Post a comment on the text below

7.  REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR SURFACE WATER (SCHEMA SWMET) including 7.3, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7 (cont.)

  • Look at the consistency with the CIS Guidance on implementing metals EQS
  • The list of possible significant hydromorphological pressures should be revised to be more consistent with the WFD:
    • −abstractions and water flow regulations (pressures that have impact on hymo element "hydrological regime“ e.g. water abstractions, impoundments etc),
    • −interruptions of river continuity (pressures that have impact on hymo element "river continuity“ e.g. i.e weirs, dams, etc),
    • −morphological alterations (pressures that have impact on hymo element "morphological conditions” (e.g. river engineering works, dredging etc).

Previous comments

  • SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:10:01
    Look at the consistency with the CIS Guidance on implementing metals EQS SE: Yes. We agree
    The list of possible significant hydromorphological pressures should be revised to be more consistent with the WFD: SE: Yes. We agree
    −abstractions and water flow regulations (pressures that have impact on hymo element "hydrological regime“ e.g. water abstractions, impoundments etc),  
    −interruptions of river continuity (pressures that have impact on hymo element "river continuity“ e.g. i.e weirs, dams, etc),  
    −morphological alterations (pressures that have impact on hymo element "morphological conditions” (e.g. river engineering works, dredging etc).  
  • SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 10:01:22

    1.Regarding Comment no. 213  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we do not agree with the aspect set out inthe comment.

    2.Regarding Comment no. 214 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, it is our opinion that the aspect set out in comment has no added value.

    3.Regarding Comment no. 215  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we do not agree with the aspect set out inthe comment.

    4.Regarding Comment no. 216 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, it is our opinion that the aspect set out in comment has no added value.

    5.Regarding Comment no. 218 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we emphasize that the proposal was prepared in the light of WFD provisions and we still suport it.

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.