judgement.The following example shows how MEP can be established by reference to anotherHMWB.If a series of large reservoirs were created in a mountainous region where large naturallakes did not exist, it may not be possible to identify a comparable natural water bodywithin the ecoregion. Under these circumstances, it may be possible to identify areservoir which is already close to MEP. A reservoir would be close to MEP if "allmitigation measures" to improve the hydromorphological characteristics of thereservoir had been undertaken. If "all mitigation measures" had not been undertaken,then the effect of undertaking "all mitigation measures" could be modelled and thenused as the definition of MEP.7.3ESTABLISHING THE GOOD ECOLOGICAL POTENTIAL – GEP (Step 11)
Annex V No. 1.2.5[The good ecological potential (GEP) is defined as the state where] “There are slight changes inthe values of the relevant biological quality elements as compared to the values found atmaximum ecological potential”.
The good ecological potential (GEP) is the environmental quality objective for HMWBand AWB. Risk of failure of the ecological objective for AWB and HMWB is assessedagainst GEP (see Annex II No. 1.4).The hydromorphological conditions at GEP must be such as to support theachievement of the GEP biological values. The values for the general physico-chemicalquality elements at GEP also need to support the achievement of the GEP biologicalvalues. However, it is also required that the values for the general physico-chemicalquality elements at GEP are such as to ensure the functioning of the ecosystem. The60
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
role of physico-chemical elements in the classification of water bodies is defined withintheWFD CIS Guidance Documents No.’s 10,provided by the WG 2.3 (REFCOND) andNo. 5, WG 2.4 (COAST).GEP also requires compliance with environmental qualitystandards established for the specific synthetic and non-synthetic pollutant qualityelements in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex V No. 1.2.6 of theDirective.The following substeps (s 11.1 – s 11.4) are necessary to establish GEP:Step 11 - substep 1 (s 11.1):The establishment of the good ecological potential forHMWB and AWB is principally based on thebiological qualityelements (derivedfrom MEP). GEP accommodates “slight changes” in the values of the biologicalelements from the MEP (Examples in the toolbox). The meaning and interpretation ofthe term “slight changes” is dealt with in theWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 10 -REFCONDandWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 6 - Intercalibration.Step 11 - substep 2 (s 11.2):Thehydromorphological conditionsat GEP must be suchas to support the achievement of the GEP biological values (Example in thetoolbox).This will require the identification of the hydromorphological conditionsnecessary to support the achievement of the GEP values for the biological qualityelements, and in particular the achievement of the values for those biological qualityelements that are sensitive to hydromorphological alterations.Step 11 - substep 3 (s 11.3):The values for thegeneral physico-chemicalqualityelements at GEP are such as to support the achievement of the GEP biological values(Example in the toolbox). It is also required that the values for the general physico-chemical quality elements at GEP are such as to ensure the functioning of theecosystem [Annex V No. 1.2.5]. The role of physico-chemical elements in theclassification of water bodies is defined within theWFD CIS Guidance Document No.’s10and5provided by the WG 2.3 (REFCOND) and WG 2.4 (COAST).Step 11 - substep 4 (s 11.4):GEP also requires compliance with environmental qualitystandards established for thespecific synthetic and non-synthetic pollutantqualityelements in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex V No. 1.2.6 (Example inthe toolbox).7.4REPORTING AND MAPPING FOR HMWB AND AWB
The classification of HMWB and AWB requires the development of monitoringsystems capable of estimating the values of the biological quality elements in AWB andHMWB and comparing those estimates with the values established for those elementsat MEP. The ratio of the measured values of the biological parameters and the valuesfor these parameters at MEP [the “ecological quality ratio”; cf. Annex V No. 1.4] will beused in classifying the status. Member States must establish values of theenvironmental quality ratio that correspond to the boundaries between the statusclasses. Some of the work of the EU Common Implementation Strategy workinggroups 2.3 (REFCOND) and 2.4 (COAST) may possibly help in establishing boundariesbetween ecological potential classes.61
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
The classification of the ecological potential of HMWB and AWB is principally basedon the degree of anthropogenic alteration away from the MEP values for the biologicalquality elements (see Section 7.2.4). For reporting purposes and mapping, MEP andGEP are combined in a single class [Annex V No. 1.4.2 (ii)], see following Figure 10.
Good and above Ecological Potential1. Slight changes to the MEP values for the biological elements.2. General physico-chemical quality elements within rangesestablished to ensure the functioning of the ecosystem.3. Specific synthetic and non-synthetic pollutants do not exceedenvironmental quality standards set in accordance with theAnnex V 1.2.6 procedure.
Moderate Ecological PotentialModerate changes to MEP values for the biological qualityelements.
Poor Ecological PotentialMajor changes to the MEP values for the biological qualityelements.
Bad Ecological PotentialSevere changes to the MEP values for the biological qualityelements (i.e. large portions of the MEP biological communityare absent).
Figure 10:7.4.1
Reporting System
Programme of measures
HMWB and AWB are required to achieve "good ecological potential" (GEP) and goodsurface water chemical status. Member States must prevent deterioration from onestatus class to another, and aim to achieve GEP by 22ndDecember 2015 unless groundsfor derogation are demonstrated.Where the results of the monitoring programmes achieved on the Annex II riskassessments indicate that a HMWB or AWB is likely to fail to achieve GEP, MemberStates must establish an appropriate set of measures to improve the ecologicalpotential of a water body with the aim of achieving GEP by 2015 (Examples in thetoolbox).This requires a good understanding of how measures will improve the ecologicalpotential of the water body. For example, the identification of the relevant GEPhydromorphological conditions will require an understanding of the relationshipsbetween hydromorphological and biological elements; this knowledge is still relativelylimited. It would also be advantageous to understand biological response lag timeswithin any particular water body.
62
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
For the design of effective and efficient programmes of measures (POMs), betterinformation is likely to be collected over time. In the meantime, Member States willhave to base the design of POMs on the best available knowledge and judgements.If it is technically infeasible or disproportionately expensive to achieve GEP by 2015,Member States may extend the deadline for achieving GEP in accordance with Article4(4) or establish a less stringent objective for the water body under Article 4(5). In thiscontext theWFD CIS Guidance Document No. 10produced by the CIS-WorkingGroup WATECO for the assessment of disproportionate costs should be considered.
63
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
88.1
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND OUTLOOKOVERVIEW OF MEASURES AND THEIR COSTS IN THE HMWB ANDAWB PROCESS
There are some issues within the designation process that are not particularly uniqueto one single step of the identification and designation process. These are summarisedbelow.Different kinds ofmeasuresare to be considered at different stages (steps) of theprocess. These include restoration measures in the designation test 4(3)(a) andmitigation measures for establishing MEP and GEP. For reaching the environmentalquality objectives, a programme of measures needs to be set up for each RBD. Thisincludes not only (mitigation) measures for AWB or HMWB, but also measures fornatural water bodies.When (restoration or mitigation) measures are being identified and their impactsassessed, the scale becomes important. It has to be taken into account that measuresupstream might influence the conditions downstream and vice-versa. Theidentification of suitable measures can be difficult, because information on the cause-effect relationship of measures is often insufficient. Related to the identification (and atsome points realisation) of different measures, considerations ofcostsand benefits aswell as technical feasibility are relevant at several stages of the process to differentextents, as shown in Table 4.The following Table 4 gives an overview of the types of measures (second column) thatare to be considered in the different steps (first column) of the designation andobjective setting processes for HMWB and AWB. In the third column the related cost(and benefit) considerations are listed, and it is indicated where the consideration oftechnical feasibility is relevant.
64
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Table 4:
Overview of measures and cost considerations in the overall HMWBand AWB identification and designation processMeasures to be consideredNone.Restoration measuresnecessaryto achieve GES.Costs (and benefits) related to measures /othermeansNot considered.•When assessing the adverse effects on thespecified uses and on the wider environment,costsneed to be considered.Thebenefitsof achieving GES must beconsidered, other benefits may be considered.Costs of restoration measures (includingdisproportionality of costs) areNOTconsidered.Comparison of current benefits with benefitsofother means.Disproportionality of costs of other meansshould be considered.Technical feasibility of other means shouldbe considered.When assessing the adverse effects on thespecified uses and on the wider environment,costsneed to be considered.The benefits to the water body of applying themitigation measures should be considered.Costs of mitigation measures (includingdisproportionality of costs) areNOTconsidered.Technical feasibility of mitigation measuresNOTto be considered.When assessing the adverse effects on thespecified uses and on the wider environment,costsneed to be considered.The benefits to the water body of applying themitigation measures should be considered.Costs of mitigation measures (includingdisproportionality of costs) areNOTconsidered.Technical feasibility of mitigation measuresNOTto be considered.
Step1-6: Up to provisional identification7: Designation test 4(3)(a)
••
8: Designation test 4(3)(b)
Not "measures" but “othermeans”are considered.
•••
9: Designation10: Establishing MEP
None.Allmitigation measures24that:•do not significantlyadversely affect thespecified uses or the widerenvironment; andensure the bestapproximation to ecologicalcontinuum.
Not considered.•
••
•
•11: Establishing GEPMitigation measuresthat:•do not significantlyadversely affect thespecified uses or the widerenvironment; andimprove water body toslight deviation of MEP.•
••
•
•For all water bodies (natural,artificial and heavily modified):POM for reaching the environmentalquality objectives (EQO)Allmeasuresaccording toArticle 11 WFD (including othermeans and mitigation measuresconsidered in the designationprocess)..•
Costs of measures (includingdisproportionality of costs) should beconsidered.Select the most cost-effective combination ofmeasures to achieve the EQO.Technical feasibility of the measures shouldbe considered.
••
24
According to Annex V 1.2.5 WFD, all hydromorphological mitigation measures should be theoreticallyconsidered in order to define the MEP. However, it would not be useful to consider impracticalmeasures. For further explanation please see Section 7.2.2.
65
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Within the first steps up to provisional HMWB identification (steps 1-6), no measuresor cost and feasibility estimations are considered.In the first designation test (step 7) all "restoration measures" necessary to achieve theGES are to be considered, regardless of their costs or technical feasibility. In this test ithas to be assessed whether these restoration measures have a significant adverse effecton the specified uses or the wider environment. In assessing this, cost considerationsare relevant (e.g. loss of revenue). In the second designation test (step 8), no measuresare considered but "other means" (including displacement or replacement of currentspecified use),25that serve the same beneficial objective, are considered. These othermeans have to be assessed with regard to their technical feasibility and theirdisproportionality of costs.In defining MEP (step 10) and GEP (step 11) conditions, all mitigation measures thatdo not have significant adverse effects neither on the specified uses nor on the widerenvironment are to be considered. The capital costs that would be incurred if themitigation measures were implemented and disproportionality of costs are notrelevant considerations in this context. The mitigation measures only define thereference conditions for the classification of HMWB and AWB. Setting this standarddoes not require the measures to be implemented. Again only cost in the context ofimpact on specified uses is relevant. When setting up the RBMP, the feasibility andcosts play a major role and might lead to derogations.8.2TIMING IN THE FIRST RIVER BASIN PLANNING CYCLE
The first draft RBMP should be available for public consultation by December 2008[Article14(1)(c)], while the final version is due one year later, in December 2009[Article13(6)]. The RBMP shall be reviewed and updated at the latest in December 2015and every 6 years thereafter [Article13(7)].This Guidance Document provides advice on how the HMWB and AWB identificationand designation process should be undertaken during the first RBMP cycle. Anoverview of the step-wise identification and designation process for the first planningcycle is given in Section 4. In this Section we describe the timetable for when particularprocess activities have to be completed within this first cycle. It will be important thatthe timing of these activities is considered within other relevant WFD CommonImplementation Strategy working group Guidance Documents. Figure 11 identifies themajor deadlines in the timetable of the HMWB and AWB identification anddesignation process in the first planning cycle.As identified in Section 5.7 the provisional identification of HMWB and AWB will becomplete by Dec 2004. For physically modified water bodies an assessment of thelikelihood of failing to meet the “GES” objective (step 5) must be complete by Dec 2004to determine whether a water body is to be provisionally identified as HMWB (step 6).
25
For example: replacing a particular hydropower station with a new hydropower station in a differentwater body, or replacing hydropower with wind power.
66
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
For AWB an assessment of the likelihood of failing to meet a “GEP” objective must becomplete by Dec 2004. Determination of “GES” and “GEP” prior to the Dec 2004deadline will only be first estimations of these objectives based on availableknowledge, data and tools. It is expected that further refinement of these objectiveswill be made later in the planning process as new tools and data become available,particularly as a result of further monitoring.For provisionally identified HMWB, designation (or not; step 7-9), determination ofGEP (step 10-11) and an assessment of the risk of failing to meet the “GEP” objectivemust be complete by Dec 2008. For identified AWB it is expected that between 2004-8the water body will be designated as AWB, the estimate of GEP will be refined and therisk of failing to meet the refined GEP will be reassessed. If a designated HMWB orAWB does not meet the GEP objective, then a programme of measures or a case forderogation has to be developed by Dec 2008. This allows one year for consultation ofthe draft RBMP before publication of the final RBMP in 2009.For some provisionally identified HMWB, Member States may wish to move thedesignation steps (steps 7-9), the first estimation of GEP and the assessment of thelikelihood of failing the GEP objective forward. This may be particularly appropriatefor modified water bodies that have changed category (e.g. river to reservoir). Here theassessment of the likelihood of failing the GES objective will be straightforward(comparing a reservoir with a river) as there will be little uncertainty over theidentification of the water body as a provisional HMWB. Consequently, steps 5 & 6should not involve complex assessments and steps 7-11 can start sooner.As a general rule steps 7-11 and the assessment of the risk of failing the GEP objectiveshould occur as soon as possible before Dec 2008.
Bywhen?2004
What major task?Characterisation ofriver basin district[Art. 5]
What needs to be done for HMWB and AWB?steps 1-6:Including: identification of water bodies (step 1); identification ofAWB (step 2); description of hydromorphological changes (step 3);description of significant changes in hydromorphology (step 4);estimation of GES (non-AWB); likelihood of failing GES objective(Step 5; non-AWB); estimation of GEP (AWB); likelihood of failingGEP (AWB); and provisional HMWB identification (step 6).steps 7-11:Including designation tests (steps 7 and 8), designation (step 9),identification of reference conditions (step 10) and environmentalquality objective (step 11) for HMWB and AWB.
2008/9
River basinmanagement plan &public consultation[Art. 13 & 14]
Figure 11:
Major deadlines in the timetable for the identification anddesignation of HMWB and AWB in the first planning cycle
67
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
8.3
HMWB & AWB IN FUTURE RBMP CYCLESLook out! The view of future RBMP cycles has some implications for thefirst process of designationIt is important to appreciate that the identification and designation ofHMWB and AWB is not a “one off” process and the Directive provides forthe flexibility to modify designations to take account of changes over timein environmental, social and economic circumstances.
The designation process in the second RBMP cycle will be different in severalimportant aspects. Clearly it is not appropriate to give a detailed assessment of thedesignation process for future cycles here as it is likely to change as a result ofexperiences during the first planning cycle. We can, however, give an indication of thekey differences that will be encountered.8.3.1Characterisation in the second cycle
The second characterisation of River Basin District (RBD) in the second RBMP cycle(first review) has to be finished by 2013 [Article5(2)]. The main difference with the firstcharacterisation will be that water bodies (natural, HMWB & AWB) will already havebeen identified and a fully compliant monitoring programme should be in place.Characterisation is likely to start with a review of monitoring data which will definethe current (ca 2013) status of waters. On the basis of this information, water bodydefinitions could be at least partly changed. This will ensure that water bodies can beused to correctly describe the status of surface waters. For example, if monitoring hasdemonstrated that the status of half a water body has changed, then the water bodycould be split in two, whereas if the status of two adjacent water bodies were now thesame then they could be combined into a single water body.The risk assessment process in the second RBMP cycle will be based on a betterunderstanding of GES and GEP. Consequently, the risk assessment process willidentify the risks of failure of good status for natural water bodies and GEP for HMWBand AWB.8.3.2Designation tests in the second cycle
In the second RBMP cycle the Article 4(3) designation tests will be applied in threecircumstances: (i) (ii) and (iii) below:(i) Suspected HMWB and AWB which were, possibly, mistakenly not designated inthe first RBMP. For instance water bodies which were historically modified butwhich were mistakenly not identified and designated during the previousplanning cycle (they have not deteriorated);
68
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
(ii) Newly modified water bodies. For instance water bodies that have becomesubstantially changed in character as a result of the application of the Article 4(7)derogation.Water bodies from situations (i) and (ii) will in general proceed in the same manner asin the first RBMP cycle, but without provisional identification of HMWB.(iii) As part of the review of existing HMWB and AWB. The designations of HMWBand AWB must be reviewed every six years. It is assumed that these reviews willbe undertaken as part of the production of the RBMP which will be complete in2015. It is assumed that a review of HMWB and AWB will involve areconsideration of the designation tests. This is likely to include a screeningprocess which will assess whether the situation has changed since the originaldesignation [Annex VII (B)]. Only where changes have occurred will the waterbody be considered for the designation tests in the second cycle. A review may benecessary if there has been a change in the:•technical circumstances of the use (including operation and maintenance) orthe disappearance of the use;•use itself;•available restoration measures, so that they may no longer have a significantadverse effect on the use or the environment;•“other means” available to deliver the same beneficial objective of the use, sothat they may no longer be disproportionately expensive or technicallyinfeasible.In future planning cycles existing HMWB and AWB may be "de-designated" and newHMWB and AWB being designated.8.3.3Review of MEP (and GEP) values in the second cycle
The values established for MEP in step 10, sub-steps 10.1-10.4, must be reviewed everysix years (Annex II No. 1.3(ii)). This will mean that GEP also has to be revised every sixyears, as GEP is a “slight deviation” from MEP. This would involve a similar screeningprocess as for the review of the designation tests.
69
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Natural & HM water bodiesCharacterisation (Steps 3-5):No3. “Screening”: Are there any changes in hydromorphology?4. Description of significant changes in hydromorphology5. “Risk assessment”YesIdentification of new HMWB (Step 6)Water body substantially changed incharacter due to physical alterations byhuman activityYesExisting HMWB (Step 6)Water body substantially changed incharacter due to physical alterations byhuman activityInitial screeningHas the situation significantlychanged since the application ofprevious designation tests?YesDesignation test 4(3)(a) (Step 7)New & ExistingArtificial WaterBodies (Step 2)Designation test 4(3)(b) (Step 8)No
Define/ Review reference conditions andenvironmental objectives (Steps 10-11)10. Maximum Ecological Potential11. Good Ecological PotentialInclude within RBMP
Figure 12:
Consideration of HMWB during the second River BasinManagement Plan
70
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
8.4
CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
This Guidance Document provides advice on how the HMWB and AWB identificationand designation process should be undertaken during the first RBMP cycle(2008/2009). The designation process in the second and in subsequent RBMP cycleswill be different in several aspects. It is important to appreciate that the identificationand designation of HMWB and AWB is not a “one off” process and that the WFDprovides for the flexibility to modify designations to take account of changes over timein environmental, social and economic circumstances.This Guidance Document is based on the experiences of thirty-four case studies. Itshould, therefore, be applicable to most circumstances. However, further experiencesin implementing the provisions relevant to HMWB and AWB in Member States willshed new light on the interpretation of the HMWB and AWB requirements of theDirective and the approach suggested in the Guidance and the accompanying toolbox.In the pilot river basins as well as in other river basins across Europe the Guidance willbe applied in the coming months and years. This HMWB and AWB GuidanceDocument will require adaptations as a result of these new experiences and, as allother CIS Guidance Documents, the HMWB and AWB Guidance will remain a “livingdocument”.
71
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
9
LIST OF REFERENCES
Hansen, Wenke, Eleftheria Kampa, Christine Laskov and R. Andreas Kraemer (2002),Synthesis Report on the Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified WaterBodies (draft), Ecologic (Institute for International and European EnvironmentalPolicy), Berlin, 29thApril 2002.Owen, Roger, Willie Duncan and Peter Pollard (2002), Definition and Establishment ofReference Conditions, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, April 2002.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 1 (Aug 2002).Economics and the Environment – TheImplementation Challenge of the Water Framework Directive.Published by the DirectorateGeneral Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-4144-4,ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 2 (Dec 2002).Identification of Water Bodies.Publishedby the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, ISBNNo. 92-894-5122-X, ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 3 (Dec 2002).Analysis of Pressures and Impacts.Published by the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission,Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5123-8, ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4 (Jan 2003).Identification and Designation of Artificialand Heavily Modified Waterbodies.Published by the Directorate General Environment ofthe European Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5124-6, ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 5 (Feb 2003).Transitional and Coastal Waters –Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems.Published by the DirectorateGeneral Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5125-4,ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 6 (Dec 2002).Towards a guidance on establishment ofthe intercalibration network and the process on the intercalibration exercise.Published by theDirectorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5126-2, ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 7 (Jan 2003).Monitoring under the Water FrameworkDirective.Published by the Directorate General Environment of the EuropeanCommission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5127-0, ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 8 (Dec 2002).Public Participation in Relation to theWater Framework Directive.Published by the Directorate General Environment of theEuropean Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5128-9, ISSN No. 1725-1087.WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 9 (Dec 2002).Implementing the GeographicalInformation System Elements (GIS) of the Water Framework Directive.Published by theDirectorate General Environment of the European Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5129-7, ISSN No. 1725-1087.
72
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 10 (Mar 2003).Rivers and Lakes – Typology, ReferenceConditions and Classification Systems.Published by the Directorate GeneralEnvironment of the European Commission, Brussels, ISBN No. 92-894-5614-0, ISSNNo. 1725-1087.
73
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ANNEX I - GLOSSARYTerms used within the Guidance (excluding terms already defined in Article 2 of theDirective).TermBeneficialobjectivesCommonImplementationStrategyDefinitionThe benefits that result from the artificial or heavily modifiedcharacteristics of a water body. These can include "specified use"-related or environmental benefits.The Common Implementation Strategy for the Water FrameworkDirective (known as the CIS) was agreed by the EuropeanCommission, Member States and Norway in May 2001. The mainaim of the CIS is to provide support in the implementation of theWFD, by developing a common understanding and guidance onkey elements of this Directive. Experts from the above countriesand candidate countries as well as stakeholders from the watercommunity are all involved in the CIS to:•••Raise awareness an exchange information;Develop Guidance Documents on various technical issues;and,Carry out integrated testing in pilot river basins.
A series of working groups and joint activities has been developedto help carry out the activities listed above. A Strategic Co-ordination Group (or SCG) oversees these working groups andreports directly to the Water Directors of the European Union,Norway, Switzerland, the Candidate Countries and Commission,the engine of the CIS.For more information refer to the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html.ImpactModificationThe environmental effect of a pressure (e.g. fish killed, ecosystemmodified).Change (or changes) made to the surface water body by humanactivity (which may result in failing to meet good ecologicalstatus). Each modification will have a current or historical"specified use" (such as straightening for navigation, orconstruction of flood banks for flood defence).
74
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
TermPhysical alterationsPressure26
DefinitionModifications of the hydromorphology of a water body by humanactivity.The direct effect of the driver (for example, an effect that causes achange in flow or a change in the water chemistry of surface andgroundwater bodies.Necessary hydromorphological changes to achieve GES (e.g. re-meandering of a straightened channel and introduction of"natural" pool-riffle sequences using references to historicalchannel form). Associated with "Designation test 4(3)(a)".Water uses as described in Article 4(3)(a)(ii)-(v).Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Communityaction in the field of water policy.The natural environment and the human environment includingarchaeology, heritage, landscape and geomorphology.
Restorationmeasures
Specified useWFD, The DirectiveWider environment
26
Interim working definition. Discussions in the context of the WFD implementation are ongoing
75
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ANNEX II - HMWB AND RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENTPLANS (FIRST CYCLE)The RBMP must be produced for each river basin district [Article 13(1)], covering theinformation detailed in Annex VII [Article 13(4)]. The information detailed in AnnexVII relevant for HMWB and AWB in the first cycle concern at least the following pointsA1, A2, A4 and A7 of Annex VII:A1 requires a general description of the characteristics of the river basin district[Article 5 and Annex II No. 1.1/2/3], i.e. the identification of boundaries of waterbodies, a mapping of types and an identification of reference conditions. Guidanceon the identification of HMWB and AWB as well as the identification of themaximum ecological potential (MEP) have to be given by this HMWB and AWBGuidance Document. The process should be in line with the general identificationof water bodies and the identification of reference conditions (REFCOND andCOAST Guidance Documents).A2 requires a summary of significant pressures and impacts of human activity[Article 5 and Annex II No. 1.4/5], i.e. an overall description of significantpressures such as important hydromorphological changes and an assessment ofthose surface waters being at risk of failing the environmental objectives.Guidance on the overall description of significant pressures and the assessment ofimpacts will be provided by the IMPRESS Guidance, the identification ofsignificant physical pressures and their impact on hydromorphology and biologyas well as the designated HMWB and AWB being at risk of failing theenvironmental quality objective (GEP) should be covered by the HMWB & AWBGuidance. The process of HMWB and AWB identification and designation shouldbe in line with the general approach of IMPRESS.A4 requires a map of the monitoring networks and a presentation, in a mappedformat, of the results of the monitoring programmes [Article 8 and Annex V]. It isassumed that the Guidance on the monitoring requirements for HMWB and AWBwill be provided by the Monitoring Working Group. Some advice for the selectionof the most sensitive indicators for the operational monitoring of HMWB andAWB identified as being at risk will be provided by this HMWB GuidanceDocument.A7 requires a summary of the programmes of measures [Article 11], includinginformation on how the established environmental quality objectives [Article 4]are to be achieved. The HMWB & AWB Guidance and toolbox should assist inidentifying those measures which could improve the status of HMWB and AWBresulting from physical impacts. Not only measures for the designation tests[Article 4(3)] will be provided, i.e. examples for restoration measures to achieveGES, but also mitigation measures - which have no adverse effects on “specifieduses” or the wider environment - to identify MEP and to achieve GEP. Themeasures will consider all important specified uses and focus on the improvementof the hydromorphological circumstances.
76
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ANNEX III - ELEMENTS OF HMWB IN THE WFD (ORIGINAL TEXT)Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community actionin the field of water policyTitleArticle 2SpecificationDefinitions4.'River' means a body of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land but which may flowunderground for part of its course.'Artificial water body' means a body of surface water created by human activity.'Heavily modified water body' means a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activityis substantially changed in character, as designated by the Member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II.'Body of surface water' means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, riveror canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water.'Good ecological potential' is the status of a heavily modified or an artificial body of water, so classified in accordancewith the relevant provisions of Annex V.Provision
8.9.
10.
23.
Article 4
Environmental objectives1.In making operational the programmes of measures specified in the river basin management plans:(a) for surface waters(i)Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies ofsurface water, subject to the application of paragraphs 6 and 7 and without prejudice to paragraph 8;
77
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Article 4
Environmental objectives(ii)Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, subject to the application ofsubparagraph (iii) for artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good surfacewater status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with theprovisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance withparagraph 4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;Member States shall protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim ofachieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the dateof entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to theapplication of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;Member States shall implement the necessary measures in accordance with Article 16(1) and (8), with the aimof progressively reducing pollution from priority substances and ceasing or phasing out emissions, dischargesand losses of priority hazardous substances;
(iii)
(iv)
without prejudice to the relevant international agreements referred to in Article 1 for the parties concerned.3.Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving goodecological status would have significant adverse effects on:(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)the wider environment;navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power generation orirrigation;water regulation, flood protection, land drainage; orother equally important sustainable human development activities.
(b) the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for reasons oftechnical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other means, which are a significantly betterenvironmental option.78
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Article 4
Environmental objectivesSuch designation and the reasons for it shall be specifically mentioned in the river basin management plans requiredunder Article 13 and reviewed every six years.4.The deadlines established under paragraph 1 may be extended for the purposes of phased achievement of the objectivesfor bodies of water, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected body of water when all ofthe following conditions are met:(a) Member States determine that all necessary improvements in the status of bodies of water cannot reasonably beachieved within the timescales set out in that paragraph for at least one of the following reasons:(i)(ii)(iii)the scale of improvements required can only be achieved in phases exceeding the timescale, for reasons oftechnical feasibility;completing the improvements within the timescale would be disproportionately expensive;natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in the status of the body of water.
(b) Extension of the deadline, and the reasons for it, are specifically set out and explained in the river basin managementplan required under Article 13.(c) Extensions shall be limited to a maximum of two further updates of the river basin management plan except in caseswhere the natural conditions are such that the objectives cannot be achieved within this period.(d) A summary of the measures required under Article 11 which are envisaged as necessary to bring the bodies of waterprogressively to the required status by the extended deadline, the reasons for any significant delay in making thesemeasures operational, and the expected timetable for their implementation are set out in the river basin managementplan. A review of the implementation of these measures and a summary of any additional measures shall beincluded in updates of the river basin management plan.5.Member States may aim to achieve less stringent environmental objectives than those required under paragraph 1 forspecific bodies of water when they are so affected by human activity, as determined in accordance with Article 5(1), ortheir natural condition is such that the achievement of these objectives would be infeasible or disproportionatelyexpensive, and all the following conditions are met:(a) the environmental and socioeconomic needs served by such human activity cannot be achieved by other means,which are a significantly better environmental option not entailing disproportionate costs;
79
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Article 4
Environmental objectives(b) Member States ensure:•8.for surface water, the highest ecological and chemical status possible is achieved, given impacts that could notreasonably have been avoided due to the nature of the human activity or pollution.
When applying paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, a Member State shall ensure that the application does not permanentlyexclude or compromise the achievement of the objectives of this Directive in other bodies of water within the same riverbasin district and is consistent with the implementation of other Community environmental legislation.
Article 5
Characteristics of the river basin district, review of the environmental impact of human activity and economic analysis ofwater use1.Each Member State shall ensure that for each river basin district or for the portion of an international river basin districtfalling within its territory:•••an analysis of its characteristics;a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater; andan economic analysis of water use.
is undertaken according to the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III and that it is completed at the latestfour years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.2.The analyses and reviews mentioned under paragraph 1 shall be reviewed, and if necessary updated at the latest 13 yearsafter the date of entry into force of this Directive and every six years thereafter.
Article 8
Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas1.Member States shall ensure the establishment of programmes for the monitoring of water status in order to establish acoherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district:•for surface waters such programmes shall cover:
80
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
(i)(ii)2.
the volume and level or rate of flow to the extent relevant for ecological and chemical status and ecological potential,andthe ecological and chemical status and ecological potential.
These programmes shall be operational at the latest six years after the date of entry into force of this Directive unlessotherwise specified in the legislation concerned. Such monitoring shall be in accordance with the requirements ofAnnex V.
Article 11
Programme of measures3.'Basic measures' are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of:(i)for any other significant adverse impacts on the status of water identified under Article 5 and Annex II, in particularmeasures to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are consistent with theachievement of the required ecological status or good ecological potential for bodies of water designated as artificialor heavily modified. Controls for this purpose may take the form of a requirement for prior authorisation orregistration based on general binding rules where such a requirement is not otherwise provided for underCommunity legislation. Such controls shall be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated.
7.
The programmes of measures shall be established at the latest nine years after the date of entry into force of this Directiveand all the measures shall be made operational at the latest 12 years after that date.
Article 13
River basin management plans4.6.7.The river basin management plan shall include the information detailed in Annex VII.River basin management plans shall be published at the latest nine years after the date of entry into force of thisDirective.River basin management plans shall be reviewed and updated at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force ofthis Directive and every six years thereafter.
81
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Article 14
Public information and consultation1.Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive, inparticular in the production, review and updating of the river basin management plans. Member States shall ensurethat, for each river basin district, they publish and make available for comments to the public, including users:(c) draft copies of the river basin management plan, at least one year before the beginning of the period to which theplan refers.
82
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Annex II1.1.1.Surface WatersCharacterisation of surface water body typesMember States shall identify the location and boundaries of bodies of surface water and shall carry out an initialcharacterisation of all such bodies in accordance with the following methodology. Member States may group surfacewater bodies together for the purposes of this initial characterisation.(i)The surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be identified as falling within either one of thefollowing surface water categories - rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters - or as artificial surfacewater bodies or heavily modified surface water bodies.For artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies the differentiation shall be undertaken in accordancewith the descriptors for whichever of the surface water categories most closely resembles the heavily modifiedor artificial water body concerned.In applying the procedures set out in this Section to heavily modified or artificial surface water bodiesreferences to high ecological status shall be construed as references to maximum ecological potential as definedin table 1.2.5 of Annex V. The values for maximum ecological potential for a water body shall be reviewedevery six years.
(v)
1.3.
Establishment of type-specific reference conditions for surface water body types(ii)
1.4.
Identification of PressuresMember States shall collect and maintain information on the type and magnitude of the significant anthropogenicpressures to which the surface water bodies in each river basin district are liable to be subject, in particular thefollowing.Estimation and identification of significant point source pollution, in particular by substances listed in Annex VIII, fromurban, industrial, agricultural and other installations and activities, based,inter alia,on information gathered under:(i)(ii)(iii)Articles 15 and 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC;Articles 9 and 15 of Directive 96/61/EC;Article 11 of Directive 76/464/EEC; and
and for the purposes of the initial river basin management plan:
83
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
(iv)
Directives 75/440/EC, 76/160/EEC, 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC.
Estimation and identification of significant diffuse source pollution, in particular by substances listed in Annex VIII,from urban, industrial, agricultural and other installations and activities; based, inter alia, on information gatheredunder:(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/676/EEC;Articles 7 and 17 of Directive 91/414/EEC;Directive 98/8/EC;Directives 75/440/EEC, 76/160/EEC, 76/464/EEC, 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC.
and for the purposes of the first river basin management plan:Estimation and identification of significant water abstraction for urban, industrial, agricultural and other uses, includingseasonal variations and total annual demand, and of loss of water in distribution systems.Estimation and identification of the impact of significant water flow regulation, including water transfer and diversion,on overall flow characteristics and water balances.Identification of significant morphological alterations to water bodies.Estimation and identification of other significant anthropogenic impacts on the status of surface waters.Estimation of land use patterns, including identification of the main urban, industrial and agricultural areas and, whererelevant, fisheries and forests.
84
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
1.5.
Assessment of ImpactMember States shall carry out an assessment of the susceptibility of the surface water status of bodies to the pressuresidentified above.Member States shall use the information collected above, and any other relevant information including existingenvironmental monitoring data, to carry out an assessment of the likelihood that surface waters bodies within the riverbasin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives set for the bodies under Article 4. Member States mayutilise modelling techniques to assist in such an assessment.For those bodies identified as being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives, further characterisation shall,where relevant, be carried out to optimise the design of both the monitoring programmes required under Article 8, andthe programmes of measures required under Article 11.
Annex V1.1.1.1.5.Quality elements for the classification of ecological statusThe quality elements applicable to artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies shall be those applicable towhichever of the four natural surface water categories above most closely resembles the heavily modified or artificialwater body concerned.Normative definitions of ecological status classificationsDefinitions for maximum, good and moderate ecological potential for heavily modified or artificial water bodies
1.2.1.2.5.
ElementBiological qualityelements
Maximum ecological potentialThe values of the relevant biological qualityelements reflect, as far as possible, thoseassociated with the closest comparable surfacewater body type, given the physical conditionswhich result from the artificial or heavilymodified characteristics of the water body.
Good ecological potentialThere are slight changes in the values ofthe relevant biological quality elementsas compared to the values found atmaximum ecological potential.
Moderate ecological potentialThere are moderate changes in thevalues of the relevant biological qualityelements as compared to the valuesfound at maximum ecological potential.These values are significantly moredistorted than those found under goodquality.
85
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ElementHydromorpho-logical elements
Maximum ecological potentialThe hydromorphological conditions areconsistent with the only impacts on the surfacewater body being those resulting from theartificial or heavily modified characteristics ofthe water body once all mitigation measureshave been taken to ensure the bestapproximation to ecological continuum, inparticular with respect to migration of faunaand appropriate spawning and breedinggrounds.
Good ecological potentialConditionsconsistentwiththeachievement of the values specifiedabove for the biological qualityelements.
Moderate ecological potentialConditionsconsistentwiththeachievement of the values specifiedabove for the biological qualityelements.
Physico-chemicalelementsGeneralconditions
The values for physico-chemicalelements are within the rangesestablished so as to ensure thefunctioning of the ecosystem and theachievement of the values specifiedNutrient concentrations remain within the above for the biological qualityrange normally associated with such elements.Temperature and pH do not reach levelsundisturbed conditions.The levels of temperature, oxygen balance and outside the ranges established so as topH are consistent with those found in the most ensure the functioning of the ecosystemclosely comparable surface water body types and the achievement of the valuesspecified above for the biological qualityunder undisturbed conditions.elements.Physico-chemical elements correspond totallyor nearly totally to the undisturbed conditionsassociated with the surface water body typemost closely comparable to the artificial orheavily modified body concerned.Nutrient concentrations do not exceedthe levels established so as to ensure thefunctioning of the ecosystem and theachievement of the values specifiedabove for the biological qualityelements.
Conditionsconsistentwiththeachievement of the values specifiedabove for the biological qualityelements.
86
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ElementSpecific syntheticpollutants
Maximum ecological potential
Good ecological potential
Moderate ecological potentialConditionsconsistentwiththeachievement of the values specifiedabove for the biological qualityelements.
Concentrations close to zero and at least below Concentrations not in excess of thethe limits of detection of the most advanced standards set in accordance with theanalytical techniques in general use.procedure detailed in Section 1.2.6withoutprejudicetoDirective91/414/EC and Directive 98/8/EC.(< EQS)Concentrations remain within the rangenormally associated with the undisturbedconditions found in the surface water bodytype most closely comparable to the artificial orheavily modified body concerned (backgroundlevels = bgl).Concentrations not in excess of thestandards set in accordance with theprocedure detailed in Section 1.2.6 ( 1 )withoutprejudicetoDirective91/414/EC and Directive 98/8/EC.(< EQS)
Specific non-syntheticpollutants
Conditionsconsistentwiththeachievement of the values specifiedabove for the biological qualityelements.
1.4.1.4.1.
Classification and presentation of ecological statusComparability of biological monitoring results(i)Member States shall establish monitoring systems for the purpose of estimating the values of the biologicalquality elements specified for each surface water category or for heavily modified and artificial bodies of surfacewater. In applying the procedure set out below to heavily modified or artificial water bodies, references toecological status should be construed as references to ecological potential. Such systems may utilise particularspecies or groups of species which are representative of the quality element as a whole.
87
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
1.4.2.
Presentation of monitoring results and classification of ecological status and ecological potential(i)For surface water categories, the ecological status classification for the body of water shall be represented by thelower of the values for the biological and physico-chemical monitoring results for the relevant quality elementsclassified in accordance with the first column of the table set out below. Member States shall provide a map foreach river basin district illustrating the classification of the ecological status for each body of water, colour-codedin accordance with the second column of the table set out below to reflect the ecological status classification ofthe body of water:Ecological status classificationHighGoodModeratePoorBad(ii)Colour CodeBlueGreenYellowOrangeRed
For heavily modified and artificial water bodies, the ecological potential classification for the body of watershall be represented by the lower of the values for the biological and physico-chemical monitoring results forthe relevant quality elements classified in accordance with the first column of the table set out below. MemberStates shall provide a map for each river basin district illustrating the classification of the ecological potentialfor each body of water, colour-coded, in respect of artificial water bodies in accordance with the secondcolumn of the table set out below, and in respect of heavily modified water bodies in accordance with thethird column of that table:
88
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Ecological potentialclassificationGood and aboveModeratePoorBadArtificial Water Bodies
Colour codeHeavily ModifiedEqual green and dark grey stripesEqual yellow and dark grey stripesEqual orange and dark grey stripesEqual red and dark grey stripes
Equal green and light grey stripesEqual yellow and light grey stripesEqual orange and light grey stripesEqual red and light grey stripes
(iii)
Member States shall also indicate, by a black dot on the map, those bodies of water where failure to achievegood status or good ecological potential is due to non-compliance with one or more environmental qualitystandards which have been established for that body of water in respect of specific synthetic and non-synthetic pollutants (in accordance with the compliance regime established by the Member State).
89
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Annex VII
River basin management plansA.River basin management plans shall cover the following elements:1.1.1.a general description of the characteristics of the river basin district required under Article 5 and Annex II.This shall include:for surface waters:•••2.mapping of the location and boundaries of water bodies;mapping of the ecoregions and surface water body types within the river basin;identification of reference conditions for the surface water body types.
a summary of significant pressures and impact of human activity on the status of surface water andgroundwater, including:••••estimation of point source pollution;estimation of diffuse source pollution, including a summary of land use;estimation of pressures on the quantitative status of water including abstractions;analysis of other impacts of human activity on the status of water.
4.
a map of the monitoring networks established for the purposes of Article 8 and Annex V, and a presentationin map form of the results of the monitoring programmes carried out under those provisions for the status of:surface water (ecological and chemical);groundwater (chemical and quantitative);protected areas;a summary of the programme or programmes of measures adopted under Article 11, including the ways inwhich the objectives established under Article 4 are thereby to be achieved.
4.14.24.37.
90
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ANNEX IV - LIST OF WORKING GROUP MEMBERSNAME FIRST NAMEALVARESTeresaCOUNTRYPORTUGALORGANISATIONADDRESSPHONE[351] 21 8430347FAX[351] 218409218EMAIL[email protected]Ministerio do Ambiente eAv. Almirantedo Ordamento do Gago Coutinho 30;Territorio PT-1049-066 Lisbon
ANDREADAKIS
Andreas
GREECE
National TechnicalUniversity
5, IroonPolytechniouStr.GR-15780Athens
[30] 1-6528078
[30] 1-7722-899
Aschauer
Arno
Austria
Umweltbundesamt Spittelauer Lände 5ÖsterreichA-1090 Wien
[43] 1 31304 3581
[43] 1 31304 3700
AUBERT
Geraldine
FRANCE
Agence de l'Eau Artois- 200, rue Marcelline;PicardieF-59508 DouaiCedex
[33] 327 999000
[33] 327 999015
BALASHAZYBARKANSBARTHBENDERBOGIEIdrikisFriedrichMichaelAndrew
HUNGARYLATVIAEuropean Europäische Kommission,CommissionGD UmweltEEB/Grüne LigaIRELANDDepartment of theEnvironment and LocalGovernmentCustom HouseDublin 1[353] 1 8882317[353] 1 8882994Beaulieu 9; B-1160Brussels[32] 229-90331[32] 229-68825
BOUMA
Jestke NETHERLANDS
Institute for Inland Water PO Box 52 NL-3300Management and WasteAB DordrechtWater Treatment (RIZA)
91
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMEBRESSERCOUNTRYORGANISATIONADDRESSPHONE[31] 30-2743756FAX[31] 30-2744433EMAIL[email protected]
Ton NETHERLANDS National Institute of Public P.O.Box 1 NL-3720Health and EnvironmentalBA BilthovenProtection RIVMAndreasAndreasAUSTRIAGERMANYUmweltbundesamt Spittelauer Lände 5Österreich1090 WIENMinisterium für Umweltund ForstenKaiser FriedrichStr. 1 D-55116Mainz
CHOVANECCHRIST
[43] 1 31304 3680[49] 6131 16 2441
[43] 1 31304 3700[49] 6131 16 4469
COCH FLOTATSCONSTANTINCORBELLI
AntonioG.David
SPAINROMANIAUKScottish Environment7 WhitefriarsProtection Agency (SEPA) Crescent, UK-PH2Perth OfficeOPA PerthMinistry of theEnvironment52/54, WawelskaSt. PL-00-922Warsaw[44] 1738 627 989[44] 1738 630 997
CZERSKA
Bernadette
POLAND
[48] 22 5792342
[48] 22 57 92 294
DEMIRDIAZ LAZARO
TuncayJose A.SPAINMinisterio del MedioAugustin deAmbiente Bethencourt. 25 ES-28071 Madrid[34] 91 53 50 500[34] 91 55 49 300
DONTCHEVVLDUGGANPat
BULGARIAIRELANDDepartment of theEnvironment and LocalGovernmentCustom HouseDublin 1
92
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMEFORROWDavidCOUNTRYUKORGANISATIONEnvironment Agency ofEngland and Wales (EA)ADDRESSEvenlode House,Howbery Park,Wallingford UK-OX1O 8BDOxfordshireMichalakopoulouStr. 80 GR-10192AthensPHONE[44] 1491 82 8552FAX[44] 1491 82 8427EMAILdavid.forrow@environment-agency.gov.uk
GHINI
Maria
GREECE
Ministry of Developmentof Greece/Directorate ofWater and NaturalResources
[30] 1 77 08 410
[30] 1 77 71 589
GRCARHANSEN
GabrijelaWenkeGERMANYEcologic - Institut für Pfalzburger Str. 43-Internationale und 44 D-10717 BerlinEuropäische UmweltpolitikFinnish EnvironmentInstituteFinnish EnvironmentInstitute/Hydrology andWater ManagementDivisionP.O.Box 140 FIN-00251HelsinkiP.O. Box 413 FIN-90101Oulu030-86880-123030-86880-100
HEINONENHELLSTEN
PerttiSeppo
FINLANDFINLAND
[358] 9 4030 0661[358] 9 4030 0961
[358] 9 4030 0690[358] 8 547 2786
HBURIRMERJANNINGJARVIJOHANSSONUlrichJörgTorbjornCaterina
POLANDGERMANYGERMANYUmweltbundesamt / Bismarckplatz 1 D-FG Binnengewässer14193 BerlinNiedersächsichesUmweltministeriumPO 4107 D-30041Hannover[49] 30-8903-2312 [49] 30-8903-2965[49] 511 120 3362[49] 511 120993362
SWEDEN National Board of FisheriesSWEDENSwedish Environmental BlekholmsterrassenProtection36 SE-10648Agency/Department ofStockholmEnvironmental Assessment
93
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMEJOHANSSONKACZMAREKDanielBernardBELGIUMCOUNTRYORGANISATIONEURELECTRICBureau des Agences del'Eau à BruxellesEcologic - Institut für Pfalzburger Str. 43-Internationale und 44 D-10717 BerlinEuropäische UmweltpolitikScottish Executive Rural Area 1H8, VictoriaAffairs DepartmentQuay UK-EH66QQ EdinburghADDRESSPHONE[32] 2 525 1042[32] 2 545 11 64FAX[32] 2 515 1049[32] 2 545 11 65EMAIL[email protected][email protected]
KAMPA
Eleftheria
GERMANY
[49] 30-86880-0 [49] 30-86880-100
KELLET
Michael
UK
[44] 131 244 0219
[44] 131 244 0245
KINKORKIPGEN
JaroslavRobert
CZECHREPUBLICLUXEMBURGAdministration desServices Techniques del'AgricultureMinistry of theEnvironment/DanishForest and Nature AgencyFederal Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry,Environment and Watermanagement VII / 116, rte d´'Esch BP1904 L-1019LuxembourgHaraldsgade 53DK-2100Copenhagen OMarxergasse 2 A-1030 Wien[352] 457172 326[352] 457172 341
KJELLERUPLARSEN
Lars
DENMARK
[45] 39 472825
[45] 39 279899
KOLLER-KREIMEL
Veronika
AUSTRIA
[43] 1 71100/7538 [43] 1 71100/7502
KONECNY
Robert
AUSTRIA
Umweltbundesamt Spittelauer Lände 5ÖsterreichA-1090 WienPublic Power 56-58 Agisilaou Str.Corporation/Hydro- GR-10436 AthensElectric ProjectsDevelopment Department
[43] 1 31304 3581
[43] 1 31304 3700
KOUVOPOULOS
Yannis
GREECE
[30] 1 5244554
[30] 1 5220826
94
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMEKRAEMERAndreasCOUNTRYGERMANYORGANISATIONADDRESSPHONEFAXEMAIL[email protected]
Ecologic - Institut für Pfalzburger Str. 43-Internationale und 44 D-10717 BerlinEuropäische UmweltpolitikMinistry of Agriculture, CY-1413 NICOSIANatural Resources andEnvironmentWater DevelopmentDepartment
[49] 30-86880-0 [49] 30-86880-100
Kyrou
Kyriacos
CYPRUS
[357] 22803183
[357] 22675019
LAMBOTLAZAROU
FrancisAnastasia
BELGIUMGREECEMinistry of Environment,Physical Planning andPublic Works147 Patission Str.GR-11251 Athens[30] 1 8650106[30] 1 8562968
LIGTVOET
Willem NETHERLANDS National Institute of Public P.O. Box 1, AntonicHealth and EnvironmentalvanProtection RIVM Leeuweuhocklaan9 NL-3720 BABilthovenCharisConchitaMartinGREECE Public Power Corporation 56-58 Agisilaou Str.GR-10436 AthensSPAINUKScotland and Northern Corporate Office,Ireland Forum for Erskine Court, TheEnvironmental ProtectionCastle Business(SNIFFER) and Scottish Park UK-FK9 4TREnvironment ProtectionStirlingAgency (SEPA)Ministère del'Aménagement duTerritoire et del'Environnement
[31] 302 743 149
MAKRIYORGOSMARCUELLOMARSDEN
[30] 1 3355108
[30] 1 5220826
[44] 17 86 45 77 00 [44] 17 86 44 6885
MARTINET
Fabrice
FRANCE
[33] 1 42 19 13 23
95
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMEMARTTUNENMikaCOUNTRYFINLANDORGANISATIONFinnish EnvironmentInstitute/Department forExpert ServicesADDRESSP.O. Box 140 FIN-00251 HelsinkiPHONEFAXEMAIL[email protected]
[358] 9 4030 05 16 [358] 9 4030 05 90
MOREN-ABAT Marta-CristinaOMORPHOSORTIZ-CASASCharisJose Luis
European DG Environment B1 Water,CommissionMarine and SoilGREECESPAINMinisterio del MedioAmbiente
Beaulieu 9 B-1160Brussels
[32] 2-2967285
[32] 2-2968825
Plaza de San Juande la Cruz ES-28071 Madrid
[34] 91 597 6174
[34] 91 597 6237
PANNONHALMIPEDERSEN
MiklosTor Simon
HUNGARYNORWAY
North-TransdanubianDistrict Water AuthorityNorwegian Water Pb.5091 MajorstuaResearches and EnergyN-0301 OsloDir/Hydrology DeptFinnish EnvironmentInstituteMinisterio del MedioAmbienteP.O. Box 140 FIN-00251 HelsinkiPlaza de San Juande la Cruz ES-28071 Madrid[47] 22 959 205[47] 22 959216
PILKE
Ansa
FINLAND
[358] 9 4030 0697
[358] 9 4030 0690
PUIG
Alejandra
SPAIN
[34] 91 597 5695
[34] 91 597 5947
PIO
Simone
PORTUGAL
Ministerio do Ambiente eAv. Almirantedo Ordamento do Gago Coutinho 30;Territorio PT-1049-066 Lisbon
[351] 21 8430093
[351] 218473571
PUNCOCHAR
Pavel
CZECHMinistry ofREPUBLIC Agriculture/Department ofWater Management PolicyGERMANYWWF
Tes.Nov. 17 CZ-11705 Prague 1
[42] 02 2181 2362
[42] 02 2181 2983
RAST
Georg
96
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMERECHENBERGRILLAERTSBettinaFrancisCOUNTRYGERMANYBELGIUMORGANISATIONADDRESSPHONE[49] 30-8903 2785[32] 2 706 4080FAX[49] 30-8903 2965[32] 2 706 4081EMAIL[email protected][email protected]
Umweltbundesamt Bismarckplatz 1 D-14193 BerlinEuropean Union ofNational Associations ofWater Suppliers and WasteWater Services127 Rue ColonelBourg B-1140Brussels
RIVAUD
Jean-Paul
FRANCE
Ministère de20, Avenue del'Aménagement du Ségur F-75302 ParisTerritoire et de07 SPl'EnvironnementWFD Economics WGEEB
[33] 1- 4219 1210
ROELENSCHEUERSERBANSTEINERTAGG
UteStefanPetruAntonAndrew
UK
ROMANIAGERMANYUK EUREAU (Thames Water)
TUURMANNVAN OIRSCHOT
MarkoMiel NETHERLANDSInstitute for Inland Water ZuiderwagenpleinManagement and Waste2 P.O. Box 17 B-Water Treatment (RIZA)8200French Environment20, Avenue deMinistry, Water Director Ségur F-75302 Paris07 SP[31] 32 02 98 665[31] 32 249218
VANQUAETHEM
Olivier
FRANCE
[33] 142 191312
VAN RIESENVANWIJNGAARDEN
Sigurd
GERMANYInstitute for Inland Water PO Box 52 NL-3300Management and WasteAB DordrechtWater Treatment (RIZA)[31] 78 6332736[31] 78 6315003
Marjolein NETHERLANDS
97
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesNAME FIRST NAMEVINCEVICIENCEVON KEITZVioletaStephanCOUNTRYLATVIAGERMANY Hessisches Ministerium fürUmwelt, Landwirtschaftund ForstenBELGIUMPOLANDMainzer Straße 80 [49] 611 815 - 1331 [49] 611 815 -1941D-65189Wiesbaden[32] 1623 21 38[48] 22 5792331[32] 16-22 89 77[48] 22 5792294ORGANISATIONADDRESSPHONEFAXEMAIL[email protected][email protected]
WARMOESWALCYKIEWICZ
ThierryTomasz
Flemish Environment BondgenotenlaanAgency 140 B-3000 LeuvenMinistry of Environment,Department of WaterResources52/54 WawelskaSt. PL-00-922Warsaw
ZAVADSKY
Ivan
SLOVAKIANREPUBLIC.
98
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ANNEX V – LIST OF CASE STUDIES AND CONTACTSThe case studies have been carried out for the work of the HMWB WG and can bedownloaded from http://www.sepa.org.uk/hmwbworkinggroup.List of case study contactsCountryAName of CaseStudyBregenzerach R.Danube R.WienflussBDDender R.Elbe R.Seefelder Aach R.Lahn R.Ruhr R.Mulde R.Dhünn R.ESFLozoya R.Kemijärvi L.NameKonecny, RobertKonecny, RobertKonecny, RobertVandaele, KarelFrey, MichaelaFunke, MarkusKuellmar, IngridPodraza, PetraPodraza, PetraBorchardt, DietrichDiaz, Jose-AntonioMarttunen, MikaInstitutionUmweltbundesamtÖsterreichUmweltbundesamtÖsterreichUmweltbundesamtÖsterreichSORESMAUniversity of KasselUniversity of KasselUniversity of KasselUniversity of EssenUniversity of EssenUniversity of EssenMinisterio delMedio AmbienteFinnshEnvironmentInstituteAgence de l´EauArtois-PicardieAgence de l´EauRhin-MeuseAgence de l´EauRhone-Mediterranée-CorsePublic PowerCorporationRIZAWitteveen & BosWitteveen & BosWitteveen & BosEmail[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]Dietrich.Borchardt@uni-kassel.de[email protected][email protected]Tele-phone[43]1313043581[43]1313043581[43]1313043581[32] 3-2215540[49] 561-8043949[49] 561-8043912[49] 561-8043991[49] 201-1833868[49] 201-1833868[49] 561-8043912[34] 91- 53 50500[358] 9-403000
F
Authie R.Sarre R.Rhone R.
Aubert, GeraldineDemortier,GuillaumeStroffek, Stéphane
GRNL
Nestos R.Haringvliet Est.Hagmolenbeek-Hegebeek R.Loosdrecht L.Veluwerandmeren
Kouvopoulos,YannisBackx, J.J.G.M.Lorenz, C.M.Lorenz, C.M.Lorenz, C.M.
99
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesCountryNOName of CaseStudySuldalslagen R.NamePedersen, TorSimonInstitutionNorwegian WaterResearches andEnergyDir/HydrologyDeptStatkraft Grøner asCountyAdministrativeBoard JönköpingNational Board ofFisheries, Instituteof FreshwaterResearchEmail[email protected]Tele-phone[47] 22-959 205
Beiarn R.SEman R.
Bjørtuft, Sigurd K.,Weichelt, Ann-KarinBeier, Ulrike
Daläven R.
[46] 8- 7590338
Ume R.
Jansson, Roland
[email protected]SwedishEnvironmentalProtectionAgency/Department of EnvironmentalAssessmentCountyAdministrativeBoardCentre for Ecologyand HydrologyCentre for Ecologyand HydrologyCentre for Ecologyand HydrologyCentre for Ecologyand HydrologyGeographyDepartment,University ofDundeeGeographyDepartment,University ofDundeeGeographyDepartment,University ofDundeeSEPA[email protected]
[46] 90-7869573
Archipelago,Baltic SeaUK(E&W)Kennet R. (Thames)Tame R.Sankey BrookGreat Ouse R.UK(Scot)Forth Estuary
Tullback, Klara
[46] 8-7854103
Dunbar, MichaelDunbar, MichaelDunbar, MichaelDunbar, MichaelBlack, A. R.
[44] 1491-838800[44] 1491-838800[44] 1491-838800[44] 1491-838800[44] 1382-344434
Tummel R.
Black, A. R.
[44] 1382-344434
Dee R.
Black, A. R.
[44] 1382-344434
UK (NI)
Lagan R.
Corbelli, David
[44] 17-86457700
100
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
The sub-groups and water body categories of the HMWB case studiesCountryName of CaseStudyNavigationsubgroup(lead: D)ABregenzerach R.Danube R.WienflussBDDender R.Elbe R.Seefelder Aach R.Lahn R.Ruhr R.Mulde R.Dhünn R.ESFFLozoya R.Kemijärvi L.Authie R.Sarre R.Rhone R.GRNLNestos R.Haringvliet Est.Hagmolenbeek-Hegebeek R.Loosdrecht L.VeluwerandmerenNOSuldalslagen R.Beiarn R.SEman R.Daläven R.Ume R.Archipelago,Baltic SeaUK (E&W)Kennet R. (Thames)Tame R.Sankey BrookGreat Ouse R.UK (Scot)Forth Est.Tummel R.Dee R.UK (NI)Lagan R.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Hydropowersubgroup(lead: A)++++++++++++++RiverLakeTransitionalwatersCoastalwaters
101
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Case studies and the specified usesCountryName of Case StudyNavigation Flood/coastalprotectionABregenzerach R.Danube R.WienflussBDDender R.Elbe R.Seefelder Aach R.Lahn R.Ruhr R.Mulde R.Dhünn R.ESFFLozoya R.Kemijärvi L.Authie R.Rhone R.Sarre R.GRNLNestos R.Haringvliet Est.Hagmolenbeek-Hegebeek R.Loosdrecht L.VeluwerandmerenNOSuldalslagen R.Beiarn R.SEman R.*************************************************************************************************************************************************************FishingFisheriesFisheries******************
Hydro-power******
Watersupply
Agriculture / Urbanisationforestry
Industry Recreation
Other specifieduses
Notes: (***: Specified use of high intensity,**: Specified use of intermediate intensity,*: Specified use of lower intensity)
*****************Fish farmsFish farms*******Fishing
102
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water BodiesCountryName of Case StudyNavigation Flood/coastalprotectionDalalven R.Ume R.Archipelago,Baltic coastalUK(E&W)Kennet R. (Thames)Tame R.Sankey BrookGreat Ouse R.UK (Scot)Forth Est.**********************************
Hydro-power******
Watersupply
Agriculture / Urbanisationforestry*********************************
Industry Recreation
Other specifieduses
Notes: (***: Specified use of high intensity,**: Specified use of intermediate intensity,*: Specified use of lower intensity)
*************
****
FishingFish farms
*
Agricultural landtake, industrial landtake
Tummel R.Dee R.UK (NI)Lagan R.**
***************
***Fish farms
103
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
ANNEX VI - CASE STUDY REPORTSAustriaKonecny, Robert, Arno Aschauer, Andreas Chovanec, Johann Waringer, ReinhardWimmer and Stefan Schmutz (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe -Case Study Danube, Federal Environment Agency, Vienna.Konecny, Robert, Arno Aschauer, Andreas Chovanec, Reinhard Wimmer, StefanSchmutz (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case StudyBregenzerach, Federal Environment Agency, Vienna.Konecny, Robert, Arno Aschauer, Andreas Chovanec, Reinhard Wimmer andHubert Keckeis (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case StudyWienfluss, Federal Environment Agency, Vienna.
BelgiumVandaele, Karel, Ingrid De Bruyne, Gert Pauwels, Isabelle Willems and ThierryWarmoes (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on theDender river, the Mark river and Bellebeek river in Flanders, Soresmaenvironmental consultants and Flemish Environmental Agency, Leuven andAntwerp.
FinlandMarttunen, Mika and Seppo Hellsten (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe -Case Study on the Lake Kemijärvi, Finland, Finnish Environment Institute,Helsinki.
FranceAgence de l’Eau Artois Picardie (2002),Heavily Modified Water Bodies – Case studyon the River Authie , France.Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse (2002),Heavily Modified Water Bodies – Case Studyon the River Sarre, France.Agence de l’Eau Rhone Mediterranée Corse (2002),Heavily Modified Water Bodies– Case Study on the River Rhone, France.
104
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
GermanyBorchardt, Dietrich and Petra Podraza (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe –Case Study on the river Dhünn, Institute for Water Resources Research andManagement, University Kassel, Kassel.Funke, Markus, Dietrich Borchardt, Michaela Frey and Ingrid Schleiter (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on the Seefelder Aach River,Institute for Water Resources Research and Management, University ofKassel, Kassel.Frey, Michaela, Dietrich Borchardt, Markus Funke and Ingrid Schleiter (2002a),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on the Elbe River, Institutefor Water Resources Research and Management University Kassel, Kassel.Müller, Andreas, Dirk Glacer, Martin Halle, Petra Podraza and ThomasZumbroich (2002)Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on theRiver Zwickauer Mulde, Buero fuer Umweltanalytik, Bonn, Essen.Podraza, Petra, Dirk Glacer, Martin Halle, Andreas Müller and ThomasZumbroich (2002)Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on theRiver Ruhr, University of Essen, Institute of Ecology, Department ofHydrobiology, Essen.Schleiter, Ingrid, Dietrich Borchardt, Markus Funke and Michaela Frey (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on the River Lahn , Institutefor Water Resources Research and Management, University Kassel, Kassel.
GreeceParaskevopoulos, Alexis (2001),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study onthe River Nestos, Paraskevopoulos-Georgiadis EPE.
NetherlandsBackx, J.J.G.M., G. v.d. Berg, N. Geilen, A. de Hoog, EJ. Houwing, M. Ohm, M. vanOirschot and M. van Wijngaarden (2002),Heavily Modified Waters inEurope - Case Study on the Haringvliet Estuary, RIZA, Dordrecht.Lorenz, C.M. in association with DWR and RIVM (2001),Heavily Modified Watersin Europe - Case Study on Lake Loosdrecht, Witteveen+Bos (W+B), DWR andRIVM, Deventer.Lorenz, C.M. in association with RDIJ and RIZA (2001a),Heavily Modified Watersin Europe - Case Study on the Veluwerandmeren, Witteveen+Bos (W+B),RDIJ and RIZA, Deventer.105
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Lorenz, C.M. (2001b),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on theHagmolen-Hegebeek, Witteveen+Bos (W+B), Deventer.
NorwayBjørtuft, Sigurd K., Jan-Petter Magnell and Jan Ivar Koksvik (2002),HeavilyModified Waters in Europe - Case Study on the Beiarelva watercourse,Statkraft Grøner and Norwegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU), Lysaker and Trondheim.Johansen, Stein W., Jan-Petter Magnell, Svein Jakob Saltveit and Nils RoarSaelthun (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on theSuldalslågen River, Statkraft-Grøner, NIVA and LFI, Lysaker.
SpainDiaz, Jose-Antonio and Montserrat Real (2001),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe- Case Study on the river Lozoya (Tajo, Spain), Confederación Hidrográficadel Tajo, Calidad de Aguas and Limnos, S.A., Barcelona, Madrid.
SwedenBeier, Ulrike (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe – Case Study on the RiverDaläven, National Board of Fisheries, Institute of Freshwater Research,Drottingholm.Jansson, Roland (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe: Case Study on the UmeRiver in northern Sweden, Landscape Ecology Group, Department of Ecologyand Environmental Science, Umeå University, Umeå.Weichelt, Anna-Karin (2001),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study onthe Emån river, Sweden, County Administrative Board Jönköping, Jönköping.Tullback, Klara and Cecilia Lindblad (2001),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe -A Case Study of the Stockholm Archipelago, Baltic Sea, CountyAdministrative Board of Stockholm, Environment and Planning Departmentand Department of Botany Stockholm University, Stockholm.
106
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
UK, Northern IrelandHale, Peter, David Corbelli, Claire Vincent, Meg Postle, Teresa Venn and JohnAsh (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe - Case Study on the RiverLagan, the Tidal Lagan Transitional Water & the Port of Belfast CoastalWater, Northern Ireland, Environment and Heritage Service and Risk &Policy Analysts, Lisburn, London.UK, England and WalesDunbar, Michael, Douglas Booker, Charlie Stratford, Peter Latimer, HelenRogerson, Jonathan Bass, Hugh Dawson, Rodolphe Gozlan, StewartWelton, John Ash, Teresa Fenn and Meg Postle (2002),Heavily ModifiedWaters in Europe – Case Study on the Great Ouse Catchment, submitted bythe Environment Agency of England & Wales and the UK GovernmentDepartment for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, England and Wales.Dunbar, Michael, Douglas Booker, Charlie Stratford, Peter Latimer, HelenRogerson, Jonathan Bass, Hugh Dawson, Rodolphe Gozlan, StewartWelton, John Ash, Teresa Fenn and Meg Postle (2002),Heavily ModifiedWaters in Europe – Case Study on the Tame Catchment, submitted by theEnvironment Agency of England & Wales and the UK GovernmentDepartment for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, England and Wales.Dunbar, Michael, Douglas Booker, Charlie Stratford, Peter Latimer, HelenRogerson, Jonathan Bass, Hugh Dawson, Rodolphe Gozlan, StewartWelton, John Ash, Teresa Fenn and Meg Postle (2002),Heavily ModifiedWaters in Europe – Case Study on the Sankey Catchment, submitted by theEnvironment Agency of England & Wales and the UK GovernmentDepartment for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, England and Wales.Dunbar, Michael, Douglas Booker, Charlie Stratford, Peter Latimer, HelenRogerson, Jonathan Bass, Hugh Dawson, Rodolphe Gozlan, StewartWelton, John Ash, Teresa Fenn and Meg Postle (2002),Heavily ModifiedWaters in Europe – England and Wales Case Studies, Guidelines onidentification, assessment and designation of rivers, Final Draft (Version 4),submitted by the Environment Agency of England & Wales and the UKGovernment Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, Englandand Wales.Dunbar, Michael, Douglas Booker, Charlie Stratford, Peter Latimer, HelenRogerson, Jonathan Bass, Hugh Dawson, Rodolphe Gozlan, StewartWelton, John Ash, Teresa Fenn and Meg Postle (2002),Heavily ModifiedWaters in Europe – Case Study on the River Kennet, submitted by theEnvironment Agency of England & Wales and the UK GovernmentDepartment for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, England and Wales.
107
WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 4Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
UK, ScotlandBlack, A. R., O.M. Bragg, R.W. Duck, A.M. Findlay, N.D. Hanley, S.M. Morrocco,A.D. Reeves and J.S. Rowan (2002),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe -Case Study on the River Tummel, Geography Department, University ofDundee, and Department of Economics, University of Glasgow, Dundee,Glasgow.Black, A. R., O.M. Bragg, C.M. Caudwell, R.W. Duck, A.M. Findlay, N.D. Hanley,S.M. Morrocco, A.D. Reeves and J.S. Rowan (2002a),Heavily ModifiedWaters in Europe - Case Study on the Forth Estuary, Geography Departmentand Biological Sciences Institute, University of Dundee, and Department ofEconomics, University of Glasgow, Dundee, Glasgow.Black, A. R., O.M. Bragg, R.W. Duck, A.M. Findlay, N.D. Hanley, S.M. Morrocco,A.D. Reeves and J.S. Rowan (2002b),Heavily Modified Waters in Europe -Case Study on the River Dee (Galloway, Scotland), Geography Department andBiological Sciences Institute, University of Dundee, and Department ofEconomics, University of Glasgow, Dundee, Glasgow.
108
14KH-51-03-188-EN-N
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIESL-2985 LuxembourgISBN: 92-894-5124-6ISSN: 1725-1087See our publications catalogue at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs/home.htm
