Defining reference conditions and environmental objectives for the heavily modified watercourses in Northern Finland – Oulujoki-pilot river basin approach.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Water.europa.eu Water quality in the Danube basin Third Conference on the EU Strategy for the Danube Region 21 April 2010 Marieke van Nood Water Unit DG.

Advertisements

Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes Setting the scene for Session 1 National information systems.

US Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Northwestern Division 1 System Flood Control Review: Regional Agency Review Briefing Lonnie Mettler Northwestern.

The EU Water Framework Directive and Sediments The Water Framework Directive was transposed into law in EU Member States at the end of Nearly two.

Environmental flows in Europe Mike Acreman. Green and pleasant land? Thames basin 10,000 km mm rainfall 15 million people significant water stress.

Workshop on Disproportionate Costs, 10./ Copenhagen Navigation-related issues of affordability and extended deadlines. Consideration of residual.

Seite Hier steht ein thematisches Foto European Workshop on HMWBs, March 2009, Brussels Final designation of HWMBs in Austria for WBs.

Hydropower and the Water Environment Peter Gammeltoft European Commission DG Environment, D.1 Water 2nd Workshop on Water Management, WFD & Hydropower.

Fish migration from a Water Framework Directive perspective

Bárbara Willaarts 1,2, Mario Ballesteros 2 and Nuria Hernández-Mora 3 1 Observatorio del Agua-Fundación Botín 2 CEIGRAM-Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

MODULE 1 Water Framework Directive, Relation of WFD with Daughter Directives, River Basin Management Planning, Water Bodies, Typology, Classification River.

HMWB-Workshop „Heavily Modified Water Bodies: Information Exchange on Designation, Assessment of Ecological Potential, Objective Setting and Measures”

Water.europa.eu Water Framework Directive - a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European.

© WRc plc 2010 Agenda item 3b: Summary of WISE electronic delivery: presentation of an example.

Water Director Meeting 30th November 2006, Inari / SF WFD and Hydromorphology Technical report on “Good practice in managing the ecological impacts of.

RiverLife and Implementation of the WFD Satu Maaria Karjalainen North Ostrobothnia Regional Environment Centre PRB Workshop , Ghent.

Defining Good Ecological Potential : Method used in the UK Niall Jones Hydro-morphology senior advisor Environment Agency.

11 juni 2007 Ecological classification in the Netherlands1 Diederik van der Molen Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management CIS workshop.

Workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies, Brussels, 25/26 September 2003 Identification of Water Bodies in Odense PRB With emphasis on lakes:

Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment in Lapland1 Classification and monitoring of the surface waters of Finland National.

CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.

WHY IS INTEGRATED RIVER BASIN PLANNING IMPORTANT? Module 1 pp 1.1.

Estimating environmental flows (E-flows) in Poland Piotr Parasiewicz, Katarzyna Suska, Paweł Prus Fundig: Polish National Water Authority.

Monitoring, assessing and classifying the environment

Freshwater fish Classification Tools

WFD and Inland Navigation

The design of the monitoring network for lakes and rivers in Finland

Experiences of designing WFD-monitoring networks in the Netherlands

Setting Classboundaries

Monitoring, assessing and classifying the environment

WG ECOSTAT: Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

WFD and Hydromorphology

COAST Lisbon February Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom.

River Kokemäenjoki – Flood risk management & WFD

River Kokemäenjoki – Flood risk management & WFD

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report of Phase 1b.

Hydropower and the WFD: constraint or opportunity?

CASE STUDY: A SPECIFIC CASE OF NON-ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE

Working Group A ECOSTAT Update on intercalibration Prepared by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.

on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water

EEA State of Environment WISE Maps and Graphs, examples

Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring

Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, team-leader for freshwater in ETC/W

Progress and activities of Oulujoki PRB (Finland) PRB Workshop 2006 Stresa, Italy Teemu Ulvi Seppo Hellsten Finnish Environment Institute.

CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels

on Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and

Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential

Alternative Methodology for Defining Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

Anja S. Ibrekk Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate

Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011

WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002

State of play of PRB activity within WG B

Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive and Inland Waterway Transport Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European Commission.

Water Framework Directive implementation: RBMP assessment

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry

HMWB-Workshop „Heavily Modified Water Bodies: Information Exchange on Designation, Assessment of Ecological Potential, Objective Setting and Measures”

Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, 22 Febraury 2006 Progress Report.

WISE – Freshwater WFD visualization tool

The Blueprint and Council Conclusions:

Anja Skiple Ibrekk & Tor Simon Pedersen

Typology and Intercalibration Typology System

”Identification of water bodies as potentially heavily modified”

Results of the screening of the draft second RBMPs

Summary overview of methods used to define GEP in practice by countries represented in the ad-hoc group Dr. Ursula Schmedtje.

WG A Ecological Status Intercalibration: Where do we go from here ?

Seppo Hellsten & Teemu Ulvi

WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011

Dutch approach for setting GEP (and MEP)

Multiple Pressures nutrient boundary setting

Presentation transcript:

Defining reference conditions and environmental objectives for the heavily modified watercourses in Northern Finland – Oulujoki-pilot river basin approach to calculate the costs in Lake Kemijärvi

A B High ecological status (reference status) Measures with significant effect on use or too costly Maximum ecological potential All hydromorphological mitigation measures Current ecological status Existing mitigation measures A B

Questions to answer in HMWB? What is the current ecological status? Which measures are possible? What are the effects on ecological status?

Conclusions (1) Significant differences on availability of biological data: No possibilities to calculate EQR for fishes Littoral benthic fauna data moderate Macrophyte data relatively good Moderate background data enables quantitative analysis It is difficult to improve ecological status without changing regulation practise only local changes are possible e.g. by constructing bottom weirs

Conclusions (2) How to estimate significant effect on use? Annual benefit of Lake Kemijärvi regulation for hydropower production is app. 10 mill. € Significant effect 2 %? => 200 000 € Significant effect 5 % ? => 500 000 € Estimated effects of MEP 0,3 m rise in February > 0,5 mill. €/ year 1 m rise in April 0,5 mill. €/year Summer time lowering 0,5 m > 0,1 mill. €/year Bottom weirs (Kaisanlahti & Narkiperä) 0,15 mill €/year Total losses > 1,2 mill. €/year > SIGNIFICANT (12 %) LOSS Finally the costs of MEP were too high! Obviously in many cases HEP already achieved!