WFD and Hydromorphology Technical report on “Good practice in managing the ecological impacts of hydropower schemes, flood protection works and works designed to facilitate navigation under the Water Framework Directive” Ulrich Irmer/DE and Peter Pollard/UK Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg

Drafting of the technical report Distribution of 1st version from 17 February 2006 to drafting group Comments received from 7 MS (DK, ES, FR, LV, NL, SE, SK), NO, NGO’s (WWF) and Stakeholders (ESHA, EUREL, PIANC) Compilation of comments discussed on drafting group meeting 20th April in Berlin Distribution of 2nd version from 28 April 2006 to drafting group Comments received from 8 MS (AU, DK, FR, NL, SE, SF, SI, SK), NO, and Stakeholders (EUREL, PIANC) Distribution of draft final version (3rd) by 30th June 2006 to drafting group Comments on 3rd version by 1 August Distribution of draft final version (3.1) to steering group meeting at 7th September 2006 Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg

Technical paper- Table of contents Introduction Purpose of the report Approach to identifying measures Measures and site specific conditions Cost-effectiveness of measures Recommendations and conclusions Separate document with case studies Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg

Technical paper- Overview on Annexes Annex I: Relevant requirements of the WFD regarding hydromorphology Annex II: Alternative methodology for defining GEP for HMWB and AWB Annex III: Morphological alterations: ecological impacts and criteria for status improvement Annex IV: Potential restoration and mitigation measures and their cost-effectiveness Annex V: List of case studies demonstrating the improvement of ecological status/potential by restoration/mitigation measures Annex VI: Glossary Annex VII: Members of Drafting Group Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg

Case Studies Report – State of Play Number of Case Studies No Main pressure Subtype of pressure F H N Total 1 Cross profile construction groynes, weirs, dams 14 15 2 Longitudinal profile construction Dikes 3 Channelisation, straightening 8 9 4 Bank reinforcement bank fixation, riprap 5 Deepening Channel maintenance, dredging, removal of material 6 Land drainage 7 Land claim 13 31 31 case studies have been delivered by 7 MS (AU, DE, FI, FR, NL, SI, SL) + NO until 31 May Case studies identify good practice examples in relation to restoration and mitigation measures regarding hydropower, navigation and flood protection – MS have to decide what “good practice” means (and what not)! Case studies interim result: 14 hydropower 13 navigation 4 flood protection The drafting group has used a specific template for the good practice examples A key code is used to subdivide the good practice examples into driving forces and pressures Flood protection F Hydropower H Navigation N Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg

Case Studies Report - Template Situations before and after morphological improvements – structures will be created by the next floods and should be maintained Situations before and after the construction of new passable weir Box with basic information: Driving force, pressure, impact, country, location, water body at risk Status before reconstruction: Status with figure, ecological deficiency Reconstruction by restoration or mitigation measures: execution of measure with figure, accompanying measures, Hydromorphological improvement, ecological improvements, assessment of the ecological efficiency, effects on the uses Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg

Thank you for your attention Member States are asked to provide additional case studies especially for good practice flood protection until 21 June 2006 to katja.bunzel@uba.de Water Director Meeting, 1/2 June 2006, Salzburg