Contract No. 070311/2011/603663/ETU/D1 'Comparative Study of …€¦ · Task 2d: Reality check...

1 of 129

Contract No. 070311/2011/603663/ETU/D1 'Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the Major River Basin Management Plans'

Task 2d: Reality check

Version: Final version Author(s): Steve Nixon, Vicki Bewes, Daniel Mills (WRc)

Background: This document reports the detailed findings of the reality check of the ecological status classifications reported by Member States in their first River Basin Management Plans. It has focused on transboundary lake, river, transitional and coastal water bodies between Member States. Circulation and received comments: First draft delivered to the Commission. Second draft delivered to the Commission. Comments received from the Commission. Final version delivered to the Commission. Contact

Steve Nixon (WRc) [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2 of 129

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Annex V WFD requires that transboundary water bodies are considered in the design of, and

selection of monitoring sites for, surveillance monitoring of surface waters. As the recent Commission

report on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive1 indicated transboundary monitoring

networks have not been established in around 20% of the international RBDs where there are

transboundary rivers and lakes. There was also no information in around a third of the international

RBDs as to whether or not transboundary monitoring was undertaken. The objective of monitoring is

to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each River Basin District

and must permit the classification of all surface water bodies into one of five classes. Coordinated

transboundary water body monitoring would therefore be expected to facilitate a comparable

assessment of water status in international RBDs.

Each Member State is obliged to develop methods to assess ecological status for all biological quality

elements. Assessment methods for the supporting quality elements must be linked to the biological

quality elements according to the normative definitions given in Annex V. To ensure comparable

definitions of good ecological status across Europe, Member States are also obliged to intercalibrate

the good ecological status class boundaries of their methods for each biological quality element in

each water category with other Member States having common types of water bodies. Intercalibration

is a distinct obligation at EU level in addition to the obligation to develop national ecological status

methods, i.e. the lack of success of intercalibration does not exempt Member States from the

obligation of developing assessment methods for all biological quality elements.

In most Member States, WFD-compliant assessment methods for the classification of ecological

status were not fully developed for all biological quality elements (BQEs), in time for the first RBMPs.

The most common biological methods developed are phytoplankton (chlorophyll a) in lakes and

benthic fauna in rivers. The BQEs that were least developed in rivers are phytoplankton and

macrophytes, and in lakes phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish. Assessment methods show

the most gaps for transitional waters (all BQEs) and for coastal waters, where particularly macroalgae

and angiosperms were fully developed only in a few Member States.

Thus, in many Member States, the assessment of ecological status in this first cycle of RBMPs was

based on pressure and impact data rather than on biological monitoring data for a large proportion of

water bodies. The confidence in the assessment of ecological status for those countries that have not

developed methods is therefore low or unknown, and comparability with the assessments from other

Member States questionable2.

1 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans, COM(2012) 670 final. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol1.pdf 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/CWD-2012-379_EN-Vol2.pdf

3 of 129

1.2 Objectives

Task 2 is to examine and analyse the methods used by Member States to assess and classify the

Ecological Status of surface water bodies, and in particular if they are appropriate to achieve the

objective of a comparable assessment of Ecological Status across Europe. The four sub tasks of

Task 2 are inter-related: Task 2a entails a comparison of typologies used by Member States; Task 2b

is to undertake a peer review of the intercalibration process; Task 2c will compare Member State’s

specific pollutants and environmental quality standards; and Task 2d is for a reality check of the

results obtained in assessing Ecological Status across Europe.

As described above, Members States are required to undertake an intercalibration exercise of their

assessment methods and determination of ecological status particularly the high/good and

good/moderate class boundaries. In some areas of the EU this has been considered to have been a

success but in others the results are less certain. The aim of this study is to attempt to verify the

results of the intercalibration by undertaking a “reality check”. The check will involve the identification

of where there are potential incongruities in ecological status classifications particularly across

international borders in transboundary water bodies. The aim is to make more transparent and explain

the reasons for any differences in the assessment and classification of ecological status where there

are believed/perceived to be unexpected differences.

The report describes how transboundary locations and water bodies were identified and subsequently

whether or not there were any potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential

across the international border. An overview and summary of potential transboundary water bodies in

rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters are presented separately with further more detailed

examination of a limited number of case examples from each water category. Conclusions and

recommendations are then presented. Annexes A and B list all the potential transboundary water

bodies and some of these are illustrated on maps.

It should be noted that there is some uncertainty on the identification of transboundary water bodies in

this report, and it is, therefore, recommended that the information is validated by Member States if

any further work is undertaken on the potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status

across international borders.

4 of 129

2. Identification of transboundary locations

As the focus of the study was on transboundary water bodies the first step was to identify where these

occur. A number of sources were used for this step:

1. Personal communications with experts in the Commission, JRC and the EEA who had been

closely involved in the intercalibration process and assessing ecological status information

from Member States (MSs), and were subsequently aware of where possible incongruities

may occur.

2. Web published information from the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary

Watercourses and International Lakes3 e.g. inventory of transboundary rivers and lakes and

overview maps of transboundary surface waters.

3. The International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) who provided

GIS files of their river water bodies with information on which were transboundary. Danube

MS had been asked by the ICPDR to indicate which of their water bodies are transboundary.

However, AT, DE and SI had not reported that information.

4. The WISE database4 containing data on surface water bodies including their names,

locations, status and the pressures to which they were subject. The database was used to

follow up information provided by the experts mentioned in 1 above, and to help confirm those

water bodies identified in 5 were transboundary or not.

5. The ECRINS5 dataset with the GIS water body lengths and centroids reported by MSs which

were used to identify potential and confirm which water bodies are transboundary when

associated with water bodies from adjacent MS. Possible transboundary water bodies were

mapped to confirm whether or not they are actually transboundary. MSs were not asked to

identify which of their water bodies were transboundary as part of WISE reporting.

For lakes and transitional waters potential transboundary water bodies were identified by searching

the ECRINS dataset of water body areas and lengths to identify those that were within 500 m of each

other but with a different MS code. For rivers the searching was on the basis of neighbouring water

bodies with a different MS code within 200 m of either end of the water body. Finally for coastal

waters searching was on the basis of a neighbouring water body being within a distance of 1 nautical

mile. There was often a disparity in the lengths of the water bodies reported across national borders

which meant that many water bodies from one MS could match a single but longer water body from

another MS. This increased the uncertainty as to which were the actual transboundary water bodies.

Confirmation of which water bodies were likely to be transboundary was undertaken by eye after the

candidates were mapped against RBD/national borders.

This process caused a duplication of all records: these were removed as far as possible. Incomplete

or incorrect EU water body codes were not processed. EL only provided water bodies as line features

3 http://www.unece.org/env/water/

4 http://wfd2.atkins.dk/summary/Pages/Folder.aspx

5 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-catchments-and-rivers-network

http://www.unece.org/env/water/

5 of 129

and hence these were not processed. Also several Member States provided incorrect direction of flow

for rivers, with the digitised rivers flowing away from the sea.

Complete lists of potential transboundary lake, transitional and coastal water bodies identified in this

study are presented in Annex A with maps of some but not all locations. To help the reader, the long

list of potential transboundary river locations (596 pairs) is presented in Annex B as a separate word

document.

6 of 129

3. Identification of transboundary locations with potential

incongruities in ecological status/potential

Once transboundary locations/water bodies were identified the following information for each of the

paired/grouped water bodies was extracted from the WISE database:

designation (natural, artificial or heavily modified);

overall ecological status/potential class;

confidence in the classification;

classification according to the component biological and other quality elements;

monitoring sites in the water bodies and the quality elements monitored; and,

significant pressures and impacts affecting the water bodies.

Each of the pairs/groups of water bodies were then examined to see if there were any differences in

overall ecological status/potential classification and if there were, examine the differences in the

extracted information and try to explain the differences. There may also be cases where even though

status/potential is assessed as the same, the quality elements used in the classification were

completely different.

The developmental status and availability of national assessment and classification methods for the

biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements used in the classification of

ecological status/potential has also been assessed as part of the assessment of River Basin

Management Plans6: the results of this assessment was also be used to give contextual and

interpretative information for the transboundary water bodies where there are apparent differences.

Differences in ecological status/potential in adjacent transboundary water bodies may be due to

differences in significant pressures and impacts across the border. MS have reported information on

the pressures and impact affecting each water body, and these were compared between adjacent

water bodies to see if there were any obvious differences that might explain differences in status.

Differences in size of adjacent water bodies may also indicate differences in approaches in identifying

water bodies in relation to significant pressures and impacts and the classification of status.

During the planning stage of the study, and as an initial guide, it was thought that depending on the

availability of information, up to 20 transboundary locations would be selected for further in-depth

assessment. It was the aim to have examples from all surface water categories: lakes, rivers,

transitional and coastal waters. In practice, more river transboundary locations were identified than for

the other water categories. Hence more examples were examined in detail in rivers than have been

for the other 3 water categories.

6 It should be noted that only 1 RBD in ES had published a RBMP at the time of this study (this was assessed) and none had

been published in PT. However, both ES and PT had reported some electronic data to WISE: this has been used in this study.

7 of 129

4. Identified transboundary rivers

4.1 Overview

This section provides an overview of the river water bodies identified in this study that are potentially

transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in the

classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the first

in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group e.g.

“1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this

report. The maps were produced from the ECRINS dataset using the water body areas/lengths

reported by Member States.

Table 1 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary river

water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex B.

Table 1 Overview and basic statistics of the identified river water bodies that are

potentially transboundary

Total %

Pairs

Number 596

- with different designations 79 13%

- with different ecological status/potential 132 22%

- where both water bodies are classified 427 72%

- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 89 15%

- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 201 34%

- with different confidence in classification 53 9%

- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 129 22%

- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 322 54%

- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 145 24%

Water bodies in the transboundary "pairs"

Number 1192

- unclassified 169 14%

- with no information on confidence of classification 241 20%

- classified by phytoplankton 163 14%

- classified by other aquatic flora 511 43%

- classified by macrophytes 45 4%

- classified by phytobenthos 178 15%

- classified by macroinvertebrates 717 60%

- classified by fish 588 49%

- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 659 55%

- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 964 81%

- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 653 55%

- classified by other national pollutants 110 9%

- monitored for biological quality elements 580 49%

- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 453 38%

- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 575 48%

The GIS analysis of reported river lengths in ECRINS identified 596 pairs of potential transboundary

river water bodies. A fifth of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or

ecological potential. In around 70% of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known

status/potential) but only in 15% of the pairs were both water bodies classified by all relevant

8 of 129

biological quality elements. This is contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In

addition, in a third of the pairs status was determined by a non-biological quality element in at least

one of the water bodies in the pair. The most common quality element used for classification in the

transboundary water bodies were general physicochemical quality elements (81% of water bodies).

The most commonly used biological quality element was benthic invertebrates which were used in the

classification of 60% of water bodies. These two quality elements were the most common elements

used in monitoring and assessment river water quality before the introduction of the WFD.

Note: There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis used to identify

transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the list of potential

transboundary water bodies in this report should be validated by Member States before any

further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the statistics calculated above should be treated

with caution.

4.2 Case examples of possible incongruities

The following section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary

river water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in

ecological status/potential across transboundary river water bodies. Where possible the case

examples have been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations

across the EU, and to illustrate some more generic issues. There are separate case examples for

lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies in the subsequent sections of the report.

Each has a general description of the water bodies including their designation, status/potential and

the confidence in the classification. Information is also given on the monitoring undertaken in the

water bodies and the pressures to which they are subject.

The status of development of the assessment methods for determining the ecological status of the

biological quality elements is then described. This information was from the Commission Staff working

document on the assessment of Member States’ first river basin management plans7. It should be

borne in mind that this was the situation at the time of publication of the plans, which for many MS

was December 2009. Methods have changed since then in some MSs.

The first plans were also based on the first results of intercalibration published in 20088. The

intercalibration process is aimed at consistency and comparability of the classification results of the

monitoring systems operated by each Member State for the biological quality elements. The

intercalibration exercise must establish values for the boundary between the classes of high and good

status, and for the boundary between good and moderate status, which are consistent with the

normative definitions of those class boundaries given in Annex V of the WFD. The essence of

7 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, European Overview (2/2), Accompanying the document “REPORT FROM

THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans” (COM(2012) 670 final). 8 COMMISSION DECISION of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise, (2008/915/EC).

9 of 129

intercalibration is, therefore, to ensure that the high-good and the good moderate boundaries in all

Member State’s assessment methods for biological quality elements correspond to comparable levels

of ecosystem alteration.

There were no intercalibrated results for some Member States, biological quality elements, water

categories and GIGs. As of December 2012 the Commission was drafting it's proposal for the second

phase of intercalibration. The extent and availability of results in the second decision will be much

greater than the first decision. MSs will be expected to use these results in future plans. The results

for the relevant MSs and BQEs are given in each case study.

Finally concluding comments are made about any possible incongruities in the ecological status

/potential of the transboundary water bodies, and any recommendations for further action to clarify

any identified issues or incongruities. In this context it should be borne in mind that Member States

are only required to intercalibrate their methods in terms of the high/good and good moderate

boundaries. Some of differences in status found are for class boundaries that have not been

intercalibrated i.e. moderate/poor and poor/bad. Member states are required to define class limiting

boundaries for poor and bad status in terms of the Annex V normative definitions. At poor status there

would be expected to be substantial alterations in the type specific reference conditions and at bad

severe alterations. There was no information on how Member States have defined boundaries for the

lowest status classes. Some of the water body pairs are heavily modified and in others there is one

natural and one heavily modified water body. Ecological potential has not been intercalibrated

between Member States and so in cases where water bodies have good or moderate potential it is

not certain that there is an equivalent level of hydromorphological alterations that lead to the

equivalent changes in biological conditions and ecosystem alteration.

Differences in status in adjacent transboundary water bodies may also be influenced by how water

bodies have been delineated by the respective Member States. As the CIS guidance document on the

identification of water bodies states “A discrete element of surface water should not contain significant

elements of different status. A water body must be capable of being assigned to a single ecological

status class with sufficient confidence and precision through the Directive’s monitoring programmes.

Although effects of human activities will always vary no matter what the size of a water body, major

changes in the status of surface water should be used to delineate surface water body boundaries as

necessary to ensure that the identification of water bodies provides for an accurate description of

surface water status”.

The delineation of too large a water body in terms of the location, extent and magnitude of pressures

may mask the impact of individual pressures and lead to the resultant classification being of a better

status than it could be. There may also be more than one monitoring site in a water body with the

results being used to assess the status of the water body according to the monitored quality elements.

In the cases where the parameters indicative of a particular quality element are measured at more

than one site in a water body the results may be combined (e.g. averaged) to estimate the condition

of the quality element in the water body as a whole. This process will again potentially mask the areas

of lower status within the water body. So the relative lengths/sizes of the respective transboundary

water bodies and how they have been delineated and monitored may also fundamentally influence

the outcome of the status assessment and the comparability of the classification.

10 of 129

Table 2 Transboundary rivers with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential

Index MS RBD WB Code Name DE S

ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MBQ

MHQ

MPQ

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OP

BE-NL

6 BE BEMaas_VL BEVL05_144 MAAS III HM M NI M G M M M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y

6.1 NL NLMS NL91ZM Zandmaas HM P NI G M P M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

7 BE BEMaas_VL BEVL08_145 MARK (Maas) NA P NI P M P M G M M Y Y Y Y Y

7.1 NL NLMS NL25_13 Boven Mark HM P NI M P M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BE-FR 10 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_48 LEIE I HM B NI P P G B M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

10.1 FR FRA FRAR32 DEULE CANALISEE DE LA CONFLUENCE AVEC LE CANAL D'AIRE A LA CONFLUEN

HM B ME M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

11 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_7 IJZER I HM B NI B B G M M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y

11.1 FR FRA FRAR63 YSER NA P HI G P P M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

BG-RO 16 BG BG1000 BG1RL120R013 Русенски Лом RWB13 HM B LO B G M G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

16.1 RO RO1000 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu HM M LO M G G G Y Y Y Y

17 BG BG1000 BG1VT100R009 Вит RWB09 HM G LO G G G G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


18 BG BG1000 BG1WO100R001 Тимок WORWB01 NA B LO B G M M Y Y Y Y


CZ-PL 31 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10177000 Brlenka po ústí do toku

Metuje NA P LO P G H G Y

31.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049449 Czermnica NA U NI Y Y Y

32 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela

HM P LO P P G G Y Y

32.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049449 Czermnica NA U NI Y Y Y

33 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela

HM P LO P P G G Y Y

33.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049469 Klikawa NA M HI M M Y Y Y Y

34 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10202000 Metuje po ústí do toku NA P LO P M G G G M Y Y Y Y Y

11 of 129


ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MBQ

MHQ

MPQ

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OP

Labe

34.1 PL PL5000 PLRW500049469 Klikawa NA M HI M M Y Y Y Y

CZ-DE 49 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_13969000 Libský potok po ústí do

toku Ohre NA M LO G M G G G Y Y Y Y

49.1 DE DE5000 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb

NA P HI M M B G M G Y Y Y

51 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_13971000 Ohre/Eger po soutok s tokem Reslava/Röslau

NA P LO P G H G G G Y Y Y Y

51.1 DE DE5000 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb

NA P HI M M B G M G Y Y Y

57 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_14023000 Mohelenský

potok/Mügelbach po státní hranici

NA P LO P G H M G G Y

57.1 DE DE5000 DEBY_SE044 Muglbach NA G HI G G G G G G Y

66 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_14696000 Spréva/Spree po soutok s tokem Roţanský potok/Rosenbach

NA G LO G G H G

66.1 DE DE5000 DESN_582-1 Spree-1 (Spréva) HM P ME M P M G M G Y Y Y Y Y Y

CZ-PL 102 CZ CZ_6000 CZ_20244000 Opava po soutok s

tokem Moravice HM P LO P P G M Y Y Y Y Y Y

102.1 PL PL6000 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy

HM G HI H G Y Y Y

103 CZ CZ_6000 CZ_20343000 Moravice po ústí do toku Opava

NA P LO P G G G G G Y Y Y Y Y

103.1 PL PL6000 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy

HM G HI H G Y Y Y

106 CZ CZ_6000 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici HM P LO G P P G M M M Y Y Y Y Y

106.1 PL PL6000 PLRW6000011513 Odra od Olzy do wyplywu z polderu Buków

HM B HI H M M Y Y Y Y

CZ-SK 187 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici HM P LO P G P G M G G Y Y Y Y Y

187.1 SK SK40000 SKM0001 MORAVA HM M ME G M G G G G

189 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici HM P LO P G P G M G G Y Y Y Y Y

189.1 SK SK40000 SKM0006 MYJAVA NA M ME M G M G M G

190 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava

NA M LO M M M H M Y

190.1 SK SK40000 SKM0001 MORAVA HM M ME G M G G G G

12 of 129


ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MBQ

MHQ

MPQ

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OP

DE-PL 195 DE DE6000 DEBB6_2 Oder NA B NI B M M G M G Y Y Y Y

195.1 PL PL6000 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy

HM H HI G G Y Y Y Y Y

196 DE DE6000 DEBB6_3 Oder NA P NI P M M G M M Y Y Y

196.1 PL PL6000 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry

NA M HI G M Y Y Y Y

197 DE DE6000 DEBB6_3 Oder NA P NI P M M G M M Y Y Y

197.1 PL PL6000 PLRW6000211739 Odra od Czarnej Strugi do Nysy Luzyckiej

HM M HI G H M Y Y Y

DE-NL 252 DE DE2000 DENI_32031 32031 Radewijke HM P ME M P P G M Y Y Y Y

252.1 NL NLRN NL36_OWM_012 Radewijkerbeek HM M NI M M M M M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

255 DE DE2000 DENI_32035 32035 Wettringe HM P ME M P P G Y Y

255.1 NL NLRN NL36_OWM_021 Wettringe HM M NI M M G M M Y Y Y Y Y

258 DE DE2000 DENI_32044 32044 Itter HM B ME H B G G Y Y

258.1 NL NLRN NL05_Itterbeek Itterbeek HM M NI G G G G M Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

ES-PT 386 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000120380 RIO ARDILA III NA M HI G M H G G Y Y Y Y

386.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila NA P LO Y

391 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000133590 RIO ARDILA II NA M HI G M M G M G Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

391.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1490I3 Rio Ardila NA P LO Y

394 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000133760 RIO CAYA NA P HI G P G G G Y Y Y Y Y Y

394.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1428I1 Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)

HM M ME M M Y Y Y Y

FI-SE 434 FI FIVHA6 FI67.100_001 Tornionjoki NA G HI G H H G Y Y Y

434.1 SE SE1TO SE739989-185170 Torneälven NA G HI H G G G Y

437 FI FIVHA6 FI67.111_001 Liakanjoki NA M HI G M G G Y Y Y Y Y Y

437.1 SE SE1TO SE739989-185170 Torneälven NA G HI H G G G Y

440 FI FIVHA6 FI67.300_001 Muonionjoki NA H HI H H H G Y

440.1 SE SE1TO SE755505-182645 Muonioälven NA G HI H G G H Y

HU-SK 477 HU HU1000 HUAEP334 Bodrog HM M ME G M M M G G H G Y Y Y

477.1 SK SK40000 SKB0001 BODROG NA P ME H M G P G M G

480 HU HU1000 HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél HM M ME H G G G M G G G Y Y

480.1 SK SK40000 SKD0017 DUNAJ HM M ME H G M G G G

486 HU HU1000 HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna HM M LO G H H G G G M Y Y

486.1 RO RO1000 RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_ Ierul Ingust --> izvor - HM G LO H G G H Y

13 of 129


ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MBQ

MHQ

MPQ

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OP

B1 vars. in Ier

488 HU HU1000 HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös HM M ME G M G M G G G H G Y Y Y

488.1 RO RO1000 RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita

NA G ME H G H G G G Y Y Y

LT-LV 508 LT LT2300 LT300100018 NA G ME G G

508.1 LV LVVUBA LVV056 Venta NA M ME H M G Y

511 LT LT2300 LT300111702 NA G LO G


514 LT LT2300 LT300113104 NA M ME H M H M Y


522 LT LT3400 LT410100016 NA P ME P P M G Y

522.1 LV LVLUBA LVL176 Musa NA B LO H M G Y Y

14 of 129

Key to abbreviations

Abbreviation

Description Abbreviation

Description

DES Designation of water body Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE

M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)

HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)

NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored (Y = yes)

AB Artificial water body

Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE

ES Ecological status/potential PSP Point source pressures

DSP Diffuse source pressures

1 High ecological status WAP Water abstraction pressures

2 Good ecological status/potential HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures

3 Moderate ecological status/potential RMP River management pressures

4 Poor ecological status/potential TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures

5 Bad ecological status/potential OMP Other morphological pressures

U Unknown/unclassified status/potential OPP Other pressures

CON Confidence in the classification of status/potential

HI High confidence

ME Medium confidence

LO Low confidence

NI No information

Classification by individual quality elements – same numbers and colour coding as used for ecological status classifications above

PP Phytoplankton

OF Other aquatic flora

MA Macroalgae

AG Angiosperms

MP Macrophytes

PB Phytobenthos

BI Benthic invertebrates

FI Fish

HM Hydromorphological quality elements

GP General physicochemical quality elements

NP Non-priority specific pollutants

ON Other national pollutants

15 of 129

Case example 1 (Map 1)

Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name

1 BE BEMaas_VL BEVL05_136 DOMMEL

1.1 NL NLMS NL27_BO_1 Boven Dommel/ Keersop/ Beekloop

Description: Both water bodies are designated as heavily modified with the BE water body being

classified as having poor ecological potential and the one from NL as having moderate ecological

potential. There was no reported information on the level of confidence associated with the

classification of potential. Both water bodies are assessed and classified by the same groups of

biological quality element (BQE) with those in the NL water body all being assessed as moderate

whereas in the BE water body one BQE had a better quality (good) and one a worse quality than the

same BQE in the NL water body. This might imply a different level of sensitivity to pressures of the

methods used by the respective MS for these two BQEs (macroinvertebrates and other aquatic flora,

respectively). Biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs were monitored in both water

bodies, and both were subject to significant point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures.

Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for

different biological quality elements based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that

there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in BE for all BQEs relevant to rivers, and for all

BQEs in NL except for phytoplankton where there were differences in the state of development in

some RBDs.

Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of

ecological potential.

Conclusion: There is a difference in the classification of the 2 water bodies which is not fully

explainable from the available information as both water bodies were assessed according to the same

quality element groups, were monitored for all QE types and largely subject to the same pressures.

However, ecological potential has not been intercalibrated and the difference in classified potential

may reflect differences in the effects of the hydromorphological alterations of the 2 water bodies on

their biological communities. It is recommended that the respective MSs are contacted for additional

information to clarify the differences if this study is continued at a later date.



11 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_7 IJZER I

11.1 FR FRA FRAR63 YSER

Description: The water body in BE is designated as heavily modified and is at bad ecological

potential. The water body in FR is natural and classified as having poor ecological status.

Phytobenthos were assessed as good in both water bodies, and macroinvertebrates and fish as poor

in the FR water body and moderate in the BE water body. Macrophytes were assessed as bad in the

BE water body but were not assessed in the FR water body. Biological, hydromorphological and

physicochemical QEs were monitored in both water bodies, and both were subject to significant

16 of 129

diffuse and hydromorphological pressures. The FR water body also had significant point source and

river management pressures, and the BE water body significant “other” pressures.


different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated

that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in BE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In FR

methods were fully developed for benthic invertebrates but for the other BQEs there were differences

in the state of development from fully developed to undeveloped in some RBDs.

Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of

ecological potential. Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were intercalibrated for common

intercalibration types between BE and FR during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise, and results

for macrophytes and fish are proposed for the draft results of the Phase 2 intercalibration.

Conclusion: There is a difference in the classification of the 2 water bodies which is not fully

explainable from the available information. The overall classification of the BE water body was on the

basis of a quality element not assessed in the FR water body. Where the same BQEs were assessed

the status of the FR water body was worse than in the BE water body. This might imply some

differences in the sensitivity to pressures of the biological assessment methods in the two Member

States particularly as the FR water body was subject to more significant pressures than the BE water

body. Ecological potential has not been intercalibrated and so it is difficult to compare the status and

potential between a natural and heavily modified water body as the differences in classification may

reflect the effects of the hydromorphological alterations of the BE water bodies on its biological

communities. It is recommended that the respective MSs are contacted for additional information to

clarify the differences if this study is continued at a later date.



26 CZ CZ_5000 CZ_10122000 Petríkovický potok po ústí do toku Licná

26.1 PL PL5000 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in CZ being classified as poor ecological

status with low confidence and the other in PL being of moderate ecological status with a high level of

confidence. The only QE assessed in the PL water body was general physicochemical QEs which

were classified as high status. The basis of the moderate classification is therefore not known. Fish

and macroinvertebrates were assessed in the CZ water body with the poor status for

macroinvertebrates defaulting the overall status of the water body to poor. There was no reported

information on which quality elements were monitored in either of the water bodies and the only

reported significant pressure (hydromorphological) was for the CZ water body.



that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in PL for phytoplankton, macrophytes and

phytobenthos whereas methods for benthic invertebrate were under development and there were no

17 of 129

methods for fish. In CZ there was only a fully developed method for fish: there were no methods for

the other BQEs.

Intercalibration: There were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between

CZ and PL during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates

are proposed for the draft results of the Phase 2 intercalibration.

Conclusion: There is clear uncertainty in the status of the PL water body as it appears to have only

been classified by non-biological quality elements which is contrary to the requirements of the WFD.

Also the overall status of the CZ water body was determined by a quality element for which there was

no WFD compliant method developed. It is likely therefore that the classification of the 2 water bodies

is not comparable. Information on how the PL water body was classified should be sought from the

Member State if this study is continued at a later date.



180 CZ CZ_1000 CZ_40044000 Nemanický potok po státní hranici

180.1 DE DE1000 DEBY_NR133 Schwarzach, bis Schaufelbach/Rhaner Bach/Rötzbach/Buchbach

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the water body in CZ having good ecological status

with a low confidence and the other water body in DE poor status with medium confidence. Both

assessed biological quality elements in the CZ water body were classified as good whereas the same

two BQEs (macroinvertebrates and fish) assessed in the DE water body were assessed as poor and

moderate status respectively. The DE water body was also assessed in terms of other aquatic flora

which was also at moderate status. Biological and general physicochemical QEs were monitored in

the DE water body but there was no monitoring information reported for the CZ water body. There

were 3 significant pressure types reported for the DE water body and none for the CZ water body.



that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in DE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In CZ

there was only a fully developed method for fish: there were no methods for the other BQEs.

Intercalibration: There were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between

CZ and DE during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates

and phytobenthos (in very large rivers) are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision

(phase 2).

Conclusion: The biological assessment methods for CZ were assessed as not being developed

enough to be WFD compliant and hence there is some uncertainty in the classification of status of the

CZ water body. In addition intercalibration of common types between CZ and DE had not been

achieved when the RBMP were drawn up. There is, therefore, a possibly incongruity of classification

18 of 129

of status between these two water bodies and it is recommended that further information to clarify the

situation is obtained from the MSs if this study is continued at a later date.



279 DE DE7000 DENW284_12_20 Schwalm

279.1 NL NLMS NL57_ZOM_02 Swalm

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in NL being classified as moderate

ecological status with high confidence and the other water body in DE at poor ecological status with

no information on confidence. The same BQEs are assessed in both water bodies with the status for

other aquatic flora and fish being worse (poor) in the DE water body than in the NL water body. The

worst status (moderate) for a BQE in the NL water body was for macroinvertebrates which was the

same status for this BQE in the DE water body. Biological QEs were monitored in both water bodies

and hydromorphological and general physicochemical QEs were also monitored in the DE water

body. Point source pressures were reported to be significant in both water bodies and the NL water

body was also subject to significant diffuse source and other pressures, and the DE water body to

hydromorphological pressures.


different BQEs based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-

compliant assessment methods in DE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In NL there were fully developed

methods for all BQEs except for phytoplankton where there were differences in the state of

development in some RBDs.

Intercalibration: Benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos were intercalibrated for common

intercalibration types between DE and NL during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise, and results

for fish are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2).

Conclusion: Both MSs have used WFD compliant methods in the assessment of ecological status

and one of the BQEs was intercalibrated for use in the first plans. It is likely therefore that the

differences in status reflect differences in the pressures on, and characteristics of, the respective

water bodies.



306 DE DE2000 DERP_2642680000_1 Oberer Hornbach

306.1 FR FRC FRCR445 HORN

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in FR being classified as moderate

ecological status with medium confidence and the other water body in DE at poor ecological status

with high confidence. One assessed BQE was common to both water bodies, other aquatic flora, with

the status being poor in the DE water body and moderate in the other. Macroinvertebrates (poor) and

19 of 129

fish (moderate) were also assessed in the DE but not in the FR water body. Biological QEs were

monitored in both water bodies and hydromorphological and general physicochemical QEs were also

monitored in the FR water body. Point source pressures were reported to be significant in both water

bodies and the FR water body was also subject to significant diffuse source pressures, and the DE

water body to hydromorphological pressures.



that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in DE for all BQEs relevant to rivers. In FR

methods were fully developed for benthic invertebrates but for the other BQEs there were differences

in the state of development from fully developed to undeveloped in some RBDs.


intercalibration types between DE and FR during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise, and results

for macrophytes and fish are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2).

Conclusion: Both MSs have used WFD compliant methods in the assessment of ecological status. At

least one of the BQEs intercalibrated for use in the first plans was assessed in DE – both may have

been but this is unclear because only other aquatic flora were reported and not the component sub-

elements including phytobenthos. In the FR water body only one of the intercalibrated BQEs

(phytobenthos) was assessed. There are differences in the significant pressures to which each water

body is subject which may reflect the differences in status. Therefore, in spite of the differences in the

BQEs assessed in the 2 water bodies, it is possible that the differences in status reflect differences in

the pressures on, and characteristics of, the respective water bodies, and there is no incongruity in

status across the border.



431 ES ES091 ES091MSPF579 Río Arabo desde su entrada en España hasta

su desembocadura en el río Segre.

431.1 FR FRD FRDR240 rivière du carol

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the one in ES being classified as good ecological

status with no information on confidence and the other water body in FR at moderate ecological

status with low confidence. There was no reported information on which quality elements were

assessed in arriving at the overall ecological status for either water body: the basis of the

classification is therefore not known. Biological and general physicochemical QE were monitored in

both water bodies and hydromorphological QEs were also monitored in the ES water body. Two

significant pressures (point source and water abstraction) were reported for the FR water body and

one (diffuse source) for the one in ES.



20 of 129

that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in ES for all BQEs except for fish where

there were no methods. In FR methods were fully developed for benthic invertebrates but for the other

BQEs there were differences in the state of development from fully developed to undeveloped in

some RBDs.


intercalibration types (Mediterranean GIG) between ES and FR during Phase 1 of the intercalibration

exercise, and results for macrophytes for types in the Mediterranean GIG are proposed for the draft

revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2).

Conclusion: There are differences in the reported pressures on the 2 water bodies but there is no

information as to whether these lead to the differences in the reported ecological status. There is also

no information on the biological or other assessment methods used to determine status. It is therefore

recommended that if this study is taken further in the future that more information is requested from

the respective MS to explain this potential incongruity in status.



497 HU HU1000 HUAEP784 Maros kelet

497.1 RO RO1000 RORW4.1_B11 MURES, sector Arad - Romanian/Hungarian border

Description: Both water bodies are designated as heavily modified with the one in RO being classified as being at good ecological potential with low confidence and the other at moderate ecological potential with medium confidence. The HU water body was assessed by all BQE and other QEs with the overall status being determined by phytoplankton and non-priority specific pollutants (NPSP). The RO water body was not assessed for phytoplankton and other aquatic flora. Macroinvertebrates were assessed as good in both water bodies, and fish as high in the HU water body and good in the RO water body. There was no information on the monitoring undertaken in the HU water body whereas all quality elements were monitored for in the RO water body. No pressures were reported for the HU water body and only one for the RO water body (hydromorphological pressures). Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in RO for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish. The method for macrophytes was under development and there was no method for phytobenthos. In HU there were no methods for all BQEs except for benthic invertebrates where the method was under development. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. In terms of natural water bodies there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between HU and RO during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: Fish were assessed as being at high (maximum) potential in the HU water body which seems to be counter-intuitive to the water body being designated as heavily modified. Depending on the actual type of hydromorphological alterations resulting in the designation of heavily modified it would be expected that alterations in habitats would significantly impact fish populations and it would be difficult to achieve maximum potential. At the time of the first RBMP there were no fully compliant WFD methods for BQEs in HU. RO has used 2 of the 3 biological methods that are considered to be

21 of 129

WFD compliant, and the status for one of these is same as assessed in the HU water body but worse (good) for the other. There was no information on monitoring or on the pressures for the HU water body and also because there is uncertainty in the validity of methods used by HU in particular it is recommended that further information is collected from the respective MS to determine whether the difference in potential classification reflects differences in pressures and actual hydromorphological alterations in the respective water bodies.



499 HU HU1000 HUAEP931 Sajó felso

499.1 SK SK40000 SKS0003 SLANA

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the HU one being classified as moderate ecological status with medium confidence and the SK one as having poor ecological status also with medium confidence. The HU water body was assessed by all relevant BQEs (except phytoplankton) and other QEs with the overall status being determined by macrophytes and macroinvertebrates. The SK water body was not assessed for phytoplankton, other aquatic flora and fish. Macroinvertebrates were assessed as poor in the SK and moderate in the HU water body, and phytobenthos as good in both water bodies. There was no information reported on monitoring for both water bodies and the only pressure information reported was for the HU water body where other pressures were reported as significant. Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in SK for all BQEs except for fish for which there was no method. The method for macrophytes was under development and there was no method for phytobenthos. In HU there were no methods for all BQEs except for benthic invertebrates where the method was under development. Intercalibration: there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between HU and SK during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise but results for benthic macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos are proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: SK has used 2 WFD compliant BQE assessment methods for the classification of ecological status of its water body. There is no information on the pressures on this water body causing the impact on status. There were no fully developed methods for BQEs in HU at the time of the first RBMP and there were no intercalibration results available between the 2 MSs. It is therefore recommended that further information is obtained to ascertain what is leading to the difference in ecological status across this transboundary water body.



507 LT LT1100 LT150100011 No name reported

507.1 PL PL8000 PLRW8000206851 Szeszupa od Potopki do granicy panstwa

Description: The water body in LT was designated as heavily modified with good ecological potential and high confidence. The PL water body was natural with good ecological status at high confidence. The LT water body was assessed by only one BQE, fish, which had high potential. This may be counter – intuitive as fish are often affected by hydromorphological alterations and it is expected that this water body will have some hydromorphological alterations as it has been designated as heavily modified. The PL water body was not assessed by any BQEs. General physicochemical QEs were the only QE assessed, their status of good deriving the overall status

22 of 129

classification of the water body. There was no reported information for both water bodies on monitoring and on the pressures on the water bodies. Biological assessment methods: An assessment of the ecological status assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in PL for phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos whereas methods for benthic invertebrate were under development and there were no methods for fish. In LT there were only fully developed methods for benthic invertebrates and fish: there were no methods for the other BQEs. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. In terms of natural water bodies there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between LT and PL during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise and there are no results proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: The classification of the PL water body is not compliant with the requirements of the WFD as it seems to be solely based on the assessment of physicochemical conditions, this in spite of the apparent availability of WFD compliant methods for 3 BQEs for use in developing the first plan. LT seems to have used one of the 2 WFD compliant BQE methods in the assessment of the potential of its water body. No information was reported for either water body on pressures or the monitoring undertaken. For these reasons it is recommended that further information is collected from both MSs to clarify the situation with regards to the classification of the 2 water bodies.




522.1 LV LVLUBA LVL176 Musa

Description: Both water bodies are natural with the LV water body being classified as having bad ecological status with medium confidence and the LT water body, poor status with low confidence. The LT water body was assessed in terms of 2 BQEs, macroinvertebrates and fish; both were at poor status. The LV water body was assessed to be at high status in terms of macroinvertebrates and moderate and good status in terms of general physicochemical QEs and NPSP, respectively. As these were the only 3 QEs assessed it is not known how the overall bad status of the LV water body was determined. There was no information reported on the QEs monitored in either water body. Diffuse source pressure were reported to be significant in both water bodies and “other” pressures were also reported to be significant in the LV water body. Biological assessment methods: : An assessment of the assessment methods for different biological quality elements (BQE) based on information reported in the first RBMP indicated that there were fully WFD-compliant assessment methods in LT for benthic invertebrates and fish and none for the other BQEs. Methods had not been developed for any of the BQEs in LV. Intercalibration: In terms of natural water bodies there were no intercalibrated results for the common intercalibration types between LT and LV during Phase 1 of the intercalibration exercise and there are no results proposed for the draft revised intercalibration Decision (phase 2). Conclusion: There is significant uncertainty in the status of, and the methods used in the classification of these 2 transboundary water bodies. It is recommended that further information is requested from the respective Member States to clarify this potential incongruity in the classification of ecological status. In particular the basis of the classification of the LV water body should be clarified.

23 of 129

5. Identified transboundary lakes

5.1 Overview

This section provides an overview of the lake water bodies identified in this study that are potentially

transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in the

classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the first

in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group e.g.

“1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this



Table 3 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary lake

water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex A.

Table 3 Overview and basic statistics of the identified lake water bodies that are


Number %

Pairs/groups

Number 16

- with different designations 2 12.5%

- with different ecological status/potential 10 62.5%

- where both water bodies are classified 11 68.8%

- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 1 6.3%

- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 4 25.0%

- with different confidence in classification 13 81.3%

- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 3 18.8%

- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 5 31.3%

- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 8 50.0%


Number 33

- unclassified 5 15.2%

- with no information on confidence of classification 10 30.3%

- classified by phytoplankton 17 51.5%

- classified by other aquatic flora 4 12.1%

- classified by macrophytes 8 24.2%

- classified by phytobenthos 2 6.1%

- classified by macroinvertebrates 6 18.2%

- classified by fish 9 27.3%

- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 11 33.3%

- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 18 54.5%

- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 15 45.5%

- classified by other national pollutants 0 0.0%

- monitored for biological qualty elements 11 33.3%

- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 10 30.3%

- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 12 36.4%

The GIS analysis of reported lake area in ECRINS, and the information obtained from the WISE

database and other sources identified 16 pairs of potential transboundary lake water bodies. Over a

half of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or ecological potential. In around

70% of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known status/potential) but only in 1

24 of 129

pair were both water bodies classified by all relevant biological quality elements. This is contrary to

the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In addition, in a quarter of the pairs status was

determined by a non-biological quality element in at least one of the water bodies in the pair. The

most common quality element used for classification in the transboundary water bodies were general

physicochemical quality elements (55 % of water bodies). The most commonly used biological quality

element was phytoplankton which was used in the classification of 50% of water bodies. These two

quality elements were the most common elements used in monitoring and assessment lake water

quality before the introduction of the WFD.





with caution.


This section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary lake water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in ecological status/potential across transboundary lake water bodies. Where possible the case examples have been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations across the EU, and to illustrate some more generic issues.

25 of 129

Table 4 Transboundary lake water bodies with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential

Index

MS

RB

D

WB

Code

Nam

e

DE

S

ES

CO

N

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

M_

BQ

Es

M_

HQ

Es

M_

PQ

Es

PS

P

DS

P

WA

P

HM

P

OM

P

OP

P

1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL05_187 ANTWERPSE HAVENDOKKEN + SCHELDE-RIJNVERBINDING

AB 5 NI 3 2 2 5 3 3 4 1 6 3 1 1 1

1.1 NL NLSC nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand AB 4 NI 2 4 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1

3 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206500 EMBALSE DEL CHANZA HM 2 HI 2 5 2 1

3.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1591 Albufeira Chanca HM 2 ME

1 2 4

5 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206650 EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO HM U HI 2

5.1 PT 'PTRH7 PT07GUA1407 Albufeira Abrilongo HM 3 LO 3 2 1 2 6 1 1

6 FI FIVHA6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi NA 1 ME

1 1 1 2 4 1

6.1 SE SE1TO SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI NA 1 LO 1 1 1

8 LT LT4500 LT550030305 Laukesas NA 1 LO 2

8.1 LV LVDUBA LVE165 Lauces ez NA 3 HI

ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120

Embalse de Frieira HM 3 NI 3 2 5 1

ESPT_1.1 PT PTRH1 PT01MIN0006I Rio Minho (HMWB - Jusante B. Frieira)

HM 5 LO 4 5 5 1 1

IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough ) NA 3 ME

1 3 2 3 1 1

IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East NA 2 HI 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

IEUK_1.2 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central NA 2 HI 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

IEUK_2 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_36_673 Macnean Upper ( Lough ) NA 3 HI 2 3 3 3

IEUK_2.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0011 Upper Lough Macnean NA 2 HI 2 2 2 2 2 1

26 of 129


Abbreviation


Description


M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)

HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored (Y = yes)

NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored (Y = yes)












HI High confidence


LO Low confidence

NI No information


PP Phytoplankton


MA Macroalgae

AG Angiosperms

MP Macrophytes

PB Phytobenthos


FI Fish





27 of 129


Index MS RBD WB Code Name


1.1 NL NLSC nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand

Description: Both water bodies are artificial. The BE water body has been classified as having bad ecological potential with no information on confidence and the one in NL, poor with no information on confidence. The status of BE water body has been assessed y phytoplankton, phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish. The water body defaults to bad status through the assessment of benthic invertebrates. The NL water body has been assessed by phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates and fish with the worst status being indicated by other aquatic flora. Monitoring of biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs is reported for the BE water body but there was no information reported for the NL water body. In terms of significant pressures, both water bodies are subject to four categories with diffuse source and hydromorphological being common to both. Biological assessment methods: Both BE and NL were assessed to have available methods for all the BQEs relevant to lakes, an assessment perhaps supported by the indication that all BQEs had been assessed in both water bodies. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. Conclusion: The ecological potential of the 2 artificial water bodies is different and the biological QEs with the worst status is also different in the 2 water bodies. Both water bodies are also impacted by a number of pressures which are presumably causing the water bodies to be less than good ecological potential. As the biological assessment methods have not intercalibrated for ecological potential it is not known whether or not the differences in potential reflect different levels of degradation in hydromorphological characteristics of the 2 water bodies. Case example 2 (Map 32)


6 FI FIVHA6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi

6.1 SE SE1TO SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI

Description: Both lakes have been designated as natural and have been classified as having high ecological status, the one in FI with medium confidence and the one in SE with low confidence. The water body in SE has been classified without the assessment of any biological quality elements: hydromorphological and general physicochemical QEs have been used, both assessed as being at high status. In comparison the FI water body has been assessed in terms of phytoplankton and other aquatic flora and also by general physicochemical QEs and non priority specific pollutants. The assessment of the latter QE indicated good rather than high status: this result did not influence the overall classification result of high, i.e. the one-out-all-out principle may not have been applied. Monitoring for the biological quality elements and general physicochemical QEs was undertaken in the FI water body but there was not information reported on monitoring for the SE water body. The only pressure reported in either water body was diffuse source for the SE water body. Biological assessment methods: SE has been assessed to have methods available for assessing phytoplankton, benthic invertebrate and fish, with a method for macrophytes under development but no method available for phytobenthos. FI has methods available for all relevant lake BQEs except phytobenthos. Intercalibration: Phytoplankton and macrophytes were intercalibrated during the first phase of intercalibration within the Northern Lake GIG with results for SE and FI, hence available for the first

28 of 129

RBMP. In the revised decision there are also intercalibrated results for benthic invertebrates (Northern GIG), and for phytobenthos (cross GIG). Conclusion: The ecological status of the 2 lake water bodies has been classified as high. The low level of confidence in the classification of status in the SE lake might reflect the lack of assessment of the biological quality elements and reliance on non-biological elements. It also might be the case that the lake is part of a group and has had its status inferred through the monitoring and assessment of biological quality elements in other lakes in the group. For FI there seems to be a contravention of the one out all out rule in the classification as the good status for NPSP has not been taken into account in the determination of the final high status classification. These two aspects may affect the comparability of ecological status between the 2 bodies and this situation should be clarified with the respective member states.



8 LT LT4500 LT550030305 Laukesas

8.1 LV LVDUBA LVE165 Lauces ez

Description: Both water bodies are natural. The lake water body in LT was classified as high status (low confidence) and the one in LV has moderate status with high confidence. The only information reported on which elements were assessed in terms of ecological status was for NPSP for the LT water body. There was also no information reported for either water body on the quality elements monitored or the significant pressures on them. Biological assessment methods: The only biological quality element with fully developed and available assessment methods in both LT and LV was phytoplankton but this was not reported to have been assessed in either water body. Intercalibration: During the first phase of intercalibration the only biological quality element intercalibrated was phytoplankton. The only biological quality element intercalibrated for lakes in the second phase of intercalibration in the Central Baltic GIG for LT and LV was for macrophytes. Intercalibration had not been completed for the other BQEs including for phytoplankton included in the first phase. Conclusion: The ecological status of the 2 lake water bodies is different but information to establish the basis of this difference was not available. It is recommended that additional information is requested from the relevant Member States to determine whether the differences in status is justifiable. Case example 4 (Map 35)


IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough )

IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East

IEUK_1.2 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central

Description: There are 3 water bodies in this transboundary “pair” with 2 smaller water bodies in the UK being adjacent to the water body in IE. All 3 water bodies were designated as natural with the water body in IE being classified as moderate status and the 2 UK water bodies as good status. The level of confidence in the classification was reported as high in the UK and medium in IE. All 3 water bodies were assessed in terms of the same biological quality elements with all relevant elements except phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates being assessed. Hydromorphological status was not reported for the IE water body but was reported to be good in the UK water bodies. (Member States were only required to report water bodies that were at high, good or unknown status). The water bodies in both IE and UK were assessed for general physicochemical QEs and also for NPSP in the

29 of 129

UK ones. The worst class BQE was macrophytes (moderate) for the IE water body and all assessed elements (good) for the UK water bodies. There was no reported information on the monitoring undertaken in the water bodies in both IE and UK. The water bodies in UK were subject to significant diffuse and other pressures, and the one in IE from water abstraction and other pressures. Biological assessment methods: The assessment methods for phytoplankton and macrophytes were considered to be fully developed in IE whereas methods were not developed for the other 3 BQEs. Methods for phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos were considered to be fully developed in the UK with the methods for the other 2 quality elements being less well developed in some RBDs in the UK. Intercalibration: In the first phase of intercalibration there were intercalibrated results for phytoplankton and macrophytes for lakes in the Northern GIG for IE and UK. Methods for phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes and fish fauna have also been intercalibrated in the second phase of intercalibration between IE and UK for common intercalibration types in the Northern GIG, and also for phytoplankton in the Eastern Baltic GIG. The same methods for macrophytes and fish fauna are used by IE and UK (Northern Ireland where Lough Melvin is located). Three of these BQEs were used in the classification of the status of UK and IE water bodies. It is not known whether the intercalibrated results have been translated to the respective national types. Conclusion: The ecological status of these transboundary water bodies is different. The biological methods used in assessing ecological status have been intercalibrated and it is likely that the classifications between IE and UK are comparable. The difference in status may be due to the water abstraction pressures reported for the IE water body that might impact habitats. Altered habitats can be assessed by macrophyte status which was classified as moderate in the IE water body. The reasons for the difference could be further investigated with the help of the respective Member State. Case example 5 (Map 37)


ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120 Embalse de Frieira


Description: Both water bodies were designated as heavily modified. The ES water body was classified as moderate potential with no information on confidence and the one from PT bad potential with a low level of confidence. No information was reported on which quality elements were assessed in the derivation of overall ecological potential of the PT water body. The ES water body was assessed in terms of benthic invertebrates (moderate) and hydromorphological quality elements (good potential). The ES water body was only monitored for physicochemical QEs whereas the one from PT was monitored for biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs. There was one significant pressure (point source) reported for the ES water body and two for the PT water body (hydromorphological and “other” pressure). Biological assessment methods: The assessment methods for all relevant biological quality elements for lakes are fully developed for ES. The assessment methods for PT were not assessed as part of the Commission’s assessment of RBMPs as PT had not published its plans at that time. Intercalibration: Intercalibration has not been undertaken for the assessment and classification of ecological potential. However, during the first phase of intercalibration, reservoirs were intercalibrated between ES and PT for phytoplankton. Conclusion: The ecological potential of these transboundary water bodies is different. The biological methods used in assessing ecological potential have not been intercalibrated. Only one BQE was assessed in the ES water body and none in the PT water body. Therefore the basis of classifying the PT water body is not known, and it is not possible to judge whether or not the classification of ecological potential (though different) is comparable. The basis of this potential incongruity should be further investigated through the collection of pertinent information from the respective Member States.

30 of 129

6. Identified transboundary transitional waters

6.1 Overview

This section provides an overview of the transitional water bodies identified in this study that are

potentially transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in

the classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the

first in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group

e.g. “1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this



Table 5 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary

transitional water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex A.

Table 5 Overview and basic statistics of the identified transitional water bodies that are potentially transboundary

Number %

Pairs/groups

Number 16

- with different designations 3 18.8%

- with different ecological status 6 37.5%

- where both water bodies are classified 12 75.0%

- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 0 0.0%

- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 4 25.0%

- with different confidence in classification 5 31.3%

- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 12 75.0%

- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 2 12.5%

- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 2 12.5%


Number 20 (1)

- unclassified 4 20.0%

- with no information on confidence of classification 11 55.0%

- classified by phytoplankton 11 55.0%

- classified by other aquatic flora 6 30.0%

- classified by macroalgae 3 15.0%

- classified by angiosperms 2 10.0%

- classified by macroinvertebrates 7 35.0%

- classified by fish 9 45.0%

- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 6 30.0%

- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 14 70.0%

- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 13 65.0%

- classified by other national pollutants 0 0.0%

- monitored for biological quality elements 14 70.0%

- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 6 30.0%

- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 14 70.0% 1 Note that a water body may appear in more than one pair and that IE and UK reported the same water body code for a

transboundary water body

The GIS analysis of reported transitional water body areas in ECRINS, and the information obtained

from the WISE database and other sources identified 16 pairs of potential transboundary transitional

water bodies. Six of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or ecological

potential. In around 75% of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known

31 of 129

status/potential) but in no pair were both water bodies classified by all relevant biological quality

elements. This is contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In addition, in a

quarter of the pairs status was determined by a non-biological quality element in at least one of the

water bodies in the pair. The most common quality element used for classification in the

transboundary water bodies were general physicochemical quality elements (70 % of water bodies).

The most commonly used biological quality element was phytoplankton which was used in the

classification of 55 % of water bodies. These two quality elements were the most common elements

used in monitoring and assessment lake water quality before the introduction of the WFD.





with caution.


This section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary

transitional water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in

ecological status/potential across transboundary transitional water bodies. Where possible the case

examples have been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations

across the EU, and to illustrate some more generic issues.

32 of 129

Table 6 Transboundary transitional water bodies with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential

Index MS

RBD TWB Code Name DES ES

CON

PP

OF

MA

AG

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

M_BQE

M_HQE

M_PQE

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

TRP

OMP

OPP

1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV HM 4 NI 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 6 2 1 1 1

1.1 NL NLSC nl89_westsde Westerschelde HM 3 NI 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

ES ES017 ES017MSPFES111T012010 'BIDASOA NA 3 HI 2 2 2 1 1

3 ES ES015MSPFES111T012010

This code was reported with the water body GIS ares

3.1 FR FRF FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa NA 1

4 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000190

MARISMAS DE ISLA CRISTINA HM 2 HI 2 2 2 2 6

4.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 NA 2 HI 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 6 1 1

10 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200

SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA NA 2 HI 2 1 2 4 7

10.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 NA 2 HI 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 6 1 1

CW body

DEPL_1 DE DE6000 DE_CW_OD_01 Kleines Haff NA 4 HI 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 1 1

DEPL_1.1 PL PL6000 PLTWIWB8 Zalew Szczeciński HM 5 HI 5 4 4 1


Abbreviation


Description


M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored

HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored

NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored


Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily

33 of 129

indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE. Number in brackets indicates the number of sub pressure types reported.










HI High confidence


LO Low confidence

NI No information


PP Phytoplankton


MA Macroalgae

AG Angiosperms

MP Macrophytes

PB Phytobenthos


FI Fish





34 of 129


Index MS RBD TWB Code Name

1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV

1.1 NL NLSC nl89_westsde Westerschelde

Description: Both water bodies were designated as heavily modified with the water body in BE landward of the NL water body. The BE water body has been classified as poor potential and the NL water body as moderate. No information was reported for either water body on the level of confidence in the classification. The BE water body was classified in terms of 3 biological quality elements (not phytoplankton) and in terms of general physicochemical QEs and NPSP. The NL water body was classified according to all of the BQES expected for transitional waters and also for general physicochemical QEs and NPSP. The worst class BQE was angiosperms (poor) for the BE water body and aquatic flora and fish (moderate) for the NL water body. Monitoring was undertaken for both water bodies for BQEs and general physicochemical QEs but not for hydromorphological conditions. Both water bodies were subject to significant point, diffuse and hydromorphological pressures, the NL water body was also subject to transitional waters management and other pressures, and the BE water body from water abstraction pressures. Biological assessment methods: BE was assessed as having no fully developed methods available for any of the relevant biological quality elements in transitional waters. Methods were reported to be fully developed for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and fish in NL, with the methods for macroalgae and angiosperms showing variability in their level of development between RBDs. Intercalibration: These water bodies lie in the North East Atlantic GIG. Intercalibration has not been undertaken for ecological potential. Conclusion: The ecological potential of these transboundary water bodies is different. The biological methods used in assessing ecological potential have not been intercalibrated, and even though a wide range of BQEs and other QEs have been assessed in both water bodies, it is not possible to judge whether or not the classification of ecological potential (though different) is comparable. Case example 2 (Map 41)


10 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200 SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA

10.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1

Description: Both water bodies have been designated as natural and classified as good ecological status with high confidence. The water body in PT has been assessed and classified according to all relevant BQEs except benthic invertebrates whereas the ES water body has only been classified in terms of phytoplankton. Both water bodies are assessed in terms of general physicochemical QEs and NPSP though for the former QEs the ES water body has been classified as high and the PT water body as good. Hydromorphological status was only assessed in the PT water body. Both water bodies were monitored for biological and physicochemical QEs and the PT water body was also monitored for hydromorphology. No pressures were reported for the ES water body whereas point source and diffuse source pressures were recorded for the PT water body. Biological assessment methods: The assessment methods for PT were not assessed as part of the Commission’s assessment of RBMPs as PT had not published its plans at that time. ES was assessed as having fully developed methods available or all relevant biological quality elements. Intercalibration: These water bodies lie in the North East Atlantic GIG. Intercalibration has been achieved between ES and PT for intertidal macroalgae and fish, and partially achieved for benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton in the NEA GIG. It is not known whether the intercalibrated results

35 of 129

have been translated to the respective national types. Neither ES or PT used benthic invertebrates in the assessment of status in the 2 water bodies. Conclusion: The ecological status of these transboundary water bodies has been classified as good. The assessment in ES is based on fewer (one) BQEs than used in PT (4) even though ES appears to have fully developed and intercalibrated methods for the full range of BQEs expected. Even though no pressures were reported for the ES water body, the reliance on the assessment of ecological status on just one BQEs might limit the detection of all potential significant pressures. Case example 3 (Map 42)


3 ES ES017 ES017MSPFES111T012010 BIDASOA

3.1 FR FRF FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa

Note that the map is not clear as ES and FR provided overlapping GIS area files for their respective

water bodies. The areas coloured yellow for ES are the parts of the water body which do not overlap.

Description: Both water bodies were designated as natural. The ES water body has been classified as moderate status with high confidence and the FR water body high with no information on the level of confidence. The ES water body was classified in terms of 3 biological quality elements (all good status) and in terms of general physicochemical QEs (high). There is no information reported at all on the basis of the classification of the water body in FR. There is also no information reported as to whether or not monitoring is undertaken in either of the water bodies, and only one significant pressures was reported for the ES water body (transitional and coastal water management pressures) and none at all for the FR water body. As all assessed quality elements in the ES water body were at a higher status than moderate it is not known what factor determined the overall status of the water body. Biological assessment methods: ES was assessed as having fully developed methods available for all relevant biological quality elements in transitional waters, only 3 of the 5 were applied. The availability of assessment methods for FR has been found to vary between river basin districts from being fully developed to undeveloped. Intercalibration: These water bodies lie in the North East Atlantic GIG. Intercalibration has been achieved between ES and FR for intertidal macroalgae and fish, and partially achieved for benthic invertebrates and phytoplankton in the NEA GIG. It is not known whether the intercalibrated results have been translated to the respective national types. Conclusion: The ecological status of these transboundary water bodies is different. The basis of the classification for the FR water body is not known as no information was reported to WISE. It is therefore recommended that this possible incongruity is investigated further through obtaining additional information from the respective Member States. Case example 4 (Map 43)


DEPL_1 DE DE6000 DE_CW_OD_01 Kleines Haff

DEPL_1.1 PL PL6000 PLTWIWB8 Zalew Szczeciński

Description: The water body in DE has been designated as a natural coastal water body and is of poor ecological status. The one in PL is a heavily modified transitional water body at bad ecological potential. The water body in DE has been assessed according to all BQEs (all poor status) relevant for a coastal water body and has been assessed as having good hydromorphological status which is

36 of 129

consistent with the water body being designated as natural and not heavily modified. It has also been assessed in terms of general physicochemical QEs (moderate) and NPSP (good). In contrast the water body in PL has only been assessed in terms of phytoplankton (bad) and benthic invertebrates (poor) though hydromorphological status would be expected to be less than good as it has been designated as heavily modified (Note Member States were only required to report high or good hydromorphological status). Biological and general physicochemical QEs were monitored in the DE water body but no information was reported to WISE on the monitoring undertaken (if any) in the PL water body. Diffuse source was the only pressure reported for the DE water body whereas in the PL water body point source and other pressures were only reported. As the PL water body has been designated as heavily modified it might be expected that there might also have been significant hydromorphological (HMP, TRP and OMP categories in the table above) pressures as well. Biological assessment methods: DE has fully developed methods for all BQEs in coastal waters but not in transitional waters where methods are fully developed for angiosperms and fish, not fully developed in all RBDs for macroalgae and benthic invertebrates and not developed at all for phytoplankton. For PL the method for phytoplankton in transitional waters is fully developed and for benthic invertebrates it is under development – these are the two BQEs which were used to classify this water body. There are no developed methods for the other BQEs. Intercalibration: It appears that type BC2 “lagoons” has not been intercalibrated between DE and PL (this type might apply to these water bodies) though type BC7 (western Polish coast and eastern German coast) has been intercalibrated for phytoplankton. The latter type would not appear to be applicable to these two water bodies. DE and PL have not intercalibrated methods for their other assessment methods for coastal or transitional waters. As the PL water body has been designated as heavily modified it would be classified in terms of ecological potential. Ecological potential has not been intercalibrated at the EU level. Conclusion: There are significant differences between these 2 transboundary water bodies in terms of their category and designation and in the classification of ecological status/potential which cannot be readily explained from the available information. Assessment and classification methods have not been intercalibrated and there is probably an incongruity in status. It is recommended that further information is sought from the respective Member States to explain the situation.

37 of 129

7. Identified transboundary coastal waters

7.1 Overview

This section provides an overview of the coastal water bodies identified in this study that are

potentially transboundary with their reported designation, ecological status/potential and confidence in

the classification. The adjacent transboundary water bodies are identified by a numerical code for the

first in the pair/group followed by a decimal numeric code for the second water body in the pair/group

e.g. “1”, “1.1” etc. Maps of the transboundary water bodies are also presented in the Annex A to this



Table 7 below provides some summary information and statistics on the potential transboundary river

water bodies identified. A list of all the water bodies is provided in Annex A.

Table 7 Overview and basic statistics of the identified coastal water bodies that are


Number %

Pairs

Number 28

- with different designations 1 4%

- with different ecological status/potential 13 46%

- where both water bodies are classified 18 64%

- where both water bodies are classified by all BQEs 1 4%

- where class is not determined by at least one BQE in at least one of the pair 0 0%

- with different confidence in classification 16 57%

- where biological quality elements monitored in both of pair 7 25%

- where biological quality elements monitored in only one of the pair 16 57%

- where biological quality elements monitored in neither of the pair 5 18%


Number 36

- unclassified 6 17%

- with no information on confidence of classification 15 42%

- classified by phytoplankton 25 69%

- classified by other aquatic flora 7 19%

- classified by macroalgae 6 17%

- classified by angiosperms 2 6%

- classified by macroinvertebrates 18 50%

- classified by hydromorphological quality elements 9 25%

- classified by general physicochemical quality elements 26 72%

- classified by RBD non-priority specific pollutants 23 64%

- classified by other national pollutants 0 0%

- monitored for biological quality elements 18 50%

- monitored for hydromorphological quality elements 7 19%

- monitored for general physicochemical quality elements 15 42%

The GIS analysis of reported coastal water body areas in ECRINS, and the information obtained from

the WISE database and other sources identified 28 pairs of potential transboundary coastal water

bodies. Thirteen (46 %) of these pairs were reported to have a different ecological status or ecological

potential. In around 60 % of the pairs both water bodies were classified (i.e. with a known

status/potential) but only in one pair were both water bodies classified by all relevant biological quality

38 of 129

elements. This is contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In all pairs status

was determined by at least one biological quality element in each of the water bodies in the pair. The

most common quality element used for classification in the transboundary water bodies were general

physicochemical quality elements (72 % of water bodies). The most commonly used biological quality

element was phytoplankton which was used in the classification of 69 % of water bodies. These two

quality elements were the most common elements used in monitoring and assessment lake water

quality before the introduction of the WFD.





with caution.


This section contains a table of possible incongruities found for the identified transboundary coastal

water bodies. The table is followed by selected case examples of possible incongruities in ecological

status/potential across transboundary coastal water bodies. Where possible the case examples have

been selected to cover different geographic regions and Member State combinations across the EU,

and to illustrate some more generic issues.

39 of 129

Table 8 Transboundary coastal water bodies with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential

Index MS

RBD CWB Code Name DES ES

CON

PP

OF

MA

AG

BI

FI

OB

HM

GP

NP

ON

M_BQE

M_HQE

M_PQE

PSP

DSP

HMP

TRP

OPP

12 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01

Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars

NA 3 ME 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1

12.1 NL NLRN NL81_1 Waddenzee NA 4 NI 3 4 2 3 2 3 1 1 1

18 ES ES100 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà NA 2 HI 1 2 2 1 2 4 3

18.1 FR FRD FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage NA 3 ME 2 3 3 2 3 2 4 2 5 2

21 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä NA 3 ME 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1

21.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250

Haparandafjärden sek namn NA 3 LO 3 2 3 1

29 LT LT1100 LT100101200 NA 3 ME 2 3 2 3 2 1

29.1 LV LVVUBA LVA Dienvidaustrumu atklatais akmenainais krasts

NA 4 ME 4 3 2 1

30 BG BG2000 BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла NA 3 LO 3 4 5 7 1

30.1 RO

RO1000 ROCT02_B2 Eforie Nord - Vama Veche NA 3 ME 2 2 1 3 3 6 4 6 1


Abbreviation


Description


M_BQEs Biological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored

HM Heavily modified water modified M_HQEs Hydromorphological quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored

NA Natural water body M_PQEs Physicochemical quality elements monitored – number in brackets indicates the number monitored


Significant pressures on water bodies - blank cells do not necessarily indicate that this pressure is not significant as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE. Number in brackets indicates the number of sub pressure types reported.

40 of 129










HI High confidence


LO Low confidence

NI No information


PP Phytoplankton


MA Macroalgae

AG Angiosperms

MP Macrophytes

PB Phytobenthos


FI Fish





41 of 129


Index MS RBD CWB Code Name

18 ES ES100 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà

18.1 FR FRD FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage

Description: Both water bodies are natural. The water body in FR has moderate ecological status with high confidence and the one in ES, moderate status with medium confidence. Both water bodies are assessed and classified according to all the expected biological quality elements. Angiosperms are classified as good in both whereas for phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates assessed status is lower in FR than in ES. Hydromorphological QEs are not assessed in either water body. Both water bodies were classified (good) according to general physicochemical QEs. Biological quality elements and physicochemical QEs are monitored in both water bodies but hydromorphological QEs are only monitored in the FR water body. Point source is the only significant pressure reported for the FR water body but there are no pressures reported for the ES water body (pressures were reported for other Spanish coastal water bodies). Biological assessment methods: FR has fully developed methods in some but not all its RBDs for all the biological quality elements whereas for Spain there are fully developed methods for all biological quality elements except phytoplankton for which there is no developed assessment method. Intercalibration: In the first phase, intercalibration was achieved for ES and FR for phytoplankton and macroalgae. In the second phase, intercalibration of phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrates was achieved for the Mediterranean Sea GIG and the relevant types for FR and ES have been intercalibrated. Conclusion: Though a different ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies, it appears that there is not an incongruity in ecological status as methods have been developed and intercalibrated for all relevant biological quality elements. Significant pressures are reported for the water body in FR but none for the one in ES: this may account for the differences in ecological status.



21 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä

21.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn

Description: Both water bodies are natural with moderate ecological status, classified with medium confidence in FI and low confidence in SE. The biological quality element with the lowest status (moderate) is phytoplankton in both water bodies. This is the only BQE assessed in SE water body though in the FI water body benthic invertebrates are assessed to have good ecological status. Hydromorphological QEs are not assessed in either water body. Both water bodies were classified according to general physicochemical QEs and NPSP though the assessment results in a different classification in each water body. Biological quality elements and physicochemical QEs are monitored in the FI water body but there is no information as to whether or not the SE water body is monitored. Diffuse source pressures are identified as significant in both water bodies, and also point sources in the FI water body. As map <> shows the SE water body overlaps two FI water bodies each of different status. This may indicate some differences in way water bodies have been delineated between the 2 Member States. Biological assessment methods: FI has fully developed methods for the 2 BQEs classified whereas in SE methods for phytoplankton were assessed to be partially developed or under development. SE has a fully developed method for benthic invertebrates but appears not to have been applied it to this

42 of 129

water body. Therefore both water bodies appear to be classified using methods that are developed or under development. Intercalibration: In the first phase of intercalibration, intercalibrated results were achieved for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrate for FI and SE. Phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrates have been intercalibrated in the Baltic Sea GIG. SE and FI have intercalibrated their classification methods for benthic invertebrates (Annex 1 - completed) and phytoplankton (Annex 2 – partially achieved) as presented in the draft revised Commission Decision on Intercalibration. Conclusion: The same ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies, determined on the basis of the same biological quality element that has not yet been fully intercalibrated. A method that has been fully intercalibrated appears not to have been used by one of the Member States. Based on the reported information it appears that the assessment of status has not been based on the fully range of expected quality elements.





Description: Both water bodies are natural but with different ecological status: moderate in LT and poor in LV, both with medium confidence. Both water bodies are classified by phytoplankton (good in LT and poor in LV), and in LT macroalgae and benthic invertebrates have also been assessed and classified. General physicochemical and NPSP have also been classified in both water bodies. Hydromorphological QEs are not assessed in either water body. Overall status is determined by macroalgae and physicochemical QEs in LT and by phytoplankton in LV. There was no information reported on what (if any) monitoring was undertaken and the only significant pressures reported for both was bodies was “other pressures”. Biological assessment methods: LT appears to be using the BQEs for which it has fully developed assessment methods, whereas for LV there are no fully developed methods (or no information) for any of the relevant BQEs. Therefore LT appears to be classifying status using methods that are fully developed whereas LT is classifying using a BQE with apparently no developed method. Intercalibration: Phytoplankton, macroalgae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrates have been intercalibrated in the Baltic Sea GIG but not for the types relevant to LT and LV. Conclusion: Different ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies, determined on the basis of different quality elements, and in the case of LV using a method that may not have been fully developed. Methods and results do not seem to have been intercalibrated between LT and LV. There is, therefore, be some uncertainty in the comparability of ecological status across this border, and the situation should be clarified with the respective Member States. Case study 4 (Map 59)


30 BG BG2000 BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла

30.1 RO RO1000 ROCT02_B2 Eforie Nord - Vama Veche

Description: Both water bodies are natural and have moderate ecological status with low and medium confidence in BG and RO, respectively. Both water bodies are classified by benthic

43 of 129

invertebrates though the assessment in BG is moderate status and in RO good status. Phytoplankton is also assessed in RO (good status). Hydromorphology (high status), physicochemical QEs and Non Priority Specific Pollutants are also assessed and it is the latter two elements that determine overall status. The BG water body is only assessed by one quality element – benthic invertebrates. Both water bodies are monitored for all required BQEs and also a number of hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Only one significant pressure was reported for each water body, point source in RO and diffuse source in BG. Biological assessment methods: BG appears only to have a fully developed assessment method for phytoplankton in coastal waters, whereas RO has methods under development for phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates but no methods for macroalgae or angiosperms. Therefore RO appears to be classifying status using methods that are partially developed whereas BG a BQE with apparently no developed method. Intercalibration: During the first phase of intercalibration phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates had been intercalibrated for BG and RO. However, phytoplankton is the only BQE intercalibrated for the Black Sea in the second phase, and results for BG and RO are included in Annex 1 of the draft revised Commission Decision on Intercalibration. Conclusion: The same ecological status has been classified for these transboundary water bodies though on the basis of different quality elements, in the case of RO, a non-biological QE. BG appears to not have assessed ecological status using the BQE that has been intercalibrated with RO even though a fully developed assessment method is in place. There may therefore be some doubt in the comparability of ES across this border, and the situation should be clarified with the respective Member States.

44 of 129

8. Conclusions

1. The GIS analysis of reported water bodies in ECRINS with information contained in the WISE

database and obtained from other sources, such as the ICPDR, identified 596 pairs of river,

16 pairs each of lake and transitional, and 28 coastal water bodes that are potentially

transboundary. There were differences in the classified ecological status/potential in 22%,

62%, 37%, and 46% of the water bodies, respectively, in the pairs of river, lake, transitional

and coastal water bodies. Contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive

only in 15%, 6%, none, and 4% of the river, lake, transitional and coastal water pairs,

respectively, were both water bodies in the pair assessed and classified by all relevant

biological quality elements.

2. The differences found between transboundary pairs include differences in the categorisation

of water bodies, in the designation of water bodies as heavily modified or natural (or one of

each designation), in the number and type of biological quality elements used in the

assessment of status/potential as well as in the classification of overall status/potential. In

some pairs overall status is the same but how status was determined is unclear as there are

differences in the numbers of biological quality elements used and as to which one (worst

status) determined the overall status. In other cases status has been determined only by non-

biological quality elements.

3. In all water categories the quality elements most commonly used in the classification of status

were the general physicochemical quality elements. In terms of the biological quality element

benthic invertebrates were the most commonly used in the classification of river water bodies

whereas in lakes, transitional and coastal waters it was phytoplankton. These quality

elements were those traditionally used in the monitoring and assessment of water quality

before the introduction of the WFD.

4. The findings from this study have identified many potential incongruities in the classification of

ecological status in transboundary water bodies. As these incongruities are likely to reflect the

general degree of comparability of ecological status between Member States in non-

transboundary locations, it is concluded that the comparability of ecological status in some

Members States is questionable.

5. There are also a number of transboundary locations where there are differences in the

classification of ecological potential. As ecological potential has not been intercalibrated or

quantitatively compared at the EU level, it is not possible to make a conclusive assessment of

the comparability of the classification of these respective transboundary water bodies. The

intercalibration of ecological potential is being considered for the next Common

Implementation Strategy work programme.

45 of 129

9. Recommendations

1. The information on the ecological status/potential, the monitoring undertaken and the

significant pressures on the identified transboundary water bodies was obtained from Member

States’ electronic reports to WISE. There are some potential limitations in this information as

some Member States did not report all requested information and in other cases the reported

information was of poor or uncertain quality. Therefore, in cases where there is no monitoring

or pressure information for water bodies it might be the case of none or bad reporting rather

than there being a lack of information at the Member State level. It is recommended if this

study is taken further that any gaps are filled with requests to the relevant Member States for

the missing information.

2. Other than for some countries reporting to the International Commission for the Protection of

the Danube River, information on which water bodies are transboundary is not systematically

collected at the European level. It is recommended that information which would identify

which water bodies are transboundary be collected from Member States. The first step in this

could be the validation of the transboundary water bodies identified in this study (see the next

recommendation).

3. There is some uncertainty associated with results of the GIS analysis and the other sources

of information used to identify transboundary water bodies. It is, therefore, strongly

recommended that the list of potential transboundary water bodies in this report should be

validated by Member States before any further analysis is undertaken. In the interim the

statistics calculated above should be treated with caution.

4. The WISE database has information on the national type code of each water body in a

transboundary pair. However, the reported information does not include data on the actual

numeric values used to define each type. Instead textural type factors are reported. National

typologies were investigated in Task 2a but it was found that there was little available

information on the numeric typological values. It is recommended, therefore, that if this study

is continued at a later date that this more detailed information is requested from Member

States. This would indicate whether the transboundary types were comparable or not and

whether the type was included in the intercalibration process, and whether the assessment

systems had actually been intercalibrated with the neighbouring Member State.

5. This study has identified locations of potential incongruities in the classification of ecological

status. More investigations and information are needed to confirm whether or not these

incongruities are genuine. A number of areas have been identified where further information

and data is required from Member States. This should be the starting point if the Commission

were to decide to pursue this issue further. Until then the findings of this study should be

considered as preliminary and subject to confirmation.

46 of 129

Annex A

Tables and maps of potential transboundary

water bodies with water body designation and

ecological status/potential

47 of 129

1. Rivers

A large number (1192) of potential transboundary river water bodies have been identified by GIS

analysis as described in section 2. The list of potential transboundary river water bodies is contained

in a separate file (Annex B) to make the reading of this document easier. Some but not all of these

transboundary pairs have been illustrated on the following maps. Each pair has been assigned an

index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water body in the pair.

The analysis and mapping has in many cases not definitively identified whether a pair is actually

transboundary or not. In some cases this is because it is not clear how the two water bodies relate to

each other. In other cases the GIS areas plotted on the map do not necessarily completely match

national borders and/or the boundaries of the adjacent water body area.

It is recommended therefore that if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to

validate the list of potential pairs and identify which one are actually transboundary.

48 of 129

Map 1 Potential transboundary river water bodies between BE and NL (Index RW_1-9)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body

1 BEVL05_136 DOMMEL

1.1 NL27_BO_1 Boven Dommel/ Keersop/ Beekloop

2 BEVL05_140 JEKER II

2.1 NL58WRO39 Jeker

3 BEVL05_142 MAAS I

3.1 NL91GM Grensmaas

4 BEVL05_143 MAAS II


5 BEVL05_144 MAAS III


6 BEVL05_144 MAAS III

6.1 NL91ZM Zandmaas

7 BEVL08_145 MARK (Maas)

7.1 NL25_13 Boven Mark


8.1 NL25_52 Strijbeekse beek


9.1 NL25_62 Merkske

NLMS

BEMaas_VL

BEMaas_VL

BEMaas_VL 0 5 10 Kilometers

International River waterbodies

Ecological status, Designation

moderate, Natural

moderate, Heavily Modified

poor, Natural

poor, Heavily Modified

bad, Heavily Modified

International RBD boundaryNL25_13Heavily modified, Poor

NL25_52

BEVL08_145Natural, Poor

NL25_62

NL27_BO

BEVL05_136

NL91_ZM

NL58WRO42

NL58WRO30

NL91GMHeavily modified, PoorBEVL05_144

Heavily modified, Moderate

NL58WR039

BEVL05_143Heavily modified, Moderate

BEVL05_142Heavily modified, Moderate

BEVL05_140

49 of 129

Map 2 Potential transboundary river water bodies between BE and FR (Index RW_10-

11)

Water Body Code MS Name

BEVL08_48 LEIE I

FRAR32 DEULE CANALISEE DE LA CONFLUENCE AVEC LE CANAL D'AIRE A LA CONFLUEN

BEVL08_7 IJZER I

FRAR63 YSER

FRA

BESchelde_VL

0 7.5 15 Kilometers



poor, Natural


International RBD boundary

FRAR63

BEVL08_7

BEVL08_48

FRAR32

50 of 129

Map 3 Potential transboundary river water bodies between BG and RO (Index RW12-

21)


12 BG1DU000R001 Дунав RWB01

12.1 RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu

13 BG1DU000R001 Дунав RWB01

13.1 RORW14.1_B4 Chiciu - Isaccea

14 BG1OG100R014 Огоста RWB14


15 BG1OS130R015 Осъм RWB15


16 BG1RL120R013 Русенски Лом RWB13


17 BG1VT100R009 Вит RWB09


18 BG1WO100R001 Тимок WORWB01


19 BG1WO200R004 Тополовец WORWB04


20 BG1WO600R015 Лом WORWB15


21 BG1YN130R029 Янтра RWB29


RO1000

BG1000

0 25 50 Kilometers



good, Natural

good, Heavily Modified

moderate, Natural


moderate, Artificial

bad, Natural



BG1DU000R001Heavily modified, Moderate

BG1OG100R014

BG1OG100R015

BG1RL120R013

BG1VT100R009

BG1WO100R001

BG1WO200R004

BG1WO600R015

BG1YN130R029

ROLW14.1.31_B2_D

RORW10.1_B7

RORW14.1.26_B167

RORW14.1.28_B185

RORW14.1.35_B2

RORW14.1.36_B2

RORW14.1_B3Heavily modified, Moderate

RORW14.1_B4

RORW8.1_B12RORW9.1_B8

RORW14.1.25_B165

51 of 129

Map 4 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and PL (Index RW 25-44)


25 CZ_10108000 Úpa po soutok s tokem Licná

25.1 PLRW5000492229 Ostroznica

26 CZ_10122000 Petríkovický potok po ústí do toku Licná


27 CZ_10123000 Licná po soutok s tokem Úpa


28 CZ_10144000 Úpa po ústí do toku Labe


29 CZ_10160000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Ţidovka

29.1 PLRW5000494129 Doplyw z Lacznej

30 CZ_10165000 Ţidovka po ústí do toku Metuje

30.1 PLRW500049423 Zydawka

31 CZ_10177000 Brlenka po ústí do toku Metuje

31.1 PLRW500049449 Czermnica

32 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela

32.1 PLRW500049449 Czermnica

33 CZ_10178000 Metuje po soutok s tokem Strela

33.1 PLRW500049469 Klikawa

34 CZ_10202000 Metuje po ústí do toku Labe

34.1 PLRW500049469 Klikawa

35 CZ_10236000 Divoká Orlice po soutok s tokem Bartošovický potok

35.1 PLRW500049617 Dzika Orlica od zródla do Czerwonego Strumienia

0 5 10 Kilometers



good, Natural

moderate, Natural

poor, Natural


Unclassified, Natural


CZ_5000

PL6000

CZ_10108000CZ_10122000Natural, Poor

CZ_10123000

CZ_10144000

CZ_10160000

CZ_10165000

CZ_10178000

CZ_10178000

CZ_10202000

CZ_10236000Natural, Good

CZ_10237000

CZ_10238000


CZ_11078000Natural, Poor CZ_11081000


CZ_11083000

CZ_11107000

PLRW50003967Natural, Unclassified

PLRW5000492229Natural, Moderate PLRW5000494129

PLRW500049423

PLRW500049449

PLRW500049469

PLRW500049617Natural, Good


52 of 129

36 CZ_10237000 Bartošovický potok po ústí do toku Divoká Orlice


37 CZ_10238000 Divoká Orlice po vzdutí nádrţe Pastviny


38 CZ_11074000 Jizera po soutok s tokem Prítok z Polska

38.1 PLRW50003967 Izera od zródla do Mumlavy

39 CZ_11078000 Jizera po soutok s tokem Mumlava


40 CZ_11081000 Mumlava po soutok s tokem Milnice

40.1 PLRW500049889 Mielnice

41 CZ_11082000 Milnice po ústí do toku Mumlava


42 CZ_11083000 Mumlava po soutok s tokem Jizera


43 CZ_11083000 Mumlava po soutok s tokem Jizera


44 CZ_11107000 Jizera po soutok s tokem Oleška


53 of 129

Map 5 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and DE (Index RW 45-86)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 45 CZ_11367000 Rasnice po ústí do toku Teplá Vltava

45.1 DEBY_WM002 Wagenwasser

46 CZ_11379000 Studená Vltava po soutok s tokem Svetlá

46.1 DEBY_WM001 Kalte Moldau

47 CZ_12962000 Hamerský potok po ústí do toku Mţe

47.1 DEBY_WB003 Lohbach (Mähring) --> Mies, Beraun

48 CZ_13969000 Libský potok po ústí do toku Ohre

48.1 DEBY_SE001 Eger von Steinbachmdg. bis Grenz

49 CZ_13969000 Libský potok po ústí do toku Ohre

49.1 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb

50 CZ_13971000 Ohre/Eger po soutok s tokem Reslava/Röslau



51.1 DEBY_SE010 Eger - Nebengewässer mit Selb


52.1 DEBY_SE021 Röslau von Kösseinmdg. bis Grenze

53 CZ_13972000 Reslava/Röslau po ústí do toku Ohre


54 CZ_13972000 Reslava/Röslau po ústí do toku Ohre

54.1 DEBY_SE021 Röslau von Kösseinmdg. bis Grenze

55 CZ_14010000 Plesná/Fleissenbach po soutok s tokem Lubinka

55.1 DESN_53218-1 Fleißenbach (Plesná )

56 CZ_14022000 Odrava/Wondreb po vzdutí nádrţe Jesenice

0 8 16 Kilometers



good, Natural

moderate, Natural


poor, Natural


bad, Natural



CZ_5000

DE5000

CZ_11367000

CZ_11369000

CZ_12962000

CZ_13234000, Natural, Poor

CZ_13969000CZ_13971000CZ_13972000

CZ_14010000

CZ_14022000CZ_14023000

CZ_14024000

CZ_14070000

CZ_14656000

CZ_14657000

CZ_14666000

CZ_14683000

CZ_14679000CZ_14696000Natural, Good

CZ_14729000

CZ_14732000

CZ_14737000, Natural, ModerateCZ_14739000

CZ_14742000


CZ_14757000



CZ_14786000, Natural, ModerateCZ_14782000

CZ_1484000

CZ_14822000

CZ_14819000

CZ_14828000

DEBY_SE001

DEBY_SE010

DEBY_SE021

DEBY_SE035DEBY_SE044

DEBY_SE071

DEBY_WB001, Natural, Good

DEBY_WB003

DEBY_WM001

DEBY_WM002

DESN_53218-1

DESN_532342

DESN_53234-1

DESN_537118-2

DESN_537122-2

DESN_56144

DESN_566-1DESN_566132

DESN_58212DESN_582-1 Heavily modified, Poor

DESN_5412-2

DESN_541284-1

DESN_542634

DESN_542686-1

DESN_54268-4

DESN_54264-2

DESN_542684-2, Natural, Moderate

DESN_537146

DESN_53714-1

DESN_53718-1DESN_5372-1DESN_542-1

DESN_54268-3DESN_542682, Natural, Moderate

DESN_5426822

54 of 129

56.1 DEBY_SE035 Wondreb, von Seibertsbach bis CZ-Grenze

57 CZ_14023000 Mohelenský potok/Mügelbach po státní hranici

57.1 DEBY_SE044 Muglbach

58 CZ_14024000 Mohelenský potok po vzdutí nádrţe Jesenice

58.1 DEBY_SE044 Muglbach

59 CZ_14070000 Svatava po soutok s tokem Rotava

59.1 DESN_53234-1 Zwota

60 CZ_14656000 Krinice po soutok s tokem Brtnický potok

60.1 DESN_537118-2 Krinice (Kirnitzsch-1)

61 CZ_14657000 Brtnický potok po ústí do toku Krinice


62 CZ_14666000 Krinice/Kirnitzsch po soutok s tokem Saupsdorfer Bach


63 CZ_14679000 Poustevenský potok po ústí toku Lucní potok

63.1 DESN_537122-2 Sebnitz

64 CZ_14679001 Poustevenský potok/Sebnitz po soutok s tokem Polenz


65 CZ_14683000 Lucní potok po ústí do toku Poustevenský potok/Sebnitz


66 CZ_14696000 Spréva/Spree po soutok s tokem Roţanský potok/Rosenbach

66.1 DESN_582-1 Spree-1 (Spréva)

67 CZ_14696000 Spréva/Spree po soutok s tokem Roţanský potok/Rosenbach

67.1 DESN_58212 Alter Graben

68 CZ_14729000 Rybný potok/Gottleuba po vzdutí nádrţe Gottleuba

68.1 DESN_53714-1 Rybný potok (Gottleuba-1)

69 CZ_14732000 Petrovický potok/Bahra po soutok s tokem Gottleuba

69.1 DESN_537146 Petrovický potok (Bahra)

70 CZ_14737000 Mohelnice/Müglitz po soutok s tokem Biela

70.1 DESN_53718-1 Mohelnice (Müglitz-1)

71 CZ_14739000 Divoká Bystrice/Weisseritz po vzdutí nádrţe Lehnmühle

71.1 DESN_5372-1 Divoká Bystrice (Weißeritz-1)

72 CZ_14742000 Moldavský potok/Freiberger Mulde po soutok s tokem Kemnitzbach

72.1 DESN_542-1 Moldavský potok (Freiberger Mulde-1)

73 CZ_14747000 Polava/Pöhlbach po soutok s tokem Zschopau

73.1 DESN_542634 Polava (Pöhla)

74 CZ_14757000 Prísecnice/Pressnitz po soutok s tokem Jöhstädter Schwarzwasser

74.1 DESN_54264-2 Prísecnice (Preßnitz-1)

75 CZ_14779000 Svídnice/Schweinitz po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha

75.1 DESN_542682 Svídnice (Schweinitz)

76 CZ_14779000 Svídnice/Schweinitz po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha

76.1 DESN_54268-3 Flöha-1

77 CZ_14782000 Nacetínský potok po soutok s tokem Bílý potok

77.1 DESN_542684-2 Nacetínský potok (Natzschung)

78 CZ_14786000 Nacetínský potok/Natzschung po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha

78.1 DESN_54268-4 Flöha-2

79 CZ_14786000 Nacetínský potok/Natzschung po soutok s tokem Flájský potok/Flöha

79.1 DESN_542684-2 Nacetínský potok (Natzschung)

80 CZ_14790000 Cerná/Schwarze Pockau po soutok s tokem Rote Pockau

80.1 DESN_542686-1 Cerná (Schwarze Pockau-1)

81 CZ_14804000 Blatenský potok/Breitenbach po soutok s tokem Schwarzwasser

81.1 DESN_54122 Blatenský potok (Breitenbach)

82 CZ_14804000 Blatenský potok/Breitenbach po soutok s tokem Schwarzwasser

82.1 DESN_5412-2 Schwarzwasser-1

83 CZ_14808000 Polavský potok/Pohlwasser po soutok s tokem Kunnersbach

83.1 DESN_541284-1 Pöhlwasser-1 (Polavský potok)

84 CZ_14819000 Rokytnice/Regnitz po státní hranici

84.1 DEBY_SE071 Südliche Regnitz

85 CZ_14819000 Rokytnice/Regnitz po státní hranici

85.1 DESN_56144 Wolfsbach (Bystrina)

86 CZ_14828000 Hranický potok/Tetterweinbach po soutok s tokem Bílý Halštrov/Weisse

86.1 DESN_566132 Hranický potok (Lazarbach)

55 of 129

Map 6 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and Pl (Index RW 87-

162)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 87 CZ_20190000 Opava po soutok s tokem Opavice

87.1 PLRW60001911279 Opawa od Opawicy do Morawicy

88 CZ_20190000 Opava po soutok s tokem Opavice

88.1 PLRW6000811229 Opawica od Doplywu z Burkviz do ujscia

89 CZ_20199000 Opavice po soutok s tokem Burkvizský potok

89.1 PLRW6000511223 Opawica do Doplywu z Burkviz

90 CZ_20199000 Opavice po soutok s tokem Burkvizský potok


91 CZ_20212000 Opavice po ústí do toku Opava



92.1 PLRW6000511223 Opawica do Doplywu z Burkviz


93.1 PLRW60005112289 Radynka



95 CZ_20228000 Ciţina po ústí do toku Opava


96 CZ_20234000 Heraltický potok po ústí do toku Opava


97 CZ_20238000 Velká po ústí do toku Opava


98 CZ_20242000 Opava po soutok s tokem Pilštský potok (vcetne)

98.1 PLRW600016112729 Ostra


0 10 20 Kilometers



good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Natural


bad, Natural



Unclassified, Heavily Modified


PL6000

CZ_6000

CZ_6000

CZ_20190000

CZ_20199000, Natural, Good

CZ_20755000PLRW60008174131

PLRW60008174139

CZ_20720000Natural, Poor


CZ_20774000Natural, PoorPLRW60004174161Natural, Unclassified

CZ_20798000

CZ_20806000

CZ_20807000



PLRW6000817239Natural, Poor

CZ_20590000CZ_20608000Natural, Poor


PLRW60004122199PLRW6000412233Natural, Unclassified


PLRW60004122349

PLRW6000812299

PLRW600012114139

CZ_20507030

CZ_20510000

PLRW600012114369

PLRW60001211449

CZ_20532000

PLRW600061146999Heavily modified, Poor

PLRW6000611489

CZ_20519010Natural, ModeratePLRW60001411453Heavily modified, Unclassified

CZ_20539000, Natural, PoorPLRW6000911499Heavily modified, Moderate

PLRW6000011513

CZ_20212000, Natural, GoodPLRW6000811229, Heavily modified, Unclassified

CZ_20228000

CZ_20234000

CZ_20238000

CZ_20242000, Heavily modified, PoorPLRW60001911279, Heavily modified, Good

CZ_20244000Heavily modified, Poor

CZ_20343000

CZ_20369000CZ_20535010

CZ_20537000Natural, Moderate

CZ_20550000, Natural, PoorPLRW600016115289, Natural, Poor

PLRW600019117699

PLRW60005112289

CZ_20705000CZ_20704000, Natural, Good

CZ_20576000, Natural, ModeratePLRW60004117639, Natural, Unclassified

CZ_20583000, Natural, Poor, PLRW60008117649, Natural, Unclassified

CZ_20579000, Natural, PoorPLRW600041176449, Natural, Moderate


CZ_20657000, Natural, GoodPLRW60004125669, Heavily modified, Unclassifed

CZ_20667000, Natural, ModerateCZ_20471000, Heavily modified, PoorPLRW60001611389, Natural, Unclassified

CZ_20535020


CZ_20573000, Natural, Moderate

PLRW600016112729

PLRW600041176489

PLRW6000412369Heavily modified, Moderate

PLRW6000812589

PLRW6000511223, Heavily modified, unclassified


PLRW6000412389

PLRW6000412549Heavily modified, ModerateCZ_20624000, Natural, PoorCZ_20628000, CZ_20637000, Heavily modified, PoorCZ_20631000, CZ_20639000, CZ_20642000, Natural, Moderate

56 of 129




101 CZ_20244000 Opava po soutok s tokem Moravice

101.1 PLRW600016112729 Ostra

102 CZ_20244000 Opava po soutok s tokem Moravice


103 CZ_20343000 Moravice po ústí do toku Opava


104 CZ_20369000 Opava po ústí do toku Odra


105 CZ_20470000 Becva po ústí do toku Odra

105.1 PLRW60001611389 Belk

106 CZ_20471000 Odra po státní hranici

106.1 PLRW6000011513 Odra od Olzy do wyplywu z polderu Buków


107.1 PLRW60001611389 Belk


108.1 PLRW6000191139 Odra od granicy panstwa w Chalupkach do Olzy


109.1 PLRW6000911499 Olza - odcinek graniczny od Piotrówki do ujscia

110 CZ_20474000 Olše po soutok s tokem Bystrý potok (vcetne)

110.1 PLRW600012114139 Olza górna od zródel do granicy

111 CZ_20507030 Olše po soutok s tokem Ropicanka

111.1 PLRW600012114139 Olza górna od zródel do granicy

112 CZ_20507030 Olše po soutok s tokem Ropicanka

112.1 PLRW60001411453 Olza od Ropiczanki do granicy

113 CZ_20510000 Ropicanka po ústí do toku Olše


114 CZ_20519010 Olše po soutok s tokem Stonávka

114.1 PLRW6000011459 Olza od granicy do Piotrówki


115.1 PLRW600012114369 Puncówka


116.1 PLRW60001211449 Bobrówka



118 CZ_20532000 Stonávka po ústí do toku Olše


119 CZ_20535010 Karvinský potok po ústí do toku Olše


120 CZ_20535020 Olše po soutok s tokem Petruvka



121.1 PLRW600061146999 Pietrówka z doplywami



123 CZ_20537000 Petruvka po ústí do toku Olše






126 CZ_20539000 Olše po státní hranici



127.1 PLRW6000011513 Odra od Olzy do wyplywu z polderu Buków


128.1 PLRW6000191139 Odra od granicy panstwa w Chalupkach do Olzy




130.1 PLRW6000611489 Szotkówka bez Lesznicy



132 CZ_20550000 Bílá Voda po soutok s tokem Strahovický potok (vcetne)

132.1 PLRW600016115289 Krzanówka

133 CZ_20556000 Pištský potok po státní hranici

133.1 PLRW6000161152949 Przykopa

134 CZ_20573000 Hrozová po ústí do toku Osoblaha

134.1 PLRW60004117639 Osobloga Prudnika

57 of 129

135 CZ_20576000 Osoblaha po soutok s tokem Prudnik

135.1 PLRW600019117699 Osobloga od Prudnika do Odry




137.1 PLRW60008117649 Prudnik od Zlotego Potoku do Osoblogi

138 CZ_20579000 Zlatý potok po státní hranici

138.1 PLRW600041176449 Prudnik od zródla do Zlotego Potoku

139 CZ_20583000 Prudnik po ústí do toku Osoblaha

139.1 PLRW600019117699 Osobloga od Prudnika do Odry




141.1 PLRW60008117649 Prudnik od Zlotego Potoku do Osoblogi

142 CZ_20590000 Vernérovický potok po soutok s tokem Stenava

142.1 PLRW6000412233 Scinawka od Potoku z Nowego Siodla do Bozanowskiego Potoku

143 CZ_20608000 Stenava po státní hranici

143.1 PLRW60004122199 Scinawka od zródla do Potoku z Nowego Siodla


144.1 PLRW6000412233 Scinawka od Potoku z Nowego Siodla do Bozanowskiego Potoku


145.1 PLRW60004122349 Bozanowski Potok


146.1 PLRW6000812299 Scinawka od Bozanowskiego Potoku do Nysy Klodzkiej

147 CZ_20609000 Šonovský potok po státní hranici

147.1 PLRW60004122369 Studzieniec

148 CZ_20616000 Bílá voda/Kamienica

148.1 PLRW6000412369 Kamienica

149 CZ_20624000 Hoštický potok/Tarnawka

149.1 PLRW6000412389 Tarnawka

150 CZ_20628000 Javornický potok po státní hranici

150.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna

151 CZ_20631000 Rací potok po státní hranici

151.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna

152 CZ_20637000 Rací potok/Raczyna

152.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna

153 CZ_20639000 Vojtovický potok po státní hranici

153.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna

154 CZ_20642000 Lánský potok po státní hranici

154.1 PLRW6000412549 Raczyna

155 CZ_20657000 Vidnavka po soutok s tokem Cerný potok

155.1 PLRW60004125669 Widna od Cerveneho Potoku do Luzy

156 CZ_20667000 Vidnavka po státní hranici

156.1 PLRW60004125669 Widna od Cerveneho Potoku do Luzy

157 CZ_20704000 Olešnice po ústí do toku Belá

157.1 PLRW60004125829 Olesnice

158 CZ_20704000 Olešnice po ústí do toku Belá

158.1 PLRW6000812589 Biala Glucholaska od Olesnice do zb. Nysa

159 CZ_20705000 Belá po státní hranici

159.1 PLRW60004125829 Olesnice

160 CZ_20705000 Belá po státní hranici

160.1 PLRW6000812589 Biala Glucholaska od Olesnice do zb. Nysa

161 CZ_20720000 Jindrichovický potok po státní hranici

161.1 PLRW60004166549 Miloszowicki Potok

162 CZ_20755000 Jerice po ústí do toku Luţická Nisa

162.1 PLRW60008174131 Nysa Luzycka od Jerice do Pfaffenbach Hartau

58 of 129

Map 7 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and DE (Index RW_163-

172)


163 CZ_20758000 Luţická Nisa po soutok s tokem Bílý potok

163.1 DESN_674132 Pfaffenbach Hartau


164.1 DESN_674-3 Luzická Nisa (Lausitzer Neiße-3)




166.1 PLRW60008174139 Nysa Luzycka od Pfaffenbach Hartau do Mandau

167 CZ_20758001 Luţická Nisa/Lausitzer Niesse po soutok s tokem Mandau

167.1 DESN_674132 Pfaffenbach Hartau


168.1 DESN_674-3 Luzická Nisa (Lausitzer Neiße-3)




170.1 PLRW60008174139 Nysa Luzycka od Pfaffenbach Hartau do Mandau

171 CZ_20764000 Mandava/Mandau po soutok s tokem Luţnicka

171.1 DESN_67414-1 Mandava (Mandau-1)

172 CZ_20769000 Luţnicka po soutok s tokem Mandava/Mandau

172.1 DESN_674144 Luznicka (Lausur)

0 2.5 5 Kilometers



moderate, Natural

poor, Natural

bad, Natural



CZ6000

CZ6000

DE6000

DESN_674-3Natural, Bad

DESN_674144

DESN_674132

DESN_67414-1

DESN_67414-1


CZ_20758000

CZ_20769000

CZ_20764000

59 of 129

Map 8 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and DE (Index RW 178-

184)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 178 CZ_40018000 Katerinský potok po soutok s tokem Nivní potok

178.1 DEBY_NR118 Pfreimd-Oberlauf/ Zottbach/ Raunetbach

179 CZ_40027000 Nivní potok po ústí do toku Katerinský potok

179.1 DEBY_NR117 Pfreimd-Nebenbäche, Fahrbach-Stelzlmühlb.

180 CZ_40044000 Nemanický potok po státní hranici

180.1 DEBY_NR133 Schwarzach, bis Schaufelbach/Rhaner Bach/Rötzbach/Buchbach

181 CZ_40061000 Rezná po státní hranici

181.1 DEBY_NR229 Großer Regen

182 CZ_40078000 Kouba po soutok s tokem Rybnicní potok

182.1 DEBY_NR303 Chamb, bis Drachensee und Nebengewässer/Rappendorfer Bach

183 CZ_40081000 Rybnicní potok po soutok s tokem Chambach

183.1 DEBY_NR303 Chamb, bis Drachensee und Nebengewässer/Rappendorfer Bach

184 CZ_40092000 Chladná Bystrice po soutok s tokem Chambach

184.1 DEBY_NR134 Kalte Pastritz/Schaufelbach

0 5 10 Kilometers

International River waterbodies selection


good, Natural

moderate, Natural

poor, Natural


CZ1000

DE1000

CZ1000

CZ1000

CZ_40018000

CZ_40027000

CZ_40044000

CZ_40061000

CZ_40078000

CZ_40081000CZ_40092000

DEBY_NR117

DEBY_NR118

DEBY_NR133

DEBY_NR134

DEBY_NR229

DEBY_NR303

60 of 129

Map 9 Potential transboundary river water bodies between CZ and SK (Index RW185-

191)


185 CZ_40939110 Morava po soutok s tokem Radejovka

185.1 SKM0001 MORAVA

186 CZ_40947010 Radejovka po ústí do toku Morava


187 CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici





189.1 SKM0006 MYJAVA

190 CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava


191 CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava


0 5 10 Kilometers



moderate, Natural




CZ_40939110

CZ_40947010

CZ_41049000Heavily modified, Poor

CZ_42020000

SKM0001Heavily modified, Moderate

SKM0002

SKM0006

SK40000

CZ1000

61 of 129

Map 10 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and PL (Index RW 192-

226)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 192 DEBB6_2 Oder

192.1 PLRW60002117999 Odra od Nysy Luzyckiej do Warty

193 DEBB6_2 Oder

193.1 PLRW6000211899 Warta od Noteci do ujscia

194 DEBB6_2 Oder

194.1 PLRW60002119199 Odra od Warty do Odry Zachodniej

195 DEBB6_2 Oder

195.1 PLRW6000211971 Odra od Odry Zachodniej do Parnicy

196 DEBB6_3 Oder

196.1 PLRW600019174999 Nysa Luzycka od Lubszy do Odry

197 DEBB6_3 Oder

197.1 PLRW6000211739 Odra od Czarnej Strugi do Nysy Luzyckiej

198 DEBB6_3 Oder


199 DEBB6_3 Oder

199.1 PLRW6000211899 Warta od Noteci do ujscia

200 DEBB6_3 Oder


201 DEBB674_1739 Lausitzer Neiße

201.1 PLRW60001917475 Nysa Luzycka od Skrody do Chwaliszówki


202.1 PLRW600019174799 Nysa Luzycka od Chwaliszówki do Lubszy

0 10 20 Kilometers


Status, Designation

high, Heavily Modified

good, Natural

moderate, Natural



poor, Natural


bad, Natural


bad, Artificial



Unclassified, Artificial


PL6000

DE6000

PLRW60000317929Artificial, Unclassified

DEMV_USEO-0200Heavily modified, Poor

PLRW60001731129Heavily modified, Unclassified

DEMV_RAND-4000Natural, Poor

DEMV_RAND-3900Heavily Modified, Poor

PLRW6000211971Heavily modified, High

DEBB696_71Natural, Bad


DEBB6966_235Artificial, Bad

DEBB6966_233Heavily modified, Poor

PLRW60001819192PLRW60002419189PLRW60000191729PLRW60001819169

PLRW60002319147


DEBB6_2Natural, Bad

DEBB6962792_1501

DEBB6962774_1500

DEBB6_3Natural, Poor

PLRW600020191299

DEBB674_1739, Natural, Bad


DEBB67474_542

DEBB6747736_1426DEBB674792_1063

DEBB67492_544DEBB67492_545

DEBB67492_547

DEBB67916_561

DEBB6792_231

DEBB69627952_1658

DESN_674732DESN_67472

DESN_674574

DESN_67432-2

DESN_67418DESN_674158DESN_674154

DESN_67414-3

DESN_674-9Natural, Poor

DESN_674-8, Natural, Poor

DESN_674-4Natural, Bad

DESN_674-7, Natural, ModerateDESN_674-6, Natural, Poor

DESN_674-5, Natural, Bad

DESN_674-10, Natural, Moderate

PLRW60000174156, Artifical, UnclassifiedPLRW60000174159, Heavily modified, Unclassified

PLRW6000017429

PLRW6000017569

PLRW60004174169

PLRW60001017431, Natural, Poor

PLRW600017174569

PLRW600017174589

PLRW60001717469PLRW600017174769

PLRW600017174772PLRW600017174774

PLRW600017174778PLRW600017174789

PLRW60001717494

PLRW60001717529

PLRW60001719114, Natural, Unclassified

PLRW600018174529PLRW600018174549PLRW600018174552

PLRW600019174599, Natural, UnclassifiedPLRW600018174592



PLRW600019174799, Natural, ModeratePLRW600019174899

PLRW6000211739

PLRW60002117999, Heavily modified, Moderate

PLRW6000211899

PLRW60002319148

PLRW60002417699PLRW60002417899

PLRW600019174999

PLRW60001917475, Natural, Moderate

62 of 129






205.1 PLRW6000211739 Odra od Czarnej Strugi do Nysy Luzyckiej



207 DEBB67474_542 Föhrenfließ

207.1 PLRW60001917475 Nysa Luzycka od Skrody do Chwaliszówki

208 DEBB6747736_1426 Malxe-Neiße-Kanal


209 DEBB674792_1063 Moaske


210 DEBB67492_544 Schwarzes Fließ


211 DEBB67496_545 Grano-Buderoser Mühlenfließ


212 DEBB67498_547 Breslacker Fließ


213 DEBB6754_222 Oder-Spree-Kanal


214 DEBB6772_228 Brieskower Kanal


215 DEBB67912_560 Obere Bardaune


216 DEBB67916_561 Klinge


217 DEBB67918_562 Lebuser Vorstadtgraben


218 DEBB6792_231 Altzeschdorfer Mühlenfließ


219 DEBB696_71 Westoder


220 DEBB696_71 Westoder


221 DEBB6962_233 Alte Oder


222 DEBB6962774_1500 Stolper Strom


223 DEBB6962792_1501 Alte Oder Schwedt


224 DEBB69627952_1658 Schwedter Querfahrt


225 DEBB6964_235 Höftgraben


226 DEBB6966_236 Salveybach


63 of 129

Map 11 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and FR (Index RW 227-

242)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 227 DEBW_30-02-or1 Kander-Klemmbach-Sulzbach (Oberrheinebene)

227.1 FRCR1 RHIN 1

228 DEBW_30-04-or1 Neumagen-Möhlin (Oberrheinebene)

228.1 FRCR1 RHIN 1

229 DEBW_31-07-or2 Durchgehender Altrheinzug (DAR) mit Leopoldskanal

229.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2

230 DEBW_32-05-or3 Kinzig-Schutter-Unditz (Oberrheinebene)

230.1 FRCR3 RHIN 3

231 DEBW_33-02-or3 Rench (Oberrheinebene)

231.1 FRCR3 RHIN 3

232 DEBW_3-or1 Alter Rhein, Basel bis Breisach

232.1 FRCR1 RHIN 1


233.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2


234.1 FRCR5 GRAND CANAL D'ALSACE - BIEF DE KEMBS A NEUF-BRISACH

235 DEBW_3-or2 Schlingenlösung Rhein, Breisach bis Staustufe Strasbourg

235.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2

236 DEBW_3-or3 Staugeregelte Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Strasbourg bis Staustufe Iffezheim

236.1 FRCR2 RHIN 2

237 DEBW_3-or3 Staugeregelte Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Strasbourg

0 10 20 Kilometers



good, Natural

good, Artificial

moderate, Natural


poor, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Natural





DEBW_3-or1Heavily modified, Unclassified

FRCR1Heavily modified, Poor


FRCR2Heavily modified, Poor




DEBW_30-04-or1

DEBW_30-02-or1

DEBW_31-07-or2

DEBW_33-02-or3

DERP_2000000000_5Heavily modified, Moderate

DERP_2372000000_1

DERP_2358000000_0

DERP_2372000000_2Natural, Moderate

DERP_2642680000_1DERP_2642688000_0

DESL101

DESL102DESL108

DESL140Natural, Bad

DESL141, Natural, Bad

DESL167

DESL155, Natural, GoodDESL156, Natural, Unclassified

DESL157, Natural, Unclassified

DESL241

FRCR157

FRCR160FRCR207Natural, Moderate

FRCR213

FRCR22

FRCR3, Heavily modified, Poor

FRCR4, Heavily modified, Bad

FRCR5Artificial, Poor

FRCR8

DE2000

FRC

FRCR445FRCR446

FRCR452

FRCR444

DESL101Heavily modified, Poor

FRCR414Heavily modified, Bad

FRCR419

FRCR453

FRCR454

FRCR457

FRCR458

FRCR464

FRCR468

FRCR469Natural, Good

DESL251

DESL180

DEBW_32-05-or3

64 of 129

bis Staustufe Iffezheim

237.1 FRCR3 RHIN 3

238 DEBW_3-or3 Staugeregelte Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Strasbourg bis Staustufe Iffezheim

238.1 FRCR8 CANAL DE LA MARNE AU RHIN 3 - DISTRICT RHIN

239 DEBW_3-or4 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Iffezheim bis oberhalb Lautermündung (F)

239.1 FRCR160 SAUER 3

240 DEBW_3-or4 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Staustufe Iffezheim bis oberhalb Lautermündung (F)

240.1 FRCR4 RHIN 4

241 DEBW_3-or5 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Lauter- bis oberhalb Neckarmündung

241.1 FRCR207 LAUTER

242 DEBW_3-or5 Freifließende Rheinstrecke, unterhalb Lauter- bis oberhalb Neckarmündung

242.1 FRCR4 RHIN 4

65 of 129

Map 12 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and NL (RW_247-266)

Water Body code MS River name

DENI_32003 32003 Vechte Neuenhaus-Laar DENI_32041 32041 Nordhorn-Almelo-Kanal

NL36_OWM_014 Overijsselse Vecht NL05_Geelebeek Geelebeek

DENI_32004 32004 Dinkel DENI_32044 32044 Itter

NL05_Benedendinkel Beneden Dinkel NL05_Itterbeek Itterbeek

DENI_32025 32025 Ravenhorster Bach DENI_32045 32045 Geteloer Bach

NL05_Bovendinkel Boven Dinkel NL05_Broekbeek Broekbeek

DENI_32026 32026 Puntbecke DENW2_813_864 Rhein

NL05_Puntbeek Puntbeek NL93_8 Boven Rijn, Waal

DENI_32027 32027 Rammelbecke ab Forst Bentheim DENW27992_6_18 Große Wässerung

NL05_Geelebeek Geelebeek NL09_30 Weteringen Ooijpolder

DENI_32031 32031 Radewijke DENW2799222_0_3 Groesbeeker Bach

NL36_OWM_012 Radewijkerbeek NL09_03 Beken Groesbeek

DENI_32034 32034 Grenzaa Ringe-CPK DENW279924_2_11 Hauptwässerung/ Zeelandse Wetering

NL36_OWM_002 Schoonebekerdiep NL09_30 Weteringen Ooijpolder

DENI_32035 32035 Wettringe DENW2799242_0_13 Rindernsche Wässerung

NL36_OWM_002 Schoonebekerdiep NL09_30 Weteringen Ooijpolder

DENI_32035 32035 Wettringe DENW279982_20_28 Netterdenscher Kanal

NL36_OWM_021 Wettringe NL07_0001 Grenskanaal

DENI_32039 32039 Coevorden-Piccardie-Kanal DENW279982_9_20 Die Wild

NL36_OWM_002 Schoonebekerdiep NL07_0001 Grenskanaal

0 5 10 Kilometers



good, Natural


good, Artificial




poor, Artificial


bad, Artificial


NL93_8

NL36_OWM_014

NL36_OWM_012

NL36_OWM_002Heavily modified, Moderate

NL09_30Heavily modified, Moderate

NL09_03

NL07_0020

NL07_0021

NL07_0029

NL07_0030

NL07_0017

NL07_0016

NL07_0009

NL07_0006

NL07_0001Heavily modified, Poor

NL05_Benedendinkel

NL05_Bovendinkel

NL05_Broekbeek

NL05_Geelebeek

NL05_GlanerbeekNL05_Hagmolenbeek

NL05_Itterbeek

NL05_Puntbeek

NL05_Ruenbergerbeek

DENI_32003

DENI_32004

DENI_32025

DENI_32026

DENI_32027

DENI_32031

DENI_32034Heavily modified, Poor

DENI_32035

DENI_32039

DENI_32041

DENI_32044

DENI_32045

DENW2_813_864

DENW27952_0_22

DENW27992_6_18

DENW2799222_0_3

DENW279924_2_11Artificial, Bad

DENW279982_0_13

DENW928646_5_10

DENW9286456_3_10

DENW9285292_6_10

DENW92852_58_68

DENW9285122_20_25

DENW279982_9_20

DENW928_123_137

DENW9282_5_27

DENW92832_41_55

DENW9284_44_67DENW928476_5_11

DENW928482_11_15

DENW9284822_8_11

DENW928484_7_12

DENW279982_20_28Artificial, Bad

NLRN

DE2000

66 of 129

Map 13 Potential transboundary river water bodies between DE and NL (Index RW267-285)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 267 DENW28142_6_14 Senserbach

267.1 NL58WRO32 Selzerbeek

268 DENW281822_4_23 Rodebach

268.1 NL58WRO40 Rode Beek

269 DENW2818222_0_4 Saeffeler Bach

269.1 NL58WRO40 Rode Beek

270 DENW282_22_47 Rur

270.1 NL58WRO04 Roer

271 DENW2828_26_33 Wurm

271.1 NL58WRO27 Worm

272 DENW2828_33_35 Wurm

272.1 NL58WRO27 Worm

273 DENW28286_6_14 Amstelbach

273.1 NL58WRO43 Anselderbeek

274 DENW28296_0_5 Kitschbach


275 DENW282964_0_2 Unterlauf Flutgraben

275.1 NL58WRO05 Vlootbeek bovenloop

276 DENW282972_0_5 Schaagbach


277 DENW28298_0_8 Rothenbach

277.1 NL58WRO03 Rode Beek Vlodrop

278 DENW282992_4_10 Buschbach

0 5 10 Kilometers



moderate, Natural



poor, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Natural


bad, Artificial


NLMS

DE7000

DENW28296_0_5

DENW28286_6_14

DENW28142_6_14

DENW281822_4_23

DENW2818222_0_4DENW282_22_47

DENW2828_26_33Heavily modified, Bad

DENW2828_33_35

NL58WRO27Heavily modified, Moderate

DENW282964_0_2

DENW282972_0_5

DENW28298_0_8Natural, Moderate

DENW282992_4_10Natural, Bad

DENW284_12_20

DENW2852_5_14

DENW2854_3_13

DENW28566_3_8

DENW286_8_32

DENW28696_0_14

DENW28698_0_25

NL57_NOM_02

NL57_NOM_03

NL57_NOM_04

NL57_NOM_05

NL57_ZOM_02NL58WRO02Heavily modified, Moderate

NL58WRO03Natural, Moderate

NL58WRO04

NL58WRO05

NL58WRO32

NL58WRO40

NL58WRO43

67 of 129

278.1 NL58WRO02 Bosbeek

279 DENW284_12_20 Schwalm

279.1 NL57_ZOM_02 Swalm

280 DENW2852_5_14 Straelener Leitgraben

280.1 NL57_NOM_05 Lingsforterbeek

281 DENW2854_3_13 Nierskanal

281.1 NL57_NOM_04 Geldernsch Nierskanaal

282 DENW28566_3_8 Hülmer Leitgraben

282.1 NL57_NOM_03 Eckeltse beek

283 DENW286_8_32 Niers

283.1 NL57_NOM_02 Niers

284 DENW28696_0_14 Nuthgraben


285 DENW28698_0_25 Kendel


68 of 129

Map 14 Potential transboundary river water bodies between ES and PT (Index RW 384-

427)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 384 ES040MSPF000120320 ARROYO DE CUNCOS I

384.1 PT07GUA1470I Ribeira de Cuncos

385 ES040MSPF000120380 RIO ARDILA III

385.1 PT07GUA1490I1 Rio Ardila




387.1 PT07GUA1490N2 Ribeira da Murtega

388 ES040MSPF000132180 RIO GUADIANA VII

388.1 PT07GUA1428I1 Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)

389 ES040MSPF000132180 RIO GUADIANA VII

389.1 PT07GUA1428I2 Rio Guadiana (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia e Açude Badajoz)

390 ES040MSPF000133500 RIVERA DE CHANZA II

390.1 PT07GUA1562I Rio Chança

391 ES040MSPF000133590 RIO ARDILA II


392 ES040MSPF000133600 RIO MURTIGAS I

392.1 PT07GUA1490I2 Ribeira de Murtega

393 ES040MSPF000133670 RIO GODOLID I

393.1 PT07GUA1480I Ribeira dos Saus

394 ES040MSPF000133760 RIO CAYA



0 10 20 Kilometers



high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Natural

bad, Natural




ES040PTRH7

ES040MSPF000120320

ES040MSPF000120380, Natural, Moderate

ES040MSPF000132180

ES040MSPF000133500

ES040MSPF000133590

ES040MSPF000133600

ES040MSPF000133670

ES040MSPF000133760

ES040MSPF000133810

ES040MSPF000134030


ES040MSPF000140000

ES040MSPF000140200

ES040MSPF000140300

ES040MSPF000140400

ES040MSPF000141300


ES040MSPF000206500

ES040MSPF000206640, Heavily modified, Unclassified

ES040MSPF000206650

ES040MSPF004000200, Natural, Good



ES040MSPF000140800, Natural, Bad


ES040MSPF000141000


PT07GUA1399

PT07GUA1400

PT07GUA1404I, Natural, Good

PT07GUA1404N

ES040MSPF000133810PT07GUA1408PT07GUA1410

PT07GUA1420

PT07GUA1426PT07GUA1428N

PT07GUA1431PT07GUA1430PT07GUA1429

PT07GUA1427PT07GUA1428I1, Heavily modified, Moderate

PT07GUA1428I2, Havily modified, Moderate

PT07GUA1490N1

PT07GUA1490N2PT07GUA1501N

PT07GUA1501N, Natural, PoorPT07GUA1539

PT07GUA1559

PT07GUA1547

PT07GUA1560PT07GUA1562I, Natural, Moderate

PT07GUA1569

PT07GUA1596

PT07GUA1602

PT07GUA1613

PT07GUA1470I, Natural, Moderate

PT07GUA1480N

PT07GUA1480I, Natural, Moderate

PT07GUA1490I1, Natural, Moderate

PT07GUA1490I3, Natural, Poor

69 of 129



396.1 PT07GUA1428N Rio Caia (HMWB - Jusante B. Caia)

397 ES040MSPF000133810 RIO GEVORA I

397.1 PT07GUA1399 Rio Xévora


398.1 PT07GUA1400 Ribeira de Soverete


399.1 PT07GUA1408 Ribeira dos Marmeleiros


400.1 PT07GUA1410 Rio Xévora

401 ES040MSPF000134030 RIO GEVORA II

401.1 PT07GUA1420 Rio Xévora (HMWB - Jusante B. Abrilongo)

402 ES040MSPF000134070 RIO ABRILONGO

402.1 PT07GUA1404I Ribeira Abrilongo

403 ES040MSPF000140000 ARROYO TAMUJOSO


404 ES040MSPF000140200 RIO GUADIANA VIII


405 ES040MSPF000140200 RIO GUADIANA VIII


406 ES040MSPF000140300 ARROYO DE CUNCOS II


407 ES040MSPF000140400 ARROYO ZAOS


408 ES040MSPF000140500 RIO GODOLID II


409 ES040MSPF000140500 RIO GODOLID II

409.1 PT07GUA1480N Ribeira de Godelim

410 ES040MSPF000140700 ARROYO DE LA OLIVA


411 ES040MSPF000140800 RIO ARDILA IV





413.1 PT07GUA1490N1 Rio Ardila



415 ES040MSPF000140900 RIO MURTIGAS II

415.1 PT07GUA1490I2 Ribeira de Murtega

416 ES040MSPF000140900 RIO MURTIGAS II


417 ES040MSPF000141000 ARROYO DEL CAVA


418 ES040MSPF000141200 RIO DE SARALEJA

418.1 PT07GUA1501I Ribeira de Safareja

419 ES040MSPF000141200 RIO DE SARALEJA

419.1 PT07GUA1501N Ribeira de Safara

420 ES040MSPF000141300 RIVERA DE ALCALABOZA II


421 ES040MSPF000141400 RIVERA DE CHANZA III


422 ES040MSPF000206500 EMBALSE DEL CHANZA


423 ES040MSPF000206640 EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)





425.1 PT07GUA1480N Ribeira de Godelim

426 ES040MSPF000206650 EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO

426.1 PT07GUA1404I Ribeira Abrilongo

427 ES040MSPF000206650 EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO


70 of 129

Map 15 Potential transboundary river water bodies between ES and FR (Index RW 428-

431)


428 ES091MSPF578

Río Segre en Llívia y desde la localidad de Puigcerdà hasta el río Arabo (incluye río La Vanera desde su entrada en España).

428.1 FRDR11149 rec de l'estagouge

429 ES091MSPF578


429.1 FRDR242 rivière de la vanéra

430 ES091MSPF578


430.1 FRDR243 Le Sègre de sa source à la frontière espagnole et le Rabur

431 ES091MSPF579 Río Arabo desde su entrada en España hasta su desembocadura en el río Segre.

431.1 FRDR240 rivière du carol

0 1 2 Kilometers



good, Natural

moderate, Natural


ES091MSPF578Natural, Moderate

ES091MSPF579

FRDR10119

FRDR11149

FRDR240

FRDR242

FRDR243

FRD

ES091

71 of 129

Map 16 Potential transboundary river water bodies between ES and FR (Index RW 432)


432 ES091MSPF788 Río Garona desde el río Jueu hasta su entrada en el Embalse de Torán (incluye ríos Margalida y Toran).

432.1 FRFR178 La Garonne du confluent du rieu argellé (inclus) au confluent de la Neste

0 2.5 5 Kilometers


good, Natural


ES091MSPF788

ES091

FRFR178

FRF

72 of 129

Map 17 Potential transboundary river water bodies between FI and SE (Index RW433)


433 FI65.186_001 Pahaoja

433.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

0 10 20 Kilometers



good, Natural



FI65.186_001

FI65.186_001

SE755505-182645

FIVHA6

SE1TO

73 of 129

Map 18 Potential transboundary river water bodies between FR and IT (Index RW 471)


471 FRDR74 La Roya de la frontière italienne et la vallon de Caïros à la mer

471.1 IT076301IN F. ROJA

0 1 2 Kilometers


good, Natural


FRD

ITC

FRDR74

IT076301IN

74 of 129

Map 19 Potential transboundary river water bodies between HU and RO (RW_476-491)

Water Body Code MS River name

HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna

RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1 Ierul Ingust --> izvor - vars. in Ier

HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna

RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2 Ier --> cnf. Rit - granita

HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös

RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita

HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös

RORW3.1.42_B5 Crisul Negru --> cnf. Valea Noua - granita

HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös

RORWx3.8DER_B1 CPE2-Oradea --> prel. CPE1-Oradea - vars. in Crisul Negru + Afluenti

0 7.5 15 Kilometers



good, Natural


moderate, Natural




RO1000

HU1000

HUAEP322

HUAEP462

HUAEP471

HUAEP475

HUAEP729

HUAEP783

HUAEP784Heavily modiffied, Moderate

HUAEP933

HUAEP953

HUAEP971

RORW2.1_B7

RORW2.2.26_B1

RORW2.2_B2

RORW3.1.42_B5

RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1

RORW3.1.44.33_B6

RORW3.1.44_B7

RORW3.1_B7

RORW4.1_B11 Heavily modified, Good

RORWx3.8DER_B1

75 of 129

Map 20 Potential transboundary river water bodies between FI and SE (RW 434 – 466)


434 FI67.100_001 Tornionjoki

434.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

435 FI67.100_001 Tornionjoki

435.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

436 FI67.100_002 Martimojoki

436.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

437 FI67.111_001 Liakanjoki

437.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

438 FI67.200_001 Alainen Ratasjoki

438.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

439 FI67.200_002 Lompolojoki Tornionjoki

439.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

440 FI67.300_001 Muonionjoki

440.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

441 FI67.300_001 Muonionjoki

441.1 SE761107-175959 Muonioälven

442 FI67.300_002 Äkäsjoki

442.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

443 FI67.312_001 Ääverjoki

443.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

444 FI67.360_001 Niesajoki

444.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

445 FI67.380_001 Lompolojoki Muonionjoki

445.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

446 FI67.400_002 Jerisjoki

0 10 20 Kilometers



high, Natural

good, Natural

moderate, Natural




FI67.100_001Natural, Good

FI67.100_002

FI67.111_001

FI67.200_001

FI67.200_002

FI67.300_001Natural, High

FI67.300_002

FI67.312_001

FI67.360_001

FI67.380_001

FI67.400_002

FI67.400_004

FI67.400_007

FI67.441_001

FI67.500_001

FI67.500_002

FI67.500_003

FI67.500_004




FI67.623_001

FI67.624_001

FI67.625_001

FI67.650_001

FI67.660_001

FI67.680_001

FI67.700_001

FI67.800_001

FI67.900_009

SE737685-184945

SE739989-185170Natural, Good

SE748069-180884

SE749406-183566

SE753400-181060

SE755622-181815

SE761107-175959Natural, Good

SE762231-174295Natural, High


FIVHA6

SE1TO

76 of 129

446.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

447 FI67.400_004 Kangosjoki

447.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

448 FI67.400_007 Pakajoki

448.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

449 FI67.441_001 Utkujoki

449.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

450 FI67.500_001 Palojoki Enontekiö

450.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

451 FI67.500_002 Tarvantojoki

451.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

452 FI67.500_003 Jietajoki

452.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

453 FI67.500_004 Maljasjoki

453.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

454 FI67.600_001 Könkämäeno alaosa

454.1 SE761107-175959 Muonioälven

455 FI67.600_002 Könkämäeno keskiosa

455.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven

456 FI67.600_003 Könkämäeno yläosa

456.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven

457 FI67.623_001 Iittojoki

457.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven

458 FI67.624_001 Vuoskujoki

458.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven

459 FI67.625_001 Sottujoki

459.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven

460 FI67.650_001 Saddamasjohka

460.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven

461 FI67.660_001 Suppijoki

461.1 SE764611-171769 Muonioälven

462 FI67.680_001 Tammukkajoki

462.1 SE762231-174295 Muonioälven

463 FI67.700_001 Lätäseno

463.1 SE755505-182645 Muonioälven

464 FI67.700_001 Lätäseno

464.1 SE761107-175959 Muonioälven

465 FI67.800_001 Naamijoki ala

465.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

466 FI67.900_009 Tengeliönjoki alaosa

466.1 SE739989-185170 Torneälven

77 of 129

Map 21 Potential transboundary river water bodies between HU and SK (RW 475 – 485)


475 HUAEP273 Által-ér alsó

475.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ

476 HUAEP322 Berettyó

476.1 RORW3.1.44.33_B6 Barcau --> cnf. Bistra - granita

477 HUAEP334 Bodrog

477.1 SKB0001 BODROG

478 HUAEP335 Bódva felso

478.1 SKA0002 BODVA

479 HUAEP371 Concó alsó

479.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ

480 HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél

480.1 SKD0017 DUNAJ

481 HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél

481.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ

482 HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között

482.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ

483 HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között

483.1 SKI0004 IPEL

484 HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között

484.1 SKD0018 DUNAJ

485 HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között

485.1 SKI0004 IPEL

0 10 20 Kilometers



good, Natural

good, Artificial

moderate, Natural


poor, Natural


HUAEP273

HUAEP334

HUAEP335

HUAEP371

HUAEP443Heavily modified,

Moderate

HUAEP444

HUAEP446Natural, Moderate

HUAEP580


HUAEP810

HUAEP931

HUAEQ057

SKA0002

SKB0001

SKD0015Artificial, Good

SKD0017Heavily modified,

Moderate SKD0018Natural, Moderate

SKH0004

SKI0004Natural, Moderate

SKR0005

SKS0003

SKT0001

SKV0027

78 of 129

Map 22 Potential transboundary river water bodies between HU and RO (RW 486-491)


486 HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna

486.1 RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1 Ierul Ingust --> izvor - vars. in Ier

487 HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna

487.1 RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2 Ier --> cnf. Rit - granita

488 HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös

488.1 RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita

489 HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös

489.1 RORW3.1.42_B5 Crisul Negru --> cnf. Valea Noua - granita

490 HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös

490.1 RORWx3.8DER_B1 CPE2-Oradea --> prel. CPE1-Oradea - vars. in Crisul Negru + Afluenti

491 HUAEP580 Hernád felso

0 7.5 15 Kilometers



good, Natural


moderate, Natural




RO1000

HU1000

HUAEP322

HUAEP462

HUAEP471

HUAEP475

HUAEP729

HUAEP783

HUAEP784Heavily modiffied, Moderate

HUAEP933

HUAEP953

HUAEP971

RORW2.1_B7

RORW2.2.26_B1

RORW2.2_B2

RORW3.1.42_B5

RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2RORW3.1.44.33.28.11_B1

RORW3.1.44.33_B6

RORW3.1.44_B7

RORW3.1_B7

RORW4.1_B11 Heavily modified, Good

RORWx3.8DER_B1

79 of 129

Map 23 Potential transboundary river water bodies between IE and UK (RW_503-505)

Water Body code MS river name

IE_NW_36_2286 NW_Erne123Swanlinbar_Erne1_Lower

UKGBNI1NW363602063 Upper Lough Erne

IE_NW_36_2286 NW_Erne123Swanlinbar_Erne1_Lower

UKGBNI1NW363602096 Erne River - ROI

IE_NW_36_2417 NW_Erne123Annalee_Annalee1_Lower

UKGBNI1NW363602096 Erne River - ROI

0 1 2 Kilometers



moderate, Natural

poor, Natural



IE_NW_36_2286Natural, Unclassified

IE_NW_36_2417

UKGBNIIENW

GBNIIENW

UKGBNI1NW363602063

UKGBNI1NW363602096Natural, Poor

80 of 129

Map 24 Potential transboundary river water bodies between LT and PL (RW 506-507)


506 LT100102101

506.1 PLRW80002064875 Marycha od dopl. z jeziora Zelwy do granicy panstwa

507 LT150100011 507.1 PLRW8000206851 Szeszupa od Potopki do granicy panstwa

0 1 2 Kilometers



high, Natural

good, Natural




LT1100

PL8000

LT100102101

LT150100011

PLRW8000206851

PLRW80002064875

81 of 129

Map 25 Potential transboundary river water bodies between LT and LV (RW_508-514)

Water body code MS river name

LT300100018 LT did not report names

LVV056 Venta

LT300100018 LVV062 Vadakste


LT300111702 LVV056 Venta



LT300113104 LVV056 Venta

0 2.5 5 Kilometers



high, Natural

good, Natural

moderate, Natural


LT300100018

LT30011701Natural, GoodLT300111702

Natural, Good

LT300111704

LT700101102

LT800120103

LT800120702Natural, High

LVV001Natural, Good

LVV010

LVV011Natural, Good

LVV056

LVV062Natural, Good

LVV063

LVV066Natural, Moderate

LT700108102Natural, Good

LVVUBA

LT2300

82 of 129

Map 26 Potential transboundary river water bodies between LT and LV (RW_515-526)

Water body code MS river name Water body code MS river name

LT400100101 LT did not report names LT410100016

LVL153 Islice LVL176 Musa

LT400101101

LT420100014

LVL149 Svitene LVL159 Memele

LT400101601

LT420100015

LVL148 Sesava LVL159 Memele

LT400101702

LT420103101

LVL147 Vircava LVL159 Memele

LT400102502

LT420105404

LVL146 Platone LVL159 Memele

LT400103202

LVL123 Svete

LT400103521

LVL124 Vilce

0 5 10 Kilometers



good, Natural

moderate, Natural

poor, Natural


bad, Natural



LVLUBA

LT3400

LT400100101

LT400101101

LT400101601

LT400101702

LT400102502

LT400103202

LT400103521

LT410100016

LT420100014Natural, Moderate

LT420100015Natural, Moderate

LT420103101

LT420105404

LVL123

LVL124

LVL246

LVL147

LVL148

LVL149

LVL153

LVL159Natural, Moderate

LVL161

LVL166LVL176

83 of 129

Map 27 Potential transboundary river water bodies between PL and SK (RW 541-549)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 541 PLRW200012214212 Smereczek

541.1 SKP0006 POPRAD

542 PLRW200012214229 Muszynka


543 PLRW2000122142329 Szczawnik


544 PLRW2000122142349 Milik


545 PLRW2000122142389 Wierchomlanka


546 PLRW200012214249 Lomniczanka


547 PLRW200015214195 Dunajec od Zb. Czorsztyn do Grajcarka

547.1 SKC0001 DUNAJEC

548 PLRW200015214239 Poprad od Smereczka do Lomniczanki


549 PLRW200015214299 Poprad od Lomniczanki do ujscia


0 2.5 5 Kilometers



good, Natural

moderate, Natural





PL2000

SK30000

SKC0001Natural, Good SKC006

Natural, Moderate

PLRW200015214299



PLRW200012214249

PLRW2000122142389

PLRW2000122142349

PLRW2000122142329

PLRW200012214229

PLRW200012214212

84 of 129

Rivers in Danube Basin

Information on which water bodies are transboundary was obtained from ICPDR as described in

section 2. Not all Danube basin Member States reported information to the ICPDR on which of their

river water bodies were transboundary. Note that the actual transboundary pairs of water bodies

should be confirmed by Member States and/or the ICPDR. These water bodies are also in the table of

river water body transboundary pairs.

Map 28 Transboundary river water bodies in Danube river basin

0 50 100 Kilometers


Status, Type

high, Natural

high, Heavily Modified

good, Natural


good, Artificial

moderate, Natural



poor, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Natural


bad, Artificial



Unclassified, Artificial


BG1DU000R001Heavily Modified, Moderate

CZ_40939110

CZ_40947010CZ_41049000, Heavily modified, Poor

CZ_42020000

HUAEP322HUAEP443Heavily modified, Moderate

HUAEP444


HUAEP462

HUAEP471HUAEP475

HUAEP580


HUAEP729

HUAEP783

HUAEP784

HUAEP953

HUAEP971HUAEQ057

RORW14.1_B3Heavily Modified, Moderate

RORW14.1_B4

RORW2.1_B7

RORW2.2_B2

RORW3.1.42_B5

RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2

RORW3.1.44.33_B6

RORW3.1.44_B7

RORW3.1_B7

RORW4.1_B11

SKD0017Heavily modified, Moderate

SKD0018Natural, Moderate

SKH0004

SKI0004Natural, Moderate

SKM0001, Heavily modified, Moderate

SKM0002

SKM0006

SKT0001

85 of 129

Table 9 Transboundary Danube rivers with potential incongruities in the classification of ecological status/potential

Index

MS

RWB Code Name DES

ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MPP

MOF

MMP

MPB

MBI

MFI

MHR

MRC

MMC

MGP

MNP

MON

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OPP

1 BG

BG1DU000R001 RWB01 HM

3 L

3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 4 2

1.1 RO

RORW14.1_B3 PF II - Chiciu HM

3 L

3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1

2 BG

BG1DU000R001 RWB01 HM

3 L

3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 4 2

2.1 RO

RORW14.1_B4 Chiciu - Isaccea HM

3 L

3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 1

3 CZ

CZ_41049000 Morava po státní hranici

HM

4 L

4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1

3.1 SK

SKM0001 MORAVA HM

3 M

2 3 2 2 2 2

4 CZ


HM

4 L

4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1

4.1 SK

SKM0002 MORAVA NA

3 M

2 3 3 2 3 3

5 CZ


HM

4 L

4 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 3 1

5.1 SK

SKM0006 MYJAVA NA

3 M

3 2 3 2 3 2

6 CZ

CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava

NA

3 L

3 3 3 1 3 1

6.1 SK

SKM0001 MORAVA HM

3 M

2 3 2 2 2 2

7 CZ

CZ_42020000 Dyje po soutok s tokem Morava

NA

3 L

3 3 3 1 3 1

7.1 SK

SKM0002 MORAVA NA

3 M

2 3 3 2 3 3

8 HU

HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél HM

3 M

1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 5 2

8.1 SK

SKD0017 DUNAJ HM

3 M

1 2 3 2 2 2

86 of 129

Index

MS

RWB Code Name DES

ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MPP

MOF

MMP

MPB

MBI

MFI

MHR

MRC

MMC

MGP

MNP

MON

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OPP

9 HU

HUAEP443 Duna Szigetköznél HM

3 M

1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 5 2

9.1 SK

SKD0018 DUNAJ NA

3 M

1 3 2 3 2 2 2

10 HU

HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között

NA

3 M

2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1

10.1 SK

SKD0018 DUNAJ NA

3 M

1 3 2 3 2 2 2

11 HU

HUAEP446 Duna Gönyü–Szob között

NA

3 M

2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1

11.1 SK

SKI0004 IPEL NA

3 M

2 3 3 3 3 2 2

12 HU

HUAEP614 Ipoly NA

3 M

3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1

12.1 SK

SKD0018 DUNAJ NA

3 M

1 3 2 3 2 2 2

13 HU

HUAEP614 Ipoly NA

3 M

3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1

13.1 SK

SKI0004 IPEL NA

3 M

2 3 3 3 3 2 2

14 RO

RORW2.1_B7 Somes-cf.Homorodu Nou-granita cu Ungaria

NA

3 M

3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1

14.1 HU

HUAEP971 Szamos NA

3 M

3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1

15 RO

RORW2.2_B2 Crasna -ac.Virsolt-granita Ungaria

NA

3 M

2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1

15.1 HU

HUAEP729 Kraszna HM

4 E

4 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 2

16 RO

RORW3.1.42_B5 Crisul Negru --> cnf. Valea Noua - granita

NA

2 M

1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1

16.1 HU

HUAEP475 Fekete-Körös HM

2 M

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2

17 RO

RORW3.1.44.33.28_B2

Ier --> cnf. Rit - granita

HM

3 L

2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1

87 of 129

Index

MS

RWB Code Name DES

ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MPP

MOF

MMP

MPB

MBI

MFI

MHR

MRC

MMC

MGP

MNP

MON

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OPP

17.1 HU

HUAEP462 Ér-focsatorna HM

3 L

2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3

18 RO

RORW3.1.44.33_B6 Barcau --> cnf. Bistra - granita

NA

2 M

2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1

18.1 HU

HUAEP322 Berettyó HM

3 M

2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 2

19 RO

RORW3.1.44_B7 Crisul Repede --> cnf. Bonor - granita

HM

2 L

1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1 1 1

19.1 HU

HUAEP953 Sebes-Körös felso HM

3 M

2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1

20 RO

RORW3.1_B7 Crisul Alb --> cnf. Cigher - granita

NA

2 M

1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 1 1

20.1 HU

HUAEP471 Fehér-Körös HM

3 M

2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2

21 RO

RORW4.1_B11 MURES, sector Arad - Romanian/Hungarian border

HM

2 L

2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1

21.1 HU

HUAEP783 Maros torkolat HM

3 M

3 2 2 2 1 2 2

22 RO

RORW4.1_B11 MURES, sector Arad - Romanian/Hungarian border

HM

2 L

2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1

22.1 HU

HUAEP784 Maros kelet HM

3 M

3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3

23 SK

SKD0018 DUNAJ NA

3 M

1 3 2 3 2 2 2

23.1 HU

HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között

NA

3 M

2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1

24 SK

SKH0004 HORNAD NA

3 M

1 2 3 3 2

24.1 HU

HUAEP580 Hernád felso NA

3 L

3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1

25 S SKI0004 IPEL N 3 M 2 3 3 3 3 2 2

88 of 129

Index

MS

RWB Code Name DES

ES

CON

PP

OF

MP

PB

BI

FI

HM

GP

NP

ON

MPP

MOF

MMP

MPB

MBI

MFI

MHR

MRC

MMC

MGP

MNP

MON

PSP

DSP

WAP

HMP

RMP

OMP

OPP

K A

25.1 HU

HUAEP444 Duna Szob–Baja között

NA

3 M

2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1

26 SK

SKM0001 MORAVA HM

3 M

2 3 2 2 2 2

26.1 CZ

CZ_40939110 Morava po soutok s tokem Radejovka

NA

3 L

2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 1

27 SK

SKM0001 MORAVA HM

3 M

2 3 2 2 2 2

27.1 CZ

CZ_40947010 Radejovka po ústí do toku Morava

HM

4 L

2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1

28 SK

SKT0001 TISA NA

4 M

2 3 2 4 3 3 2

28.1 HU

HUAEQ057 Tisza Szipa-focsatornától Belfo-csatornáig

NA

3 M

2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3

Abbreviation Description

DES Designation of water body

HM Heavily modified water modified

NA Natural water body


ES Ecological status/potential

1 High ecological status

2 Good ecological status/potential

3 Moderate ecological status/potential

4 Poor ecological status/potential

5 Bad ecological status/potential

U Unknown/unclassified status/potential


HI High confidence


LO Low confidence

NI No information

89 of 129


PP Phytoplankton


MA Macroalgae

AG Angiosperms

MP Macrophytes

PB Phytobenthos


FI Fish





Monitoring of quality elements – blank cells do not necessarily indicate no monitoring as information may not have been reported by Member States to WISE

MPP Phytoplankton monitored

MOF Other aquatic flora monitored

MMP Macrophytes monitored

MPB Phytobenthos monitored

MBI Benthic invertebrates monitored

MFI Fish monitored

MHR Hydrological quality elements monitored

MRC River continuity monitored

MMC Morphological conditions monitored

MGP General physicochemical quality elements monitored

MNP Non-priority specific pollutants monitored

MON Other national pollutants monitored


PSP Point source pressures


WAP Water abstraction pressures

HMP Hydromorphological alteration pressures

RMP River management pressures

TRP Transitional and coastal water management pressures

OMP Other morphological pressures

OPP Other pressures

90 of 129

2. Lakes

The following table contains a list of the potential transboundary lake water bodies identified by the

methods described in section 2. Some but not all of these have been illustrated on maps following the

Table. Each pair has been assigned an index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water

body in the pair.





It is recommended, therefore, that if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to


Table 10 List of identified potential transboundary lakes with ecological status

Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name Designation

Ecological Status

Confidence


Artificial bad NI

1.1 NL NLSC nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand Artificial poor NI

2 DE DE6000 DEMV_LW_2800300

Großer Mützelburger See Natural good medium

2.1 PL PL6000 PLLW20785 Mysliborskie Wielkie HMWB U NI

3 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206500

EMBALSE DEL CHANZA HMWB good high

3.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1591 Albufeira Chanca HMWB good medium

4 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206640

EMBALSE DE ALQUEVA (PARTE ESPAÑOLA)

HMWB U high

4.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1487 Albufeira Alqueva HMWB moderate low

5 ES ES040 ES040MSPF000206650

EMBALSE DE ABRILONGO HMWB U high

5.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1407 Albufeira Abrilongo HMWB moderate low

6 FI FIVHA6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi Natural high medium

6.1 SE SE1TO SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI Natural high low

8 LT LT4500 LT550030305 Laukesas Natural high low

8.1 LV LVDUBA LVE165 Lauces ez Natural moderate high

ATDE_1 AT AT2000 ATOK1500100 Bodensee-Obersee Natural good high

ATDE_1.1 DE DE2000 DEBW_1 Bodensee (Obersee) - Freiwasser international

Natural good low


Embalse de Frieira HMWB moderate NI


HMWB bad low


Embalse de Lindoso HMWB good NI

ESPT_2.1 PT PTRH1 PT01LIM0032 Rio Lima (HMWB - Jusante B. Alto Lindoso)

HMWB good low

ESPT_3 ES ES030 ES030MSPF1001020

Cedillo HMWB Unclassified NI

ESPT_3.1 PT PTRH5 PT05TEJ0894 Albufeira Monte Fidalgo (Cedillo) HMWB moderate high


Embalse de Salas (River) HMWB good high

ESPT_4.1 PT PTRH1 PT01LIM0060 Albufeira de Salas (Lake) HMWB good low

IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough ) Natural moderate medium

IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East Natural good high

IEUK_1.2 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central Natural good high

IEUK_2 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_36_673 Macnean Upper ( Lough ) Natural moderate high

IEUK_2.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0011 Upper Lough Macnean Natural good high

IEUK_3 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_36_672L Erne (Lough) (Upper) Natural moderate low

IEUK_3.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI3NW0008 Upper Lough Erne HMWB moderate low

91 of 129

Index MS RBD Water Body Code Name Designation

Ecological Status

Confidence

LTPL_1 LT LT1100 LT110030111 Natural high low

LTPL_1.1 PL PL8000 PLLW30611 Gaładuś Natural U NI

Key:

Designation of water body

HMWB Heavily modified water modified

Ecological status/potential

High High ecological status

Good Good ecological status/potential

Moderate Moderate ecological status/potential

Poor Poor ecological status/potential

Bad Bad ecological status/potential



High High confidence

Medum Medium confidence

Low Low confidence

NI No information

92 of 129

Map 29 Potential transboundary lake water body between BE and NL (Lake 1)


1 BEVL05_187 ANTWERPSE HAVENDOKKEN + SCHELDE-RIJNVERBINDING

1.1 nl89_antwknpd Antwerps kanaal pand

NLSC

BESchelde_VL

BEMaas_VL

NLMS

0 1 2 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial




BEVL05_187

nl89_antwknpd

93 of 129

Map 30 Potential transboundary lake water body between DE and PL (Lakes 2)


2 DEMV_LW_2800300 Großer Mützelburger See

2.1 PLLW20785 Mysliborskie Wielkie

DE6000PL6000

0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers


high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial



DEMV_LW_2800300Natural, Good

PLLW20785Heavily modified, Unclassified

94 of 129

Map 31 Potential transboundary lake water body between ES and PT (Lake 3)



4.1 PT07GUA1487 Albufeira Alqueva

0 10 20 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial




ES040

PTRH7

ES040MSPF000206500Heavily modified, GoodPT07GUA1591

Heavily modified, Good

ES040MSPF000206640Heavily modified, Unclassified

PT07GUA1487Heavily modified, Moderate


PT07GUA1407Heavily modified, Moderate

95 of 129

Map 32 Potential transboundary lake water body between FI and SE (Lakes 6)


6 FI67.640.1.001_001 Kilpisjärvi - Alajärvi

6.1 SE765824-170238 KILPISJÄRVI

SE1TO

FIVHA6

NO1104

SENO1104

NOFIVHA6

0 1 2 Kilometers


high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial



FI67.640.1.001_001Natural, High


96 of 129

Map 33 Potential transboundary lake water body between LV and LT (Lakes 8)


8 LT550030305 Laukesas

8.1 LVE165 Lauces ez

LT4500

LVDUBA


high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial




LVE165Natural, Moderate

LT550030305Natural, High

97 of 129

Map 34 Potential transboundary lake water body between AT and DE (Lakes ATDE 1)


ATDE_1 ATOK1500100 Bodensee-Obersee

ATDE_1.1 DEBW_1 Bodensee (Obersee) - Freiwasser international

0 5 10 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


poor, Artificial

moderate, Natural


bad, Artificial




DEBW_1Natural, Good

ATOK1500100Natural, Good

DE2000

CH10

AT2000

98 of 129

Map 35 Potential transboundary lake water body between IE and UK (Lakes IEUK 1)


IEUK_1 IE_NW_35_160 Melvin ( Lough )

IEUK_1.1 UKGBNI3NW0015 Lough Melvin East

IEUK_1.2 UKGBNI3NW0010 Lough Melvin Central

IEUK_2 IE_NW_36_673 Macnean Upper ( Lough )

IEUK_2.1 UKGBNI3NW0011 Upper Lough Macnean

IEUK_3 IE_NW_36_672L Erne (Lough) (Upper)

IEUK_3.1 UKGBNI3NW0008 Upper Lough Erne

0 5 10 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial




IE_NW_35_160Natural, Moderate

UKGBNI3NW0015Natural, Good



IE_NW_36_673Natural, Moderate

UKGBNI3NW0008Heavily modified, Moderate

IE_NW_36_672LNatural, Moderate

GBNIIENW

GBNIIENW

UKGBNIIENW

99 of 129

Map 36 Potential transboundary lake water body between LT and PL (Lakes LTPL 1)


LTPL_1 LT110030111 No name reported

LTPL_1.1 PLLW30611 Gaładuś

PL8000

LT1100

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial



International RBD boundary LT110030111Natural, High

PLLW30611Natural, Unclassified

100 of 129

Map 37 Potential transboundary lake water body between ES and PT (Lake ESPT_1)


ESPT_1 ES010MSPFES480MAR002120 Embalse de Frieira

ESPT_1.1 PT01MIN0006I Rio Minho (HMWB - Jusante B. Frieira)

ESPT_2 ES010MSPFES511MAR002470 Embalse de Lindoso

ESPT_2.1 PT01LIM0032 Rio Lima (HMWB - Jusante B. Alto Lindoso)

ES010

PTRH1

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial




ES010MSPFES480MAR002120Heavily modified, Moderate

ES010MSPFES511MAR002470Heavily modified, Good

PT01MIN0006IHeavily modified, Bad

PT01LIM0032Heavily modified, Good

101 of 129

Map 38 Potential transboundary lake water body between ES and PT (Lake ESPT3)


ESPT_3 ES030MSPF1001020 Cedillo

ESPT_3.1 PT05TEJ0894 Albufeira Monte Fidalgo (Cedillo)

PTRH5

ES030

0 2.5 5 Kilometers

high, Natural

good, Natural


moderate, Natural


poor, Artificial

bad, Artificial





PT05TEJ0894Heavily modified, Moderate

102 of 129

3. Transitional waters

The following table contains a list of the potential transboundary transitional water bodies identified by

the methods described in section 2. Some but not all of these have been illustrated on maps following

the Table. Each pair has been assigned an index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water

body in the pair.





It is recommended, therefore, if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to


Table 11 Potential transboundary transitional water bodies

Index MS

RBD TWB Code Name Designation Ecological status

Confidence

1 BE BESchelde_VL BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV Heavily Modified

poor NI

1.1 NL NLSC nl89_westsde Westerschelde Heavily Modified

moderate NI

DENL_1 DE DE3000 DE_TW_T1.3000.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems (Leer bis Dollart)

Heavily Modified

bad medium

DENL_1.1 NL NLEM NL81_2 Eems-Dollard Heavily Modified

moderate NI

2 DE DE3000 DE_TW_T1.3990.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems-Ästuar

Heavily Modified

moderate medium

2.1 NL NLEM NL81_2 Eems-Dollard Heavily Modified

moderate NI

ES017MSPFES111T012010

BIDASOA Natural moderate High

3 ES ES015MSPFES111T012010

The code for this water body seems to have been misreported

3.1 FR FRF FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa Natural High NI

4 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000190

MARISMAS DE ISLA CRISTINA

Heavily Modified

good high

4.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1 Natural good high

5 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000210

PUERTO DE LA LOJA Natural good high

5.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1603N Guadiana-WB3 Natural U NI

6 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000210


6.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F Natural U NI

7 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000210



8 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200

SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA Natural good high

8.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F Natural U NI

9 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200



103 of 129

Index MS

RBD TWB Code Name Designation Ecological status

Confidence

10 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000200



11 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000180

DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)

Natural good high


12 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000180


Natural good high

12.1 PT PTRH7 PT07GUA1631 Guadiana-WB4 Natural good high

13 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000180


Natural good high


Coastal Water body

DEPL_1 DE DE6000 DE_CW_OD_01 Kleines Haff Natural poor high

DEPL_1.1 PL PL6000 PLTWIWB8 Zalew Szczecinski Heavily Modified

bad high

ESPT_1 ES ES010 ES010MSPFES505MAT000270

Estuario del Miño_tramo4 Natural U NI

ESPT_1.1 PT PTRH1 PT01MIN0018 Minho-WB2 Natural U NI

IEUK_1 IE GBNIIENW UKGBNI5NW250010

Foyle and Faughan Estuaries

Natural moderate NI

IEUK_1.1 UK UKGBNIIENW UKGBNI5NW250010

Foyle and Faughan Estuaries

Heavily Modified

moderate NI

Key to Table:

ES Ecological status/potential









Medium Medium confidence

Low Low confidence

NI No information

104 of 129

Map 39 Potential transboundary transitional water body between BE and NL (Index TW1)


1 BEVL08_43 ZEESCHELDE IV

1.1 nl89_westsde Westerschelde

105 of 129

Map 40 Potential transboundary transitional water body between DE and NL (Index TW2)


2 DE_TW_T1.3990.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems-Ästuar

2.1 NL81_2 Eems-Dollard

DENL_1 DE_TW_T1.3000.01 Übergangsgewässer Ems (Leer bis Dollart)

DENL_1.1 NL81_2 Eems-Dollard

106 of 129

Map 41 Potential transboundary transitional water body between ES and PT (Index TW3)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water body 4 ES040MSPF004000190 MARISMAS DE ISLA CRISTINA

4.1 PT07GUA1632I Guadiana-WB1

5 ES040MSPF004000210 PUERTO DE LA LOJA

5.1 PT07GUA1603N Guadiana-WB3


6.1 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F



8 ES040MSPF004000200 SANLUCAR DE GUADIANA

8.1 PT07GUA1603I Guadiana-WB3F





11 ES040MSPF004000180 DESEMBOCADURA GUADIANA (AYAMONTE)


107 of 129


12.1 PT07GUA1631 Guadiana-WB4



108 of 129

Map 42 Potential transboundary transitional water body between ES and FR (TW4)


ES017MSPFES111T012010 BIDASOA

3 ES015MSPFES111T012010 Incorrect WB code reported with area file

3.1 FRFT08 Estuaire Bidassoa

Note that the map is not clear as ES and FR provided overlapping GIS area files for their respective

water bodies. The areas coloured yellow for ES are the parts of the water body which do not overlap.

ES

FR

0 0.5 1 Kilometers

International Transitional Waterbodies

Type, Status

Natural, High

Natural, Good

Natural, Moderate

Heavily Modified, Good

Heavily Modified, Moderate

Heavily Modified, Poor

Natural, Unclassified


ES017MSPFES111T012010Natural, Moderate Status

FRFT08Natural, High Status

109 of 129

Map 43 Potential transboundary transitional water body between DE and PL (Index TW5)


DEPL_1 DE_CW_OD_01 (Coastal water body) Kleines Haff

DEPL_1.1 PLTWIWB8 (transitional water body) Zalew Szczeciński

DE

PL

PL

DE

PL

0 5 10 Kilometers


Status, Type

High, Natural

Good, Natural

Good, Heavily Modified

Moderate, Heavily Modified

Poor, Heavily Modified


Poor, Natural

Bad, Heavily Modified


110 of 129

Map 44 Potential transboundary transitional water body between IE and UK: Foyle and Faughan Estuaries (Index TW6)


IEUK_1 UKGBNI5NW250010 Foyle and Faughan Estuaries

IEUK_1.1 UKGBNI5NW250010 Foyle and Faughan Estuaries

Note the water body code is shared between IE and UK

111 of 129

Map 45 Potential transboundary transitional water body between ES and PT (TW 7)


ESPT_1 ES010MSPFES505MAT000270 Estuario del Miño_tramo4

ESPT_1.1 PT01MIN0018 Minho-WB2

PT

ES

0 0.5 1 Kilometers



Status, Type

High, Natural

Good, Natural

Good, Heavily Modified

Moderate, Heavily Modified



ES010MSPFES505MAT000270Natural, Unclassified status

PT01MIN0018Natural, Unclassified status

112 of 129

4. Coastal waters

The following table contains a list of the potential transboundary coastal water bodies identified by the

methods described in section 2. Some but not all of these have been illustrated on maps following the

Table. Each pair has been assigned an index with the “.1” designation indicating the second water

body in the pair.





It is recommended therefore that if this study is further developed that Member States are asked to


Table 12 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies

Index

MS RBD EU Surface Water Body Code

Name Designation Ecological status

Confidence

1 BE BESchelde_VL

BEVL05_23 ZWIN Natural U NI

1.1 NL NLSC NL89_zwin Zwin Heavily Modified

poor NI

2 BE BESchelde_VL

BEVL05_23 ZWIN Natural U NI

2.1 NL NLSC NL95_1A Zeeuwse kust (kustwaterdeel) Natural moderate NI

4 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems Natural U NI

4.1 NL NLEM NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)

Natural U NI

5 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N0.3990 Küstenmeer Ems-Ästuar Natural U NI

5.1 NL NLEM NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust Natural moderate NI


7.1 NL NLRN NL81_1 Waddenzee Natural poor NI


8.1 NL NLRN NL95_4A Waddenkust (kustwater) Natural moderate NI

9 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N1_3100_01

Euhalines offenes Küstengewässer der Ems

Natural moderate medium


Natural U NI

10 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01




11 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01




Natural U NI

12 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01



12.1 NL NLRN NL81_1 Waddenzee Natural poor NI

113 of 129

Index



Confidence

13 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N3_3990_01



13.1 NL NLRN NL95_4A Waddenkust (kustwater) Natural moderate NI

14 DE DE3000 DE_CW_N4_3100_01

Polyhalines Wattenmeer der Ems



16 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000160

PLUMA DEL GUADIANA Natural good high

16.1 PT PTRH7 PTCOST19 Internacional Natural good high

17 ES ES040 ES040MSPF004000170

ISLA CRISTINA Natural good high

17.1 PT PTRH7 PTCOST19 Internacional Natural good high

18 ES ES100 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà Natural good high

18.1 FR FRD FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage


19 FI FIVHA5 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko Natural good medium

19.1 SE SE1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten

Natural good low

20 FI FIVHA5 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko Natural good medium

20.1 SE SE1TO SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden Natural good low

21 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä Natural moderate medium

21.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn Natural moderate low

22 FI FIVHA6 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko Natural good medium

22.1 SE SE1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten

Natural good low


23.1 SE SE1TO SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden Natural good low


24.1 SE SE1TO SE654130-249500 Katajafjärden Natural good low


25.1 SE SE1TO SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn Natural moderate low

26 FR FRD FRDC10c Monte Carlo- Frontière italienne Natural good low

26.1 IT ITC IT0700800801 Capo Mortola Natural U NI

27 IE GBNIIENB IE_NB_040_0000 Outer Dundalk Bay Natural moderate NI

27.1 UK UKGBNIIENB

UKGBNI6NB020 Mourne Coast Natural moderate NI

28 IE GBNIIENW IE_NW_230_0000 Northern Atlantic Seaboard (HAs 40;02)

Natural U NI

28.1 UK UKGBNIIENB

UKGBNI6NB010 Portstewart Bay Natural good NI

29 LT LT1100 LT100101200 Natural moderate medium


Natural poor medium

BGRO_1

BG BG2000 BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла Natural moderate low

BGRO_1.1

RO RO1000 ROCT02_B2 Eforie Nord - Vama Veche Natural moderate medium

IEUK_1

IE GBNIIENW UKGBNI6NW250 Lough Foyle Natural moderate NI

IEUK UK UKGBNIIEN UKGBNI6NW250 Lough Foyle Natural moderate NI

114 of 129

Index



Confidence

_1.1 W

Key to Table:

Ecological status/potential









Medium Medium confidence

Low Low confidence

NI No information

115 of 129

Map 46 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between BE and NL (Pair CW 1

see table above)


1 BEVL05_23 ZWIN

1.1 NL89_zwin Zwin

BE

NL



STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


BEVL05_23

NL89_zwin

116 of 129

Map 47 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between DE and NL (Pairs CW 4-8

see table above)

Pair index Water Body code Member State name of water

body

4 DE_CW_N0.3900 Küstenmeer Ems

4.1 NL95_5B Eems kust (territoriaal waterdeel)


5.1 NL81_3 Eems-Dollard Kust


7.1 NL81_1 'Waddenzee


8.1 NL95_4A 'Waddenkust (kustwater)

NB: It is not clear from the alignment of the GIS area files of the coastal water bodies as to

which water bodies are transboundary and adjacent.

NL

DE

DK

0 10 20 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


DE_CW_N0.3900

NL95_5BStatus: Unclassified

Type: Natural

NL81_3Status: Moderate

Type: Natural

NL81_1

NL95_4A

117 of 129

Map 48 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between DE and NL (Pairs CW 9

see table above)


9 DE_CW_N1_3100_01 'Euhalines offenes Küstengewässer der Ems


NB: It is not clear from the alignment of the GIS area files of the coastal water bodies as to

which water bodies are transboundary and adjacent. Note these water bodies are also mapped

in the previous Figure.

DE

NL

0 5 10 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural

Unlcassified, Natural

DE_CW_N1_3100_01

NL95_5B

118 of 129

Map 49 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between DE and NL (Pairs CW 10-

14 see table above)


10 DE_CW_N3_3990_01 Polyhalines offenes Küstengewässer des Ems-Ästuars





12.1 NL81_1 Waddenzee


13.1 NL95_4A Waddenkust (kustwater)

14 DE_CW_N4_3100_01 Polyhalines Wattenmeer der Ems


NB: It is not clear from the alignment of the GIS area files of the coastal water bodies as to which water bodies are transboundary and adjacent. Note these water bodies are also mapped in the previous 2 Figures.

DE

NL

DE

0 10 20 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


DE_CW_N3_3990_01Status: Moderate

Type: Natural

NL81_3Status: Moderate

Type: Natural

NL95_5BStatuts: Unclassified

Type: Natural

NL81_1

NL95_4A

119 of 129

Map 50 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between ES and PT (Pairs CW 17

see table above)


ES040MSPF004000160 PLUMA DEL GUADIANA

17 ES040MSPF004000170 'ISLA CRISTINA

17.1 PTCOST19 'Internacional

Note the two water bodies areas for ES share the same area file – it is not clear which is

transboundary with PTCOST19.

ES

PT

0 1 2 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


ES040MSPF004000170

PTCOST19

120 of 129

Map 51 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between ES and FR ( (Index CW18)


18 ES100MSPFC1 Portbou - Llançà

18.1 FRDC01 Frontière espagnole - Racou Plage

ES

FR

0 1 2 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


ES100MSPFC1

FRDC01

121 of 129

Map 52 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FI and SE (Index CW19-20)


19 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko

19.1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten

20 FI5_Pu_001 Kemi-Simo ulko

20.1 SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden

Note it appears that the coastal water body from FI is adjacent to two from SE. A more detailed map is produced in the next Figure.

SE

FI

0 8 16 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


FI5_Pu_001

SE652400-223501 SE653840-247900

122 of 129

Map 53 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FI and SE (Index CW21)


21 FI6_Ps_002 Röyttä sisä

21.1 SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn

Note: The next adjacent water body south of FI_Ps_002 is FI_Ps_001 which shows a better

ecological status than the adjacent SE water body.

FISE

0 1 2 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


FI6_Ps_002SE654560-246250

123 of 129

Map 54 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FI and SE (Index CW 22-25)


22 FI6_Pu_001 Tornio ulko

22.1 SE652400-223501 Norrbottens skärgårds kustvatten


23.1 SE653840-247900 Knivskärsfjärden


24.1 SE654130-249500 Katajafjärden


25.1 SE654560-246250 Haparandafjärden sek namn

SE

FI

FI

FI

0 10 20 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


FI6_Pu_001

SE652400-223501

SE653840-247900Status: GoodType: Natural

SE654130-249500Status: GoodType: Natural

SE654560-246250

124 of 129

Map 55 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between FR and IT (Index CW 26)


26 FRDC10c Monte Carlo- Frontière italienne

26.1 IT0700800801 Capo Mortola

FR

IT

MC

0 1 2 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


FRDC10c

IT0700800801

125 of 129

Map 56 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between IE and UK (Index CW27


27 IE_NB_040_0000 Outer Dundalk Bay

27.1 UKGBNI6NB020 Mourne Coast

UK

IE

0 2 4 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


IE_NB_040_0000

UKGBNI6NB020

126 of 129

Map 57 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between IE and UK (Index CW28)


28 IE_NW_230_0000 Northern Atlantic Seaboard (HAs 40;02)

28.1 UKGBNI6NB010 Portstewart Bay

IE

UK

UK

0 2 4 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


IE_NW_230_0000

UKGBNI6NB010

127 of 129

Map 58 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between LT and LV (Index CW29)


29 LT100101200 29.1 LVA Dienvidaustrumu atklatais akmenainais krasts

LV

LT

0 5 10 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


LT100101200

LVA

128 of 129

Map 59 Potential transboundary coastal water bodies between BG and RO

Water Body code Member State name of water body

'ROCT02_B2 'Eforie Nord - Vama Veche

BG2BS000C001 Дуранкулак-н.Шабла

RO

BG

0 5 10 Kilometers


STATUS, TYPE

Good, Natural

High, Natural

Moderate, Natural


Poor, Natural


BG2BS000C001

ROCT02_B2

129 of 129

Annex B

Tables of potential transboundary river water

bodies with water body designation and

ecological status/potential

Note: because of its size this Annex is in a document separate from

this main document.

Please see “Task 2d_Annex_B.pdf”.

Contract No. 070311/2011/603663/ETU/D1 'Comparative Study of …€¦ · Task 2d: Reality check...

Documents

Transcript of Contract No. 070311/2011/603663/ETU/D1 'Comparative Study of …€¦ · Task 2d: Reality check...