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

2. Oulujoki River Basin
Area: km2
Mean flow: 259 m3/s
Number of lakes above 50 ha: 398
Population: (11.5 inhabitants/km2)

3. Main focus of the work
Oulujoki PRB is officially committed to the work of WG B “Integrated river basin management”
sub-focus “Links to research projects”
main part of activities carried out in the frame of the Baltic Sea Region Interreg IIIB – project “Watersketch”
Activities also related to WG A “Ecological status” and “Hydromorphology group”
not official announcement given

4. Results will be reported 2006-07!
Main activities 2005
Case studies related to river basin management
study on the environmental effects of peat production on River Muhosjoki and of forestry on small lakes in Kainuu
pilot study of determination of good ecological potential of the modified downstream stretch of River Oulujoki and Lake Kemijärvi
Lake Kemijärvi case presented in the workshop "WFD and Hydromorphology“, Prague (CZ), October 17-19, 2005
creation of a systematic approach for selecting the Natura 2000 sites relevant for the Water Framework Directive
poster presentation in ”Harmoni-CA Forum and Conference”, Osnabrück, D, April 5-7, 2006
Analysis of European Policies related to River Basin Planning and Management
literature survey, questionnaire of WFD implementation in Baltic Sea Region, seminar
Results will be reported !

5. Russia
Norway
Sweden
Bothnian Bay
Power plant
Case study for determination of good ecological potential of Lake Kemijärvi
Heavily regulated lake for hydropower and flood defence with regulation amplitude of 7 m
Fully developed downstream stretch with 8 power plant
Total value of produced hydropower app. 10 M€/year

6. Questions to be answered in HMWB?
What is the current ecological status?
Which mitigation measures are possible?
What are their effects on ecological status?

7. 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

8. Some conclusions
Significant differences on availability of biological data
No possibilities to calculate EQR for fishes
Littoral benthic fauna data moderate
Macrophyte data relatively good
It is difficult to improve ecological status without changing regulation practise
only local changes are possible e.g. by constructing bottom weirs

9. A) Changes in regulation practise
Average
Fluctuation zone
Regulation permit
Goals

10. B) Construction of bottom weirs
Narkiperä-bay
3 km2 (1,3 %)
HW - NW = 4.76 m
=> to be reduced by weir to 1.65 m
Kaisanlahti-bay
9 km2 (3,8 %)
HW – NW = 3.5 m
=> to be reduced by weir to 1.65 m

11. Effects of bottom weir areas on ecological status and loss of produced hydropower
0 GWh
Loss of energy
420 GWh

12. How to calculate maximum ecological potential - macrophytes?
Assumption: eutrophication is not having significant effect on ecological status
Macrophytes EQR
Present 0.29
after measures 0.46 (MEP) 1 1
Transformation for scale 0-1
reference status 1
present status 0.63 (=good ecological potential)

13. How to estimate significant effect on use?
Annual benefit of Lake Kemijärvi regulation for hydropower production is app. 10 mill. €
Significant effect 2 %? => total losses €
Significant effect 5 % ? => total losses €
Estimated effects of MEP
0,3 m rise in February > loss 0,5 mill. €/ year
1 m rise in April > loss 0,5 mill. €/year
Summer time lowering 0,5 m > loss 0,1 mill. €/year
Bottom weirs (Kaisanlahti & Narkiperä) > loss 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 GEP already achieved!

14. Directives containing measures included in the programme of measures
Analysis of European Policies related to River Basin Planning and Management
Directives containing measures included in the programme of measures

15. Other legislation with relationships to the Water Framework Directive
International
Conventions and treaties
Helsinki Convention
Aarhus Convention
The Kyoto Protocol
EU recommendations
European Spatial
Development Perspective
W F D
Integrated Coastal
Zone Management
Lisbon Strategy
EU Council Declarations

16. Cross cuttings in legislation related to river basin management

17. Level of involvement with the working group(s)
main focus in co-operation with Watersketch project
contacts between PRB and WG very limited

18. Future plans
activities will mainly go on according to the working plan of Watersketch project
main focus on producing/promoting specific tools that could be utilised in river basin planning
eg. database for handling feedback from public, GIS tool for calculating nutrient loading, flow and water level analysis tools…
CEA analysis by using multi-criteria decision analysis methods in River Kyrönjoki
THANK YOU!