Specific key issues
Name of Pilot River Basin
Project leader
Reporting period
Status
Guidance
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
ToR
No
2.0 - 1
: Odense Pilot River Basin
: Harley Bundgaard Madsen
: 01-01-2003 - 15-09-2003
: Water Body (WB) identification for coastal waters
Key issues
Surface Waters:
Status of aquatic
ecosystems in the river
basin
Specific question
Do the Water bodies identified
permit you to provide an
accurate description of the
status of aquatic ecosystems in
your river basin?
1
Clarification
Define the status of aquatic ecosystems
LAKES:
Yes.
WFD aim to protect and if necessary
improve the quality of all surface waters.
We have defined all lakes/ponds > 100
m² as separate waterbodies. The reason
for choosing this relatively small size as
the lower limit is that ponds are
important habitats in Danish nature. They
are protected against physical alterations
according to the Nature Protection Act,
although the present legislation does not
presuppose improvements of their
ecological quality. If the small lakes and
ponds are not identified as water bodies,
there would be a risk that they could only
be improved to the extend needed to
achieve the objectives for water bodies to
Suggestions for
improvement
which they are directly or indirectly
connected, cf. flow chart in GD p. 14,
fig. 8.
WATERCOURSES:
Yes.
The WB identification is a way of
dividing the stream system into
appropriate reaches having the same
status.
The status is described according to the
following elements:
A description of physical and biological
status (vegetation and
macroinvertebrates) exists for 308
monitoring stations, each being 50 m
long. The data are, however, not as
detailed as wished in the WFD. The
biological status is primarily assessed by
use of macroinvertebrates (the Danish
Stream Fauna Index).
Quantitative biological data (fish and
macroinvertebrates) and quantitative
physical data only exist on 38 of the
monitoring stations.
Status description of longer reaches is
based mainly on physical data from
regulatives (made for streams managed
by local authorities).
Data are, however, missing for many
2
WATERCOURSES:
Maybe not all the
data recommended
by the directive
are needed for
description of the
status. And it is
presumably
necessary to
differentiate the
level of
monitoring: e.g. an
intensive program
for some stations
and a more
extensive one for
the majority of
especially small
streams.
small watercourses.
Nevertheless, we have preliminarily
identified 3 types of streams according to
their size (based on stream order, stream
width, distance from the source, and area
of the catchments).
COASTAL WATERS:
Yes.
The current national proposal for
typologization of coastal waters from
NERI (Nielsen et al., 2001) leads to 3
types in the PRB-area and thus 3 WB:
1) Inner fjord:
Seden Strand,
2) shallow, mesosaline fjord: Odense
Fjord outer fjord,
3) shallow, inner Danish coastal waters
between Kattegat and the Baltic Sea:
the area outside the Odense Fjord.
The status of these 3 WBs can be
accurately described due to the existing
regional and national monitoring
programme.
Parts of Odense outer fjord, however, are
protected internationally (Natura 2000)
as well as regionally (Regional Planning
2001-13). Subdivision of the outer fjord
is thus necessary, cf. the
3
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
2.0
Surface Waters:
Minimum size
recommendations in the GD, and will
follow the limits of the different
protected areas. This leads to additionally
3 WB in the outer fjord.
Accurate description of these WBs will
require a more intensive monitoring
programme of each WB.
Which is the minimum size you LAKES:
have identified?
100 m²
WATERCOURSES:
Approx. 1 km in length.
Surface Waters:
Maximum size
COASTAL WATERS:
Approx. 10 km2 (Seden Strand).
Which is the maximum size you LAKES:
have identified?
3,17 km²
WATERCOURSES:
Approx.12 km in length.
Surface Waters:
COASTAL WATERS:
Approx. 54 km2 (Odense outer fjord).
The outer WB-area will probably be
somewhat bigger, but as limits are not
yet designated between this area and the
other open coastal waters, this area is not
calculated yet.
Which approach have you taken How to deal with very small water
4
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Very Small Water
bodies
for very small water bodies?
bodies.
LAKES:
In order to make the administration of
the large number of the small water
bodies practicable, they must be
aggregated according to the same type
and pressure, e.g. with the same kind of
land use and soil characteristics in the
catchments. However, we have not
carried this procedure out yet.
WATERCOURSES:
Our work is not finished yet, but we are
planning to deal with groups of small
stream reaches, primarily according to
knowledge of pressure and impact, cf.
previous section on lakes.
In the Danish Pilot Basin small stream
reaches (less than 2 m in width) are very
important elements of the stream systems
(about 70 % of total length) and therefore
cannot be disregarded.
COASTAL WATERS:
It will be necessary to group the small
WBs according to type, pressure and
impact, cf. previous section on lakes, as
the resources for monitoring of these
WBs are limited. In the water district
5
COASTAL
WATERS:
Some examples of
aggregation are
recommended
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface Waters:
Types
Is your typology process
finalized? How many Water
bodies have you identified
regarding this typology?
Fyn, appr. 40 of these small WBs are
present.
Define types and criteria used.
LAKES:
The process of defining the lake types is
still unfinished. The template will be a
system described by The National
Environmental Research Institute,
primarily developed for relatively large
lakes, although it may apply to lakes with
a surface area > 1 ha.
The principle of the typology is a
division according to alkalinity (>/< 0,2
meq/l), colour (>/< 60 Pt/l), salinity (>/<
0,5 ‰) and mean depth (>/< 3 m). This
result in 16 theoretical types, but in
practise only 11 types.
If, as suggested by Fyn County, lakes are
subdivided according to surface area
(size classes: 0,001-0,1, 0,1-1, > 1 ha),
and if the two salinity classes are
supplemented by a class with salinity >
12 ‰ erected especially for coastal lakes,
then 17 distinct lakes types may be
recognised within the pilot river basin.
6
WATERCOURSES:
Our typology process is not finished yet.
We have used a Danish preliminary
system proposed by The National
Environmental Research Institute,
Silkeborg, Denmark. This system
contains elements of both System A and
B and 6 types in all. Thus it divides the
watercourses according to position west
or east of the Weichsel ice-front line, and
thereafter according to size: small,
medium and large streams (current
criteria: stream order, catchment area,
width and distance from source). This
means that only three types are relevant
in the pilot basin.
Our experience is that stream width and
catchment area (perhaps also median
minimum water discharge) are the most
useful criteria in stream typology.
We consider to supplement the
parameters selected with slope.
COASTAL WATERS:
Our typology process is not finished yet,
cf. above. The present national
suggestion operates with
geomorphologically defined regions, and
subdivides theese acc. to mean depth,
tidal range, exposure and salinity, acc. to
7
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface waters:
Which problems/uncertainties
Iterative process
have you identified?
Information from article
5 analyses and reviews
system B. The fjords are further
categorized in inner fjords, threshold
fjords etc, leading to a total of 16 types in
the Danish coastal areas.
3 of these types are present in the PRB
area.
Practicalities when implementing article
5. Uncertainties reported.
LAKES:
The knowledge of especially the small
lakes and ponds are in most case too poor
in order to distinguish between artificial
and natural ones, and to assign them to
the correct type. This calls for extensive
monitoring of this category of lakes.
The reference condition of lakes is
generally very poorly known.
WATERCOURSES:
The following questions arise:
How to deal with small stream reaches
(the upper and very important parts of
the stream systems) in a way that is
manageable. How to deal with stream
reaches, where the knowledge is missing.
How to deal with temporary stream
8
reaches (upper parts of stream systems,
which are definitely not wetlands!). How
to deal with stream sources (rheocrens,
which are definitely not wetlands!).
How to deal with the riparian zone.
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface waters:
Review of the water
bodies identification
process
COASTAL WATERS:
The knowledge and the monitoring of
many of the coastal areas, and especially
the minor WB is not sufficient to allow
typologization and defining a reference
condition. The biological variables are
less well known compared to the
physical/chemical variables.
Will you review the water body Revision after the fulfilment of article 5
identification following the
requirements or after the monitoring.
article 5 analysis or after the
establishment of the monitoring LAKES:
programme?
There is a need for a continuous revision
of water body designation, especially
when new and improved knowledge
accumulates due to the monitoring
programme, and because some WB’s
may change status.
WATERCOURSES:
A revision will presumably be needed in
several cases, partly because our
knowledge increases and partly because
9
some WB’s may change status. As
quantitative biological and physical data
are missing for many reaches, it will be
appropriate to review the identification
after a new monitoring programme has
been in practice.
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface waters:
Pristine waters
Have you identified water
bodies with pristine waters?
COASTAL WATERS:
See the answer for the river courses. The
same statements are relevant for the
coastal waters.
LAKES:
No.
WATERCOURSES:
No, not quite pristine. Those which are
of very good, near reference quality are
often very short, with disturbed parts
both up- and downstream.
In this county we only have data from 7
historical and 14 present stream reaches
with near reference status. The status is
primarily described for
macroinvertebrates and a few physical
parameters.
COASTAL WATERS:
No, but historical data on especially
macrophyte vegetation from near-pristine
10
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface Waters:
Status of aquatic
ecosystems in the river
basin
Do the Water bodies identified
permit you to provide an
accurate description of the
status of aquatic ecosystems in
your river basin?
conditions (1888-1908) are available,
and in the Odense Fjord, intensive
dynamic modelling has been conducted,
including a ‘pristine’ scenario.
Define the status of aquatic ecosystems
Please provide indication on the average
quality of status.
LAKES:
For those lakes previously monitored, the
data are suitable for describing their
ecological quality. Thus, the status of
lakes with a surface area > 3-5 ha is well
known, in most cases being moderate to
bad. The knowledge of smaller lakes is
far less comprehensive. However,
previous monitoring shows that
ecological quality of these water bodies
is at least as poor as that for the larger
lakes.
WATERCOURSES:
Using the Danish Stream Fauna Index
(faunal class ≥ 5), about 50 % of the
stream reaches have good or better
quality. It is, however, uncertain,
whether this holds using other quality
elements than the macroinvertebrate
index.
11
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface waters:
Aggregation of water
bodies
COASTAL WATERS:
For the WBs identified, there is good
information on the development and
status of environmental quality for the
last 25 years. The pressure of nutrient
load and hazardous substances is so high,
that the biological variables show severe
distortion from natural conditions. The
status of the areas is judged to be
moderate to poor. None of the WBs in
the PRB area, or in the total water district
Fyn fulfils the present environmental
goals. Though knowledge of the smaller
WBs is more limited, none of the areas
monitored so far fulfil the present goals,
and their environmental status is worse
than in the more open areas.
Which criteria have you applied LAKES:
when aggregating water bodies? We have not carried any aggregation out
yet. However, we intend to aggregate
those small lakes and ponds that are not
monitored according to their expected
type, and to the land use and soil type of
their catchments using GIS technology.
The soil will be classified as either
clayey or sandy, land use described
according to the degree of cultivation and
to the density of livestock, and present
12
waste water discharges from scattered
homes will be identified.
WATERCOURSES:
The work is not finished yet, but we
intend to group the small streams
according to type and pressure, see
paragraph on lakes for examples of
pressure criteria.
These groups could be e.g. unregulated
reaches with good or bad status,
regulated open reaches with good or bad
status, or culverted (very bad status)
reaches.
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface waters:
Sub-division of water
bodies
COASTAL WATERS:
The work is not finished yet, but we
intend to group the small coastal WB
according to type and pressure, see
paragraph on lakes for examples of
criteria.
How have you considered sub- LAKES:
division and which criteria have There has not been any need for carrying
you used?
out sub-division of lakes water bodies.
WATERCOURSES:
We do not intend to subdivide identified
water bodies.
13
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Surface waters:
Physical features
COASTAL WATERS:
The coastal waters are divided according
to typology and to knowledge of
biological and physical status.
Subdivision according to protected areas
has been carried out (see earlier
description).
Which physical (geographical
LAKES:
and hydromorphological)
Every stagnant freshwater area with a
features have you used when
surface area > 100 m² is defined as a lake
identifying discrete elements of or pond. Impounded stream reaches are
surface water bodies?
to start with defined as HMWB
watercourses even though they may
rather function as lakes.
WATERCOURSES:
Stream width and catchment area
(typology), stream slope and regulation
degree. These data are used together with
the Danish Stream Fauna Index, which
reflects both water quality and physical
quality.
2.0
Identification
of Water
Surface waters:
Protected areas
How have you considered
protected areas (e.g. Natura
sites, or drinking water
14
COASTAL WATERS:
System B. See about typology criteria
above.
LAKES:
Lakes located inside habitat areas and
bird protection areas have been
Bodies
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
sources)?
Surface waters:
Wetlands associated to
water bodies
identified.
Have you considered wetlands
associated to your water
bodies? How have you
considered the relationship?
WATERCOURSES:
Delimitation of WB’s is carried out in
such a manner that there is no conflict
with Natura 2000 sites.
COASTAL WATERS:
In the WB designation, the borders of
protected areas (Natura 2000-sites) are
followed. Bathing water areas, Shellfishareas etc. will be considered, when the
whole coastal area of the water district
Fyn is described in 2004.
Wetlands related to surface waters.
LAKES:
Wetlands located next to lakes are
defined as ’normal’ wetlands, acc. to the
present national protectional legislation.
WATERCOURSES:
Not done yet.
2.0
Ground Waters:
How many water bodies have
15
COASTAL WATERS:
Wetlands bordering the coastal areas are
registered due to the same principles as
all other wetlands, acc. to the present
national protectional legislation.
At the time 34 aquifers have been
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Number of water bodies you identified?
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Ground Waters:
Minimum size
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Ground Waters:
Maximum size
Ground Waters:
Very Small Water
bodies
identified. From one of the largest
aquifers 6 water bodies have been
identified. It is presumed that the number
of identified water bodies will reach 50100.
Which is the minimum size you Due to only one aquifer has been divided
have identified?
into water bodies the answers of the next
three questions are based on the
characters of the aquifers.
The minimum size of an aquifer is 0.4
km2. 17 of the identified aquifers have an
area under 10 km2. 13 of these have an
area under 5 km2.
Which is the maximum size you The maximum size of an aquifer is 186
have identified?
km2. This aquifer has been divided into 6
water bodies which range in 15-56 km2.
The median size of the aquifers is
calculated to 10 km2. It is thereby
assumed that the aquifers under the size
of 15 km2 shall not been divided into
smaller water bodies. It is supposed that
the larger aquifers will be divided into
smaller water bodies.
Which approach have you taken How to deal with very small water
for very small ground water
bodies.
bodies?
The minimum size of an aquifer
16
identified is 0.4 km2. It is however
assumed that there are numerous aquifers
that have the same size. These are not
described yet.
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Ground waters:
Significant flow in
aquifers
2.0
Identification
Ground waters:
Delineation of
A large number of smaller water bodies
are close to the ground surface. This
groundwater is strongly influenced by
agricultural use of fertilizers and
pesticides and form point sources in
urban areas. These aquifers are therefore
not intended to be used for drinking
water abstraction. No systematically
mapping has been carried out on this
groundwater.
When designating groundwater The term significant flow has not been
bodies, how have you
considered in identifying aquifers. The
considered “significant flow”? reason is that all identified aquifers are
intended to provide drinking water at
present or in the future.
Due the hydrological and geological
characteristics it must be assumed,
however that a majority of the aquifers,
especially the aquifers that are close to
terrain have a significant flow
understood in the context of the
horizontal guidance.
Which criteria have you used
The aquifers have been evaluated based
when identifying and
on groundwater chemical data. In this
17
of Water
Bodies
groundwater bodies
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
Ground waters:
How have you identified
Groundwater boundaries boundaries of groundwater?
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
General issues:
Local and regional
circumstances
Ground waters:
Wetlands associated to
water bodies
delineating groundwater
bodies?
work nitrate, conductivity and the
content of the pesticide metabolite 2,6dichlorbenzamide has been used.
Based on the distribution of the chemical
data the aquifer has been subdivided into
water bodies.
The boundaries have been placed on the
basis on flow data.
Have you considered wetlands Wetlands related to ground waters
associated to your ground water
bodies? How have you
Areas with groundwater potential over
considered the relationship?
terrain surface have been identified.
These areas are compared with
postglacial freshwater sediments from
soil surface map. It is seen that there is
very good overlap between the two kinds
of areas.
However areas with postglacial
freshwater sediments outside the areas
with groundwater potential over terrain
surface have been identified. It is
assumed that these areas are influenced
by secondary groundwater.
Which local and regional
GROUND WATER:
circumstances have you
After identification of water bodies,
considered when identifying
geological and hydrological parameters
water bodies?. How have you
of the water bodies have been described.
18
done it?
2.0
Identification
of Water
Bodies
General issues:
Recommendations
General issues to raise
Experience
Furthermore the chemical status of the
water bodies has been identified. In the
introductory description of the aquifers
the same geological, hydrological and
chemical parameters have been
described. Based on the comparison of
the descriptions the differences between
the original aquifer and the water bodies
can be compared, and it can be evaluated
whether the water bodies are correctly
identified.
General Comments and Suggestions
Which general
problems/experiences/recomme
ndations have you encountered LAKES:
when identifying water bodies The most important problem is related to
in your river basin?
the generally poor knowledge of the
status of small lakes and ponds.
WATERCOURSES:
The most important problem is related to
the generally poor knowledge of the
status of smallest streams.
COASTAL WATERS:
We have only a limited knowledge of the
biology of the coastal waters, and many
of the smaller WBs are poorly known.
This lack of information will raise
problems when subdividing WBs and
19
designating small discrete WBs,
according to e.g. protected areas, as
previously described.
GROUND WATER:
Several problems have been identified.
In the guidance it is not clear whether it
is the aquifers that could or are intended
to be used for the abstraction of more
than 10 m3 of drinking water a day that
shall be identified. Some groundwater
could be used for abstraction but are not
intended to be used due to pollution,
protection of the aquifer or land use.
Our conclusion is that we only describe
aquifers that are intended to be used.
More over it is not clear which scale of
groundwater bodies that are ideal. In this
work it is concluded that, if the scale is
too large it is not possibly to work out an
appropriate plan to fulfil the
environmental objectives for the
groundwater bodies. The size of the
water bodies therefore have to fulfil two
aspects. In the first place it should be
possibly to describe the status of the
groundwater body, and secondly it
should be possibly to work out a plan for
the water bodies that fulfils the demands
20
for public participation. Further more it
can be difficult to identify these
initiatives that can improve the
groundwater quality if the size of the
water bodies is too large. I is concluded
that the size of the groundwater bodies
described in annex 2 (Groundwater-body
characterisation) is too large to fulfil this
purpose.
It can be concluded that there exists
sufficient data to identify aquifers and
water bodies.
At the end it can be concluded that it is
necessary to perform supplementary
mapping of the groundwater to get an
acceptable resolution of knowledge to
work out a plan for protection of the
groundwater.
21