1. umweltbüro essen UBA Research Project FKZ 203 22 281 „Testing Innovative Approaches in the River Basin Management Plan of the Case Study Catchment Lausitzer Neiße/Odra in Accordance with the Water Framework Directive“ - Identification of Water Bodies - Results presented by: Consulting Team IPS & ube umweltbüro essen (ube) Rellinghauser Str. 334 f 45 13 6 Essen fon/fax +49 2 01 / 86 06 1-(0)/ -29 www.umweltbuero-essen.de Ingenieurgesellschaft Prof.Dr. Sieker mbH (IPS) Rennbahnallee 109 A 15 36 6 Dahlwitz- Hoppegarten fon/fax +49 33 42 / 35 95 –(0)/ -29 www.sieker.de Scientific Coordinator: Dr. B. Fritzsche (StUFA Bautzen)

2. Characteristics : Ecoregion River Basin of the Lausitzer Neiße (Part of the Odra catchment) central highland (9) central lowland (14) Catchment area: 4403 km² (= sensu WRRL: “large”) Length of the Lausitzer Neisse: 254.6 km umweltbüro essen

3. Meeting of Pilot River Basin Co-Ordinators Pilot River Basin Testing: Lausitzer Neiße – a trans- boundary river basin umweltbüro essen Czech Republic GermanyPolandSum Catchment455 km²1,411 km²2,537 km² 4,403 km² Neisse River length 55.6 km199 km254.6 km

4. umweltbüro essen Identification of Water Bodies in the Saxonian Part of the PRB Lausitzer Neiße

5. umweltbüro essen Flowchart of the Identification Process (According to the Horzontal Guidance Document) 2 lakes, several rivers

6. umweltbüro essen Stagnant Waters with Ground Water Bodies in the German River Basin of the Lausitzer Neiße Berzdorfer See: 8,3 km² Olbersdorfer See: 0,7 km² Category:“artificial lake” => open cast brown coal mining Reference condition: siliceous stratified lake in the mountainous region (LAWA)

7. umweltbüro essen Identification of Water Bodies in the Saxonian Part of the PRB Lausitzer Neiße - Part 1: Tributary River Mandau -

8. umweltbüro essen Overview

9. umweltbüro essen Flowchart of the Identification Process (According to the Horzontal Guidance Document) No category changes along the river

10. umweltbüro essen River Typology According to LAWA Reasons for the Delineation of the Water Bodies Zufluss- tributary Typ- stream type GG- saprobic status class GSG- german habitat survey Salz- concentration of salt Schutz- nature reserves (FFH areas) Grenze- national frontiers Nutz- land utilization

11. umweltbüro essen Flowchart of the Identification Process (According to the Horzontal Guidance Document) no significant tributaries

12. umweltbüro essen Saprobic Status Reasons for the Delineation of the Water Bodies Zufluss- tributary Typ- stream type GG- saprobic status class GSG- german habitat survey Salz- concentration of salt Schutz- nature reserves (FFH areas) Grenze- national frontiers Nutz- land utilization

13. umweltbüro essen German Habitat Survey (Assessment of Stream Morphology) Reasons for the Delineation of the Water Bodies Zufluss- tributary Typ- stream type GG- saprobic status class GSG- german habitat survey Salz- concentration of salt Schutz- nature reserves (FFH areas) Grenze- national frontiers Nutz- land utilization

14. umweltbüro essen Land Utilization Reasons for the Delineation of the Water Bodies Zufluss- tributary Typ- stream type GG- saprobic status class GSG- german habitat survey Salz- concentration of salt Schutz- nature reserves (FFH areas) Grenze- national frontiers Nutz- land utilization

15. umweltbüro essen Nature Reserves (FFH Areas) Reasons for the Delineation of the Water Bodies Zufluss- tributary Typ- stream type GG- saprobic status class GSG- german habitat survey Salz- concentration of salt Schutz- nature reserves (FFH areas) Grenze- national frontiers Nutz- land utilization

16. umweltbüro essen Water Bodies of the River Mandau Reasons for the Delineation of the Water Bodies Zufluss- tributary Typ- stream type GG- saprobic status class GSG- german habitat survey Salz- concentration of salt Schutz- nature reserves (FFH areas) Grenze- national frontiers Nutz- land utilization

17. umweltbüro essen Results for the River Neisse and all Tributaries in Saxony : Watershed Neisse (excl. Mandau & Pließnitz) Watershed MandauWatershed Pließnitz Number of water bodies 20129 mean size of water bodies 6.9 km6.4 km6.5 km max. size of water bodies > 30.0 km13.5 km20.0 km min. size of water bodies 2.4 km2.0 km2.1 km

18. umweltbüro essen GuidanceToR No Key issuesSpecific questionClarification 2.0 Identification of Water Bodies 1Surface Waters: Status of aquatic ecosystems in the river basin Does the Water bodies identified permit you to provide an accurate description of the status of aquatic ecosystems in your river basin? Define the status of aquatic ecosystems Suggestions for improvement Selecting the criteria used for water body identification we intend to be able defining the ecological status of the aquatic ecosystem in future. Actually basing on the macroinvertebrate community only the saprobic status is classified.

19. umweltbüro essen GuidanceToR No Key issuesSpecific questionClarification Suggestions for improvement Following the ‘Horizontal guidance document on the application of the term „water body“ in the context of the Water Framework Directive’ all rivers with catchments > 10 km 2 were delineated into water bodies. All the smaller ones were not considered in the reporting scale to Brussels. But also small tributaries with catchments > 10 km² were delineated into water bodies in the same way as the larger ones. As a rule a minimum size of 2 km length was defined for all water bodies. After delineation water bodies basing on equal type, pressure, and impact will be aggregated to monitoring- water body groups for each sub-basin of the main tributaries of the River Neisse and the remaining part of the River Neisse itself. 2.0 Identification of Water Bodies 5Surface Waters: Very Small Water bodies Which approach have you taken for very small water bodies? How to deal with very small water bodies.

20. umweltbüro essen GuidanceToR No Key issuesSpecific questionClarification Suggestions for improvement In the River Basin of the Lausitzer Neisse there are no natural conditions, which can be used as reference. So we used the stream type definition of the German stream type system as reference and scale for assessment but we don‘t have water bodies with reference conditions. Information on the definition of reference conditions, see 2.3.6. 2.0 Identification of Water Bodies 9Surface waters: Pristine waters Have you identified water bodies with pristine waters?

21. umweltbüro essen GuidanceToR No Key issuesSpecific questionClarification Suggestions for improvement If a water body is not really homogenous in its pressures and impacts and a delineation into separate water bodies would result in one or more water bodies of significantly less than 2 km, we divided this water body into homogenous sub-water bodies to keep the information for the management program while avoiding the delineation of too small waterbodies. Also in transboundary catchments we subdivide water bodies, delineated according to the horizontal guidance document into sub-water-bodies using the frontier line for seperation. We believe this as necessary because by subdividing the water body, measures will be harmonized between the different countries but in realizing measures every country will be responsible for its own sub-water body. (=> considering national autonomy) 2.0 Identification of Water Bodies 12Surface waters: Sub-division of water bodies How have you considered sub-division and which criteria have you used?

22. umweltbüro essen GuidanceToR No Key issuesSpecific questionClarification Suggestions for improvement The national frontier is also a criteria for separating sub- water-bodies. 2.0 Identification of Water Bodies 24General issues: Local and regional circumstances Which local and regional circumstances have you considered when identifying water bodies?. How have you done it?

23. umweltbüro essen GuidanceToR No Key issuesSpecific questionClarification Suggestions for improvement Following the guidance-papers the results may be different depending on the person using it, because in these papers a wide range of interpretation is possible. The results are also depending on the data available. Although following different strategies in identifying water bodies we hope that the results will be comparable at the end. In the PRB Lausitzer Neisse we have the problem of a catchment belonging to three different states (Czech Republic, Poland, Germany) with the frontiers defining the boarders of the sub-water- bodies. 2.0 Identification of Water Bodies 25General issues: Recommendations General issues to raise Experience Which general problems/experiences/reco mmendations have you encountered when identifying water bodies in your river basin? General Comments and Suggestions

24. umweltbüro essen Water body identification in the Czech Republic - Strahler system 1‘ 2‘ 3‘ Water body identification by using system “B“ including elements of system “A“ Area Altitude Strahler order Geology / Geochemistry (calcareous /siliceous) Ecoregion

25. umweltbüro essen Czech results: Definition of surface water bodies 20 water bodies: 16 upper WB (Basins of 1‘ – 4‘ order) 4 lower WB (Basins ≥ 5‘ order) Mandau

26. umweltbüro essen Summary and Conclusions 1. Different water body delineation strategies in the German (acc. To Horizontal Guidance) and the Czech (acc. to Strahler) PRB L. Neisse 2. Differences in the delineations and sizes of water bodies 4. Compared to the common practice in most German federal states the mean size of water bodies proposed here for the German PRB L. Neisse (6 to 7 km) is significantly smaller 5. Whether this is a problem or an advantage has to be proved when all iteration steps are completed 6. Following iteration steps still allow the merging of water bodies if the pressure and impact situation of two water bodies of the same type should prove more homogenous as presumed in the first delineation step 7. Aggregation of water bodies into water body groups is a very useful and efficient possibility for the purpose of monitoring as well as for the river basin management