EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 36 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Austria 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) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 2.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 3.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance between first and second RBMPs 3.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

4.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since 1st cycle 4.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 5.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 5.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 6.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 6.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle for designation 7.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 7.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 8.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 8.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures

9.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 9.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 9.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle and main changes since the first cycle 10.2. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 11.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 11.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 12.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 12.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 13.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 13.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle and main changes since the first cycle

14.2. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 15.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 15.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 16.2. Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 16.3. Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Austria (Map A) has a population of 8.3 million and an area of 83 870 km2. Map AMap of RBDs Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union and Switzerland) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Austria has three RBDs which are all transboundary/international river basin districts: Danube, Rhine and Elbe. It is a land locked country and hence has no transitional or coastal waters. Information on the extent of the national river basin districts, including countries sharing parts of the entire RBD, is provided in Table A: Table AOverview of Austria’s RBDs RBD Name Size (km2) % National territory within transboundary RB Countries sharing RBD AT1000 Danube 80 565 96% AL, BA, BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, FYROM, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA AT2000 Rhine 2 365 3% BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL AT5000 Elbe 921 1% CZ, DE, PL Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE The three international river basins on the Austrian territory all have transboundary cooperation. The Rhine, Elbe and the Danube are all governed by international River Basin Commissions. Austria acts as a party in the Danube and has observer status in the Rhine and Elbe commissions. In addition, bilateral agreements exist. The share of Austria in the respective international RBDs (Table B) is 10 % (Danube), 1 % (Rhine) and 0.6 % (Elbe). Table BTransboundary river basins by category and percentage share in Austria Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 1 km² % Danube AT1000 AL, BA, BG, CH, CZ, DE, HR, HU, IT, MD, ME, FYROM, PL, RO, RS, SI, SK, UA 80 565 10.0 Rhine AT2000 BE, CH, DE, FR, IT, LI, LU, NL 2 365 1.0 Elbe AT5000 CZ, DE, PL 921 0.6 Source: WISE electronic reports Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A single RBMP for Austria (covering the three RBDs: Danube, Rhine, Elbe) was published on 30 June 2017. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Austria are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Austria cooperates via the international commissions for the Danube, Elbe and Rhine, and also via bilateral agreements with neighbouring Member States and third countries. A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP. Mechanisms for active involvement included advisory groups. Austria used information websites on water issues in order to stimulate public awareness of the RBMP’s development and encourage participation. Austria did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. Characterisation of the RBD There were significant differences in the number of delineated surface water bodies, due to new or better information that became available during the planning process. However, it is unclear, based on information from the RBMP, what the consequences of these changes on the classification of status were. Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements, physicochemical quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements for all river water body types and lake water body types. Further characterisation work has been reported since the first cycle with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages between groundwater bodies and terrestrial ecosystems for all RBDs. Linkages with surface water bodies in each of the RBDs were not reported, but Austria clarified that there are no instances where the groundwater body is relevant for the status of the associated surface water body. For surface waters and groundwater, significance of pressures was linked to failure of objectives and thresholds are used. For groundwater bodies 97 % of water bodies had no pressures reported (this was included in Annex 0) and only 3 % appear to be found to have pressures from diffuse agriculture. For groundwater, expert judgement was used for defining significant pressures from point sources, artificial recharge and other pressures. This may indicate potential shortcomings in the assessment of these pressure types. The Priority Substances causing the failure of good chemical status and the measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 were reported. The indicator gap was reported for 2021 for all substances, however, for some substances (for example, mercury and its compounds in surface water in the Danube RBD) it appears as if the measures may not be sufficient to close the gap to good status by 2027.

Austria reported complete inventories, including all the 41 Priority Substances for each of the RBDs. The inventories were developed according to the methodology developed at EU level, and presented in CIS Guidance Document n°28. As recommended in the guidance document, the analysis was limited to the first tier of the methodology only for substances judged not relevant at RBD level, and a more complete assessment was carried out for substances deemed relevant at RBD level. The input data was generally assessed as of uncertain quality. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status There was a significant increase in the proportion of rivers included in operational monitoring, from 6 % reported in the first RBMPs to 20 % in the second. There are no operational monitoring programmes for lakes, although all lakes at risk of failing good ecological status are covered by surveillance monitoring. All expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers, but benthic invertebrates are not monitored in lakes. The assessment method for benthic invertebrates in lakes is part of the 2018 Intercalibration Decision. Over 98 % of river water bodies were reported to be monitored for all required biological quality elements for surveillance monitoring, none were for lakes. All of the seven biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored. However, this was almost never the case for the operational monitoring of biological quality elements. Hydromorphological quality elements were not reported to be monitored in rivers and lakes in Austria. Austria subsequently clarified that hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but the monitoring is continuous and not related to sites and was for that reason not reported to WISE. Eleven River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in Austria, only in rivers. One RBSP is monitored in fish, eight in settled sediment and ten in water. All sites included in surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency for all ten RBSP in water, but this was not the case at any of the sites used for operational monitoring. The confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has significantly decreased between the two cycles. This was an effect of changes of the assessment methodology. Chemical pollution was reported to impact all river and lake water bodies in Austria but none of the biological assessment methods were reported to be sensitive to this impact, which is a significant gap in the assessment methodology. All the relevant hydromorphological and general physicochemical quality elements in rivers and lakes were assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Expert judgement was reported to be used extensively in the classification of the biological quality elements in rivers and lakes. General physicochemical quality elements were reported not to be used in the classification of rivers and lakes even though they were reported to be extensively monitored. Austria subsequently clarified that physicochemical quality elements are used as supportive elements for the assessment of the ecological status. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies In its second RBMPs, in accordance with the EQS Directive, Austria applied the environmental quality standard for mercury in biota, and extrapolated the results to non-monitored waterbodies. As a consequence, the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status decreased from 99.5 % to 0 % between the two RBMPs and the proportion of waterbodies failing to achieve good status increased from 0.2 % to 100 %. A small proportion of river monitoring sites (6 %) (none of the lake (0 %)) are used for the assessment of chemical status. A correspondingly small proportion of river water bodies were monitored (2 %). Austria explained this on the basis of the risk assessment undertaken as part of the characterisation process where a low percentage of water bodies were expected to be at risk from substances other than mercury. It is not entirely clear whether this monitoring can fulfil all the objectives of the surveillance monitoring programmes, in particular validating the results from the impact assessment procedure or assessing long term changes in natural conditions and long term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity, especially in waterbodies where no risk is expected at the moment from substances other than mercury. The confidence in the assessment is reported as low for almost all water bodies classified. However, this applies only to the assessment of chemical status including the ubiquitous substances (i.e. mercury). The chemical status assessment when omitting ubiquitous substances is associated to medium confidence. Some, but not all, discharged substances were monitored in each RBD. The frequency of monitoring generally met the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring but not for operational monitoring. Hexachlorobenzene, mercury and hexachlorobutadiene were monitored in biota in rivers in the Danube (up to 22 sites) and Rhine RBDs (up to four sites) but not the Elbe RBD. Austria clarified that the biota monitoring was carried out once in each monitoring site, which is below the minimum recommended frequency. No explanation was provided for the reduced frequency. In the Danube RBD all 14 of the Priority Substances are reported to be monitored for long-term trends in sediment and/or biota in river water bodies but not in lakes, nor in the other RBDs. Spatial coverage appears to be very limited with only five sampling locations being monitored for each substance. The frequency of monitoring meets the recommended minimum frequency.

·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased, as well as the reported number of monitoring sites. However, 17 groundwater bodies were not monitored in the second cycle. According to Austria, where no monitoring sites were available, the quantitative status assessment was based on the water balance test. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were considered in all river basin districts. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 97 % of groundwater bodies are directly monitored for chemical status. However, it is unclear whether all the core parameters are subject to monitoring. There is high confidence in the status of all groundwater bodies. It was reported that surface water bodies have been considered in the assessment of chemical status of groundwater bodies, which is described in Annex 0. 77 groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems in the Danube RBD, two in the Rhine RBD, and one in the Elbe RBD have been considered in the status assessments.

·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential The significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment - Article 4(3)(a) - have been defined on the basis of criteria for different activities. Improvements to the method for good ecological potential definition have been reported since the first RBMP. A key change for both rivers and lakes seems to be the inclusion of biological quality elements other than fish, and the inclusion of physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. The ecological changes expected due to the mitigation measures are described in the guidance document for assessing good ecological potential in heavily modified water bodies. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for surface and groundwater bodies have been reported in all RBDs at water body level. The numbers of exemptions applied show a decrease in surface waters. There are tables for each water body (separate tables for groundwater, lakes, and rivers) providing the justification for the exemption. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported, although some uncertainties remain. Also impacts due to exemptions are reported. Information on clear criteria developed for the application of ‘technical unfeasibility’, ‘disproportionate costs’ and ‘natural conditions’ is not provided. The application of exemptions might be an issue of implementation of WFD requirements as only limited information is provided in the plan. ·Programme of Measures A financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the Programme of Measures (PoM) in all three RBDs albeit for a much reduced budget compared to the first cycle. All of the significant pressures identified in surface water and groundwater in the Danube RBD are covered by operational KTMs. Also all, except one pressure for each RBD, are covered for the Rhine and Elbe RBDs (only surface water is relevant in these).

There are 24 national measures to tackle River Basin Specific Pollutants (KTM 15 - “Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances”). However, for Zinc (in the Danube RBD) no measures have been reported as due to the source of zinc from historic mining a lower standard was defined. There is no information on KTMs for River Basin Specific Pollutants in the Rhine and the Elbe RBDs, as these are not considered to be significant pressures. There are 24 national measures to tackle Priority Substances (KTM 15 - “Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances”). Most Priority Substances seem to be subject to KTM 14 - “Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty”. Benzo(a)pyrene and lead identified as causing failure of objectives in surface water in the Danube RBD, do not seem to be addressed by any measures (the nationally derived KTM “No measures in this cycle – review of less stringent target in next cycle” is reported). Gap indicators and measure indicators are listed for most significant pressure types in all three RBDs, together with gap values and measure indicator values for 2015 and 2021. However, reported improvements are mainly modest, with most gaps far from being closed by 2021, and no gap analyses have been performed for 2021-2027. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water quantity pressures were not reported as relevant for Austria. The RBMP included a water resource allocation and management plan. There is a concession, authorisation, and/or permitting regime to control surface and groundwater abstractions and water impoundment. Article 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(f) measures have been implemented in the previous cycle. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A general management objective for nutrient pollution (related to nitrogen surplus) is set. A comprehensive gap assessment for nutrients and pesticides has not been undertaken in any of the RBDs. Basic measures for the control of diffuse pollution are implemented and several supplementary measures are foreseen. Financing of measures is considered as secured in all the RBDs. It is not clear from the RBMP to which extent mandatory or voluntary measures will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. The RBMP document provides a map showing the areas to which additional supplementary measures are to be applied. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture KTMs have been reported to WISE in relation to significant pressures from Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants causing failure. Austria reported that KTM15 ("Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances") has been mapped against national measures, and that it is tackling significant pressures in all Austrian RBDs.

Measures to tackle nitrate pollution in groundwater have been partly successful. Information on point sources of pollution by Priority Substances and River Basin Specific Pollutants, that can be used to identify appropriate measures, is limited. Information on diffuse sources of pollution is also limited, and since diffuse sources of certain pollutants (metals, ubiquitous substances) are apparently the main cause of failure, the lack of knowledge and lack of measures makes progress assessment difficult. Almost all the measures listed are research/knowledge-building measures, in particular the evaluation of the potential effectiveness of measures against point and/or diffuse sources, therefore there is currently no indication of the practical measures that will finally be taken, nor of their effectiveness. The identification of measures to tackle non-nitrate pollution of groundwaters is not yet complete. ·Measures related to hydromorphology Significant hydromorphological pressures and operational KTMs to tackle these are clearly identified in all RBDs. The priority areas/priority rivers (‘Sanierungsraum’) have been extended and, as a result, the rehabilitation area has been enlarged from the first to the second RBMP. However, a comprehensive instrument for funding hydromorphological measures is not described. From the information available, there will be an approximately 10 % to 20 % reduction of significant hydromorphological pressures between 2015 and 2021. After 2021, a still considerable effort in measures is planned to achieve objectives, either in terms of number of water bodies required to be covered by measures or number of barriers that need to be tackled. Ecological flows have been derived and implemented partly, that is, for some relevant water bodies, in the three RBDs but the work is still on-going. Austria follows a prioritisation approach, which is based on a long-term ecological concept and phases necessary actions for three management cycles. This includes also the revision of permits. The permit regime for new installations is described (as a measure) in the RBMP as well as new requirements for minimum ecological flows through the new 2010 legislation. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Cost recovery calculations remain limited – methodologies for calculating environmental and resource costs have not been adequately explained. No detailed information on the application of the polluter pays principle was reported. A narrow definition of water services has been used. It is unclear why Article 9(4) has been used even if the five water uses are not regarded as water services. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Habitat and Birds Directive Protected Areas dependent on groundwater have been identified. There is a seemingly default assessment that good ecological status is sufficient to reach more stringent objectives according to other Directives. Austria subsequently clarified that if more stringent objectives are required this will be reported by the competent authorities and will be taken into account for objective setting under the WFD. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in all RBDs and the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. A climate check of the PoM was carried out.



Recommendations Austria should carry out the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the timely adoption of the third RBMPs. Austria should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Austria should try to be more precise in analysing and linking pressures and impacts, and to ensure that appropriate measures are included in the Programmes of Measures to address significant pressures at water body level. Austria should continue to expand operational monitoring. In particular, operational monitoring should include lakes which are at risk of failing good status. Austria should present clearly the relationship between monitoring and classification of ecological status/potential. Whenever possible, classification should be predominantly based on monitoring. Austria should complete the development of assessment methods which are sensitive to all significant pressures. Confidence in the assessment of surface water chemical status for all water categories should continue to improve. The monitoring programmes should fulfil all the objectives set in Annex V of the WFD. Trend monitoring should be performed in all RBDs, for all substances, in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. The results of the assessment of significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment and better environmental options should be provided at water body level. This will improve transparency of the designation process of heavily modified water bodies. Although the number of exemptions has decreased since the first RBMP, a significant number of exemptions remains in the second RBMP. Clear criteria for the application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions need to be further elaborated to improve transparency in the decision making process. Efforts need to continue to implement the required measures for the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. Ensuring the provision of the required funding for measure implementation is crucial in that respect, particularly with regard to measures addressing the significant amount of hydromorphological pressures. The justifications for the application of Article 4(7) exemptions need to be further clarified in the third RBMP. KTMs should cover all the pressures causing failure to meet the WFD objectives. In particular, all Priority Substances and River Specific Pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs. Similarly, the gap analysis of the measures required to achieve good status in the light of the pressures should be more strongly elaborated. Austria should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters in all RBDs and link it directly to mitigation measures in the third RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. In the third RBMPs, Austria should state clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives. It should ensure that correct balances between basic and supplementary measures as well as mandatory and voluntary measures are reached. Sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, Rural Development Programmes) should be identified, as appropriate, to facilitate successful implementation of these measures. Austria should provide more information about measures taken or to be taken to address diffuse sources of pollutants in particular (e.g. existing laws better enforced; action plans or guidance modified in order to specifically support the achievement of WFD objectives), and about how effective they are expected to be. In order to take an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution, Austria needs to move as soon as possible from knowledge-gathering measures to putting practical measures in place. Austria should continue the work on reducing significant hydromorphological pressures in order to achieve the environmental objectives in the third cycle, in particular ensuring the necessary funding of hydromorphological measures. Austria should continue the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation, etc.), social and economic benefits.

Austria should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It is recommended to present in a transparent manner how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. Austria should ensure that all relevant Protected Areas are properly monitored.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1. Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1. Administrative arrangements – river basin districts Austria has three RBDs, each part of international RBDs: Danube; Rhine; and the Elbe. The Danube RBD covers 96 % of Austria’s territory. Austria prepared a single national RBMP for all three RBDs. Due to delays, Austria did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. 1.1.2. Administrative arrangements – competent authorities The Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism has the main roles for the monitoring and assessment of groundwater and surface water, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of the RBMP and PoM, public participation, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation, as well as reporting to the European Commission. Nine regions (specifically the Landeshauptmann, or Governor, of each region) have the same roles, apart from the coordination of WFD implementation and reporting to the European Commission. Three Federal Ministries have main roles for the preparation of the RBMP and the implementation of measures: (1) Health; (2) Transport, Innovation and Technology; and (3) Science, Research and Economy. The Science, Research and Economy Ministry, however, only has a role for the implementation of measures. 1.1.3. River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Austria did not prepare sub-plans for its RBMP. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was prepared for Austria’s RBMP. 1.1.4. Public consultation A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP. The public and interested parties were informed of the public consultation via the internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, meetings, printed material, social network and written consultation. Documents were made available for the required six months. Documents were available for download and paper copies were distributed at exhibitions. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP: agriculture/farmers, energy/hydropower, fisheries/aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation; specific groups included the Confederation of Cities, Federation of Municipalities, Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of Labour. Mechanisms for active involvement of stakeholders included advisory groups and regular exhibitions. In addition, the Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism had three informational websites: the Water Information System Austria (WISA) provides technical information for the interested public; the Wasseraktiv website provides information on the Austrian water sector to support public involvement in the WFD; and the Generation Blue website provides information on water to young people in Austria. Public consultation had the following impacts on the RBMP: Addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to the selection of measures, changes to the methodology used, commitment to action in the next RBMP and commitment to further research.

1.1.5. Integration with the Floods Directive Austria did not combine its RBMP and its Flood Risk Management Plans under the Floods Directive into a single plan, but there was joint consultation for the plans. 1.1.6. International coordination Each of Austria's three RBDs is part of an international RBD: the Danube, the Rhine and the Elbe international RBDs. An international agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP are in place in all RBDs (such level of cooperation is designated as “Category 1” cooperation in the context of this assessment). Explicit links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMP. There was international coordination on public participation in all of Austria’ RBDs (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). In addition, Austria has established bilateral agreements and commissions with neighbouring Member States, cited in the RBMP: The Czech Republic, Germany , Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia. Other cooperation mechanisms include the Austrian-Swiss Commission for the Joint Use of the Upper Inn and an agreement with Liechtenstein. 1.2.Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission did not have recommendations on governance for Austria based on the first RBMP and first PoM.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2.1.Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There was an overall increase in the number of delineated river water bodies (36 %) and this increase was apparent in all RBDs ( Table 2.1 ). The RBMPs stated that the delineation of water bodies can change in the process of the planning due to new or better information . The numbers of lake water bodies remained the same. The numbers of groundwater bodies increased in one RBD by 2 % and there was no change in other RBDs ( Table 2.2 ). In 2016, 91 % of identified surface water bodies were natural, 8 % were designated as heavily modified and 1 % as artificial. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of natural and heavily modified river water bodies of approximately 10 % between 2010 and 2016 but as a proportion of the total they remained the same ( Figure 2.1 ). There has been about a 4 % decrease in the number of artificial water bodies but again as a proportion of the total it remained at 1 %. The water uses and physical alterations have been reported for each heavily modified water body category. Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Austria between the second and first cycles, it shows there were no significant changes. The minimum size criteria reported were a 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and a 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. The RBMP states that there is no ‘spatially inclusive and comprehensive planning’ for water bodies smaller than the minimum size. However, it is stated that ‘the objectives and methodological rules for delineation’ do apply to these water bodies and that objectives focus more on conservation, as most small water bodies are not impacted by human activities. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Austria on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. The water body type with the most changes was river water bodies, with water bodies created (n = 159), split (n = 1 623), and deleted (n = 125). Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Austria for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 AT1000 7 752 30 933 55 481 2016 AT2000 214 893 5 39 2016 AT5000 99 451 2 1 2016 Total 8 065 32 278 62 522 2010 AT1000 7 054 30 089 55 399 2010 AT2000 194 860 5 534 2010 AT5000 91 444 2 1 2010 Total 7 339 31 392 62 934 Source: WISE electronic reports.

Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Austria for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 AT1000 130 12.06 9 569.29 713.68 2016 AT2000 7 48.22 564.42 333.21 2016 AT5000 1 921.3 921.3 921.3 2016 Total 138 2010 AT1000 128 12 9 563.00 724.05 2010 AT2000 7 48 564 333 2010 AT5000 1 921 921 921 2010 Total 136 Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2.3 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Austria in the second and first cycles Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 AT1000 0.03 84.6 3.99 0.47 244.14 8.75 2016 AT2000 0.5 20.64 4.17 0.55 34.92 7.81 2016 AT5000 0.86 17.74 4.56 0.54 0.56 0.55 2010 AT1000 0.03 83.75 4.27 0.51 161.02 7.25 2010 AT2000 0.5 20.59 4.43 0.54 530.03 106.84 2010 AT5000 0.31 15.18 4.87 0.54 0.56 0.55 Source: WISE electronic reports. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Austria designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports Table 1.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Austria between the second and first cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Lakes Rivers Groundwater Change 121 11 Aggregation 116 Splitting 1 623 4 Aggregation and splitting 330 Extended area Creation 159 Deletion 125 Change in code 31 No change 62 5 685 123 Total water bodies before deletion 62 8 190 138 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 62 8 065 138 Source: WISE electronic reports



1.2.2.Identification of transboundary water bodies Transboundary river water bodies were identified in each RBD and lake water bodies were identified in the Danube and Rhine RBDs. The RBMP stated that delineation of transboundary water bodies has been coordinated with the respective neighbouring countries but no further information was provided. Austria identified 20 transboundary groundwater bodies in the Danube RBD. They were delineated with the respective neighbouring countries (Germany, Slovenia and Hungary) in the framework of the ‘boundary water commissions’. However the RBMP does not explain whether these are the respective international river basin commissions, or other bodies/authorities. 1.2.3.Typology of surface water bodies Based on the data reported to WISE there appeared to be a significant decrease of approximately 70% of the number of types between the first and second RBMP for both rivers and lake water bodies ( Table 2.5 ) . The RBMP did not provide an explanation for this; it only stated that the typology for water bodies in each surface water category ‘has been checked’, and that in individual cases changes to the typology was carried out. No further details were provided and no background document was referenced. Member States were asked to report ‘Not applicable’ if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types. Many national types (heavily modified, artificial and natural) have been intercalibrated. In each of the RBDs there are several river and lake water body types that were reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types (six lake water body types and seven river water body types). Whist the delineation of water bodies has been coordinated with neighbouring countries in all three Austrian RBDs, the second RBMP do not explicitly mention whether the typology was coordinated with the Member States within the intercalibration process.





Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Austria for the t first and second cycles RBD Rivers Lakes 2010 2016 2010 2016 AT1000 150 45 43 12 AT2000 73 15 5 2 AT5000 14 2 1 1 TOTAL 169 49 46 14 Source: WISE electronic reports. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. 1.2.4.Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Austria with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. Type specific reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements, physicochemical quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements for all river water body types and lake water body types. The RBMP does not mention whether the identification of type-specific reference conditions was coordinated with other Member States . Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Austria with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes All 100% 100% 100% Some None Rivers All 100% 100% 100% Some None Source: WISE electronic reports 1.2.5.Characteristics of groundwater bodies The geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside were reported. However, details of whether groundwater bodies are layered or not does not appear to be reported (marked as ‘No information’) . Further characterisation work has been reported since the first RBMP with the inclusion of the assessment of linkages to terrestrial ecosystems for all RBDs. However, the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies in each of the RBDs was not reported and was included in Annex 0 . Austria stated that the status of the surface water bodies was assessed and for surface water bodies which were not at good status it was further assessed if the associated groundwater body had a negative impact on the surface water body. It was determined that there were no instances where the associated groundwater body is relevant for the status of the associated surface water body. 1.2.6.Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies For the second RBMP, all significant pressures that were assessed for surface waters were reported. In the first RBMP, pressures were reported at an aggregated level. Overall, it appears there was a large increase in the reporting of diffuse and point pollution between the two cycles with a decrease in the reporting of hydromorphological, abstraction and flow pressures ( Figure 2.2 ). In the second RBMP, atmospheric deposition was reported as a pressure on all surface water bodies, followed by dams, barriers and locks (27 %) (Figure 2.3). For groundwater bodies 97 % of water bodies had no pressures reported for them (Annex 0) and only 3 % appear to be assessed and determined to have pressures from diffuse agriculture pollution ( Figure 2.3 ). For groundwater it was reported that 39 pressures were not assessed , many of which were related to surface water specific pressures such as dams and hydrological changes. However, there were some pressures that could impact groundwater that were not assessed, such as discharges not connected to a sewerage network, and mining. According to the background documentation, no pressures were excluded (that is, all pressures were assessed). Figure 2.2 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Austria in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 8 127 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 7 401 for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.3 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Austria for the second cycle

Source: WISE electronic reports In the second RBMP, the most significant impact on surface water bodies was chemical pollution (affecting 100 % of surface water bodies), followed by altered habitats due to morphological changes (43 %) ( Figure 2.4 ). For groundwater, Annex 0 was reported for the majority of impacts, with chemical pollution only reported for four water bodies in the Danube RBD (3 %). Austria did not report on impacts in the first RBMP. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Austria for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports 1.2.7.Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater For surface waters numerical tools were used for defining significant pressures from point sources and a combination for numerical tools and expert judgement were used for defining significant pressures from diffuse sources, abstraction and water flow pressures. According to the RBMP, the assessment of chemical pollution from point sources remained the same as 2010, whereby a significant pressure was determined when the loading of the discharge exceeded a certain threshold related to the environmental quality standard. For diffuse nutrient pressures a new methodology was developed, whereby the loads were calculated by modelling and thresholds for phosphate and nitrates were applied to determine the significance of the pressure. This change in methodology may account for the minor increase in water bodies with diffuse pressures in relation to nutrients shown in Figure 2.2 . For groundwater, expert judgement was used for defining significant pressures from point sources, artificial recharge and other pressures, but no further information was found in the RBMP. For diffuse and abstraction pressures numerical tools were used. For nutrients (nitrates) INVEKOS data , European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme and statistical data were used to calculate input and output per agricultural area. For pesticides, an Austrian database called GeoPEARL was used. For abstraction pressures the abstraction volumes were calculated using statistics and estimations of per capita consumption. For agriculturally irrigated areas and industry, abstractions were calculated based on average values taken from reports and studies. For both surface water and groundwater bodies the significance of pressures were reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives and were reported to be defined in terms of thresholds. The RBMP reported that the existence of a ‘potential significant pressure’ was linked to the potential failure of objectives by examining the status of the water body, then it is checked if measures are planned in the water body which will potentially change the status and eliminate the risk to the water body. 1.2.8.Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status In the Danube RBD 14 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good chemical status. For the Rhine and Elbe RBDs the risk of failing good chemical status does not appear to have been reported. The pollutants putting groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status have been reported. In the Danube RBD 1.5 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to meet good quantitative status. For the Rhine and Elbe RBDs there was reported to be no risk of failing good quantitative status. 1.2.9.Quantification and apportionment of pressures There were some inconsistencies in the pressures for which measures were planned and the significant pressures reported at the water body level. For example, in the Rhine RBD, dams, barriers and locks - unknown or obsolete, was reported at the surface water body level but this pressure was not reported as being tackled in the PoM.

According to the RBMPs, agriculture, for diffuse sources, and waste water treatment plants, for point sources, were the main responsible sectors/activities causing failure of good chemical status. 1.2.10.Quantification of gap to be filled for pressures causing failure of status objectives The Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status and the measures to tackle these substances to achieve good status by 2021 were reported. The indicator gap was reported for 2021 for all substances, however, for some substances (for example, mercury and its compounds in surface water in the Danube RBD) it appears as if the measures may not be sufficient to close the gap to good status by 2027. The reasons for this were not clear in the RBMP. 1.2.11.Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the 8 other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (respectively suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (respectively priority hazardous substances). Austria reported that 41 Priority Substances were included in the inventories for each of the RBDs. Austria implemented the two step approach from CIS Guidance Document n°28 on establishing inventories of emissions. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for substances deemed not relevant at RBD level. For substances relevant at RBD level, either Tier 3 (pathway oriented approach) or Tier 1 (point source information) + Tier 2 (riverine load approach) were applied, in line with the recommendation from the Guidance Document. The quality of the input data was assessed as uncertain in most cases. 2.1.Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle There was an overall increase in the number of river water bodies (36 %) and this increase was the case for all RBDs. The numbers of lake water bodies remained the same. The numbers of groundwater bodies increased in the Danube RBD by 2 % and there was no change in the other RBDs. Since the first RBMP it appears there was a large increase in the number of occasions where diffuse and point source pressures were reported, with a decrease in the reporting of hydromorphological, abstraction and flow pressures. 2.2.Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Make sure that RBMP are more precise in analysing and linking pressures and impacts (information regarding status and the scale of the pressures is not always clear). Assessment: This recommendation applies to a number of Topics. In terms of characterisation, there appeared to be a link between the pressures and impacts with the key pressures on surface waters being atmospheric deposition and dams, barriers and locks and the associated impacts being chemical pollution and altered habitats due to morphological changes. Austria reported that 41 Priority Substances were included in the inventories for each of the RBDs. In terms of characterisation, therefore this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Clarify delineation of small water bodies in the second RBMP. Assessment: The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. The RBMP states that there is no ‘spatially inclusive and comprehensive planning’ for water bodies smaller than the minimum size. However, it is stated that ‘the objectives and methodological rules for delineation’ do apply to these water bodies and that objectives focus more on conservation, as most small water bodies are not impacted by human activities. An adequate explanation has been provided and this recommendation has been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: Make clearer the approach regarding consideration of uncertainties in the Article 5 pressures and impacts analysis; monitoring and classification of status has influenced the targeting of measures. Assessment: The approach regarding consideration of uncertainty in the Article 5 pressures and impacts analysis was not described in the RBMP and in the background documentation, therefore this recommendation has not been fulfilled.



Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs

3.1.1. Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8(1) of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Austria reported that there were separate surveillance and operational monitoring programmes for rivers in each RBD. There were two lake surveillance programmes, one each in the Danube RBD and the Rhine RBD. There were no operational monitoring programmes for lakes: No information was found in the assessed RBMP explaining the reason for this. Monitoring sites Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes for both plans, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Austria for the second second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported for the firstt RBMP, the second RBMP data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Surveillance Operational Surveillance Operational Second RBMP AT_1000 68 1 903 32 0 AT_2000 7 78 1 0 AT_5000 1 44 0 0 Total by type of site 76 2 025 33 0 Total number of monitoring sites 2 117 33 First RBMP AT_1000 68 537 32 1 AT_2000 7 33 1 0 AT_5000 1 15 0 0 Total by type of site 76 585 33 1 Total number of monitoring sites 635 33 Source: WISE electronic reports Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Austria Monitoring Purpose Rivers Lakes OPE - Operational monitoring 2 025 0 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 76 33 Total sites irrespective of purpose 2 101 33 Source: WISE electronic reports The number of monitoring of sites for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes remained the same between the two RBMPs. For the first RBMP there was one operational monitoring site in lakes, but none for the second. All lakes with risk for failure are included in the surveillance network. In rivers, there was a 3.5 fold increase in operational sites between the first and second RBMPs. Monitored quality elements (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Austria (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinant for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Rivers No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Source: WISE electronic reports

In the second RBMPs, all expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers in Austria whereas phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were not monitored in lakes . Hydromorphological quality elements were not reported in WISE to be monitored in rivers and lakes in Austria. All expected general physicochemical quality elements were monitored in rivers and lakes. In the first RBMP, all required biological quality elements were reported to be monitored for rivers in all RBDs. All required biological quality elements were monitored in lakes in one RBD. In the Rhine RBD, benthic invertebrates were not monitored in lakes and in the Elbe RBD, the two lakes were not monitored at all . Hydromorphology and general physicochemical quality elements were also reported as fully monitored in the first RBMP. Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year over the period covered by a RBMP, i.e. six years. For phytoplankton, this equates to twice during the monitoring year and the other biological quality elements once during the year. As a guideline, operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the six year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. All of the seven biological quality elements used for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where they were monitored. Conversely, only one of the 1 533 sites used for the operational monitoring of fish in rivers was sampled at the recommended minimum frequency. The other two biological quality elements (phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates) used in the operational monitoring of rivers were not sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency at any of the sites where they were monitored. Lakes were not included in operational monitoring. Monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants In the second RBMP, 11 River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in Austria, only in rivers. One (dibutyltin) was monitored in fish, eight in settled sediment and ten in water. Seven substances are monitored at 107 sites including copper and zinc, the other four at fewer sites. As mentioned above, Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: Once every three months is recommended for river basin specific pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan i.e. six years. For river basin specific pollutants this would equate to four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. All sites for all ten River Basin Specific Pollutants in water included in surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency. Conversely, none of the sites used for the operational monitoring of the ten pollutants in water were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency: It was reported that the monitoring will be implemented once per cycle and, depending on the results, future monitoring will be decided. Annex V, section 1.3.4 of the WFD does not explicitly define the matrices to which the recommended minimum frequency of monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants (“Other Pollutants”) applies. Recommended minimum monitoring frequencies are specified for Priority Substances in biota in Article 3(2)(c) of EQS Directive 2008/105/EC: this is once per year for operational and surveillance monitoring purposes. For consistency, this recommended minimum frequency of once per year has been applied to the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants in biota/sediment. Of the 32 sites monitored for dibutyltin in fish none was sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency. All five sites where eight River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored in settled sediment were not sampled at the recommended minimum frequency. Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP. The data from both plans may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used (in the first RBMP, some MS sometimes reported more than just the River Basin Specific Pollutants), but it points to an apparent decrease in the number of sites between the two plans. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in Austria. Note the data from both plans may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used. RBMP Rivers second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 113 first Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 185 Source: WISE electronic reports Surveillance and operational monitoring of surface water bodies Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of surface water bodies that have been subject to surveillance and operational monitoring in the first and second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Austria as reported in the first RBMP (2010) and second RBMP (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reports Over 98 % of the monitored river water bodies were reported to be monitored for all required biological quality elements for surveillance monitoring, none of the lakes in surveillance monitoring were sampled for all required biological quality element.

The number of delineated lakes remained the same between the first and second RBMPs. In rivers, there was a 10 % increase in the number of water bodies. The proportion of lakes and rivers included in surveillance monitoring remained virtually the same or slightly fell: approximately 1 % of river water bodies and 45 % of lakes. In contrast there was a significant increase in the proportion of rivers included in operational monitoring overall in Austria from 6 % for the first RBMP to 20 % for the 2nd RBMP. 2 % of lakes were included in operational monitoring for the first RBMPs; none were for the second. Figure 3.2 illustrates the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring. Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Austria Source: WISE electronic reports In the second RBMP it is reported that three biological quality elements were used in the operational monitoring of rivers: Fish were predominantly used (in 77 % of water bodies in operational monitoring), followed by benthic invertebrates (28 %) and phytobenthos (21 %). Lakes were not included in operational monitoring even though some (seven) in the Danube RBD were at less than good status and lakes were subject to significant pressures (for example, diffuse pressures from atmospheric deposition) in all three RBDs. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Austria reported two lakes and 128 rivers as transboundary water bodies. Austria did not report any monitoring sites as being part of international programmes . 3.1.2.Assessment and classification of ecological Status/potential of surface water Ecological status or potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Austria reported in the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. There was a decrease in the proportion of lakes at good or better ecological status/potential between the two RBMPs (from 95 % to 89 %), in contrast there was a 4 % increase in the proportion of river water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential (from 42 % to 46 %). There were 17 (0.2 %) surface water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential for the first RBMP, this increased to 107 (1.3%) surface water bodies for the second RBMP. Many of the changes in ecological status/potential at the water body level were reported to be due to a significant change in monitoring (site, methodology) since the first RBMP. Figure 3.3 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Austria for the first RBMPs with that for the second RBMPs and that expected by 2015. Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Austria is shown in Figure 3.4 . Map 3.1 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Austria based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Countries outside the European Union Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) Figure 3.3 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Austria reported in the second RBMPs, in the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2010 to 2015. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.4 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Austria. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reports Confidence in ecological status assessment Figure 3.5 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. No surface water bodies were classified for ecological status/potential with medium confidence in the first RBMP: 84 % were classified with high confidence and 16 % with low. The proportion of surface water bodies classified for ecological status/potential with high confidence in the second RBMP decreased to 15 %, with 57 % having medium confidence and 28 % low confidence. In conclusion, the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential has significantly decreased between the first and second RBMPs . Figure 3.5 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Austria based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reports Classification of ecological status at the quality element level Figure 3.6 shows the ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters. Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the two cycles. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements between the two cycles. Figure 3.8 illustrates the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes for the second RBMP. Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface water bodies in Austria. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Austria according to classified biological quality elements in surface water bodies between the two RBMPs

Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Austria using one, two, three or four types of quality element. Note: The four types are: biological, hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Source: WISE electronic reports Assessment methods for the biological quality elements There were gaps in the methods reported for the assessment of biological quality elements: phytoplankton in (very large) rivers and for benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos in lakes. The assessment methods were reported to be sensitive to some but not all relevant impacts: Chemical pollution was reported to impact all river and lake water bodies in Austria but none of the biological assessment methods were reported to be sensitive to this impact: This is evaluated as a gap in the assessment methods that requires attention. Assessment of hydromorphological quality elements There are assessment methods for all relevant hydromorphological quality elements in rivers and lakes, and the classification boundaries for these supporting quality elements are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Classification methods for general physicochemical quality elements All the relevant general physicochemical quality elements in rivers and lakes are assessed in terms of ecological status/potential and the classification boundaries are related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. Standards have been reported for all the relevant general physicochemical quality elements in river and lakes and the standard are consistent to the good-moderate status boundary of the relevant sensitive biological quality elements. Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards Environmental quality standards have been set for 35 River Basin Specific Pollutants: For copper, zinc and nitrite, there were different standards relating to the hardness of the water. All standards are for water only. Ten River Basin Specific Pollutants were reported to be monitored in water. Standards are set for rivers and lakes and all are in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 27 and the analytical methods used for all substances meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC ) for the strictest standard applied. Use of monitoring results for classification The classification of the individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3. 9. Use of monitoring results for classification in lakes Expert judgement was used extensively in the classification of the biological quality elements in lakes. Monitoring results and grouping were also used. In some cases the number of directly monitored water bodies was above or below to those that were subsequently used in the classification of ecological status/potential. In the Elbe RBD, lakes were not directly monitored but were reported as being classified by expert judgment. The classification of the hydrological regime and morphological conditions in lakes was solely based on monitoring results even though these elements were reported not to be monitored in WISE: This is a possible reporting error . General physicochemical quality elements were reported not to be used in the classification of lakes even though they were reported to be extensively monitored . River Basin Specific Pollutants were used in the classification of lakes, all based on grouping even though monitoring results were reported not to be used at all, which makes it difficult to understand how lakes have been classified using River Basin Specific Pollutants .

Use of monitoring results for classification in rivers Overwhelmingly, expert judgment was used in the classification of the biological quality elements for rivers: 63 % of classification determinations using biological quality elements were based on expert judgment, 30 % on grouping and only 7 % of monitoring results. The classification of macrophytes was reported as not based on monitoring results for any river water body even though this element was directly monitored. This may indicate some uncertainty in the assessment and classification methods for macrophytes in rivers. This was also the case for the other three biological quality elements used for classification of rivers where more water bodies were directly monitored than were subsequently classified using monitoring results. All the relevant hydromorphological quality elements have been reported as being used in the classification of status/potential of rivers, all based on monitoring results. However, these elements were reported as not being monitored. There was extensive monitoring of general physicochemical quality elements in rivers but these elements were reported not be used in the classification of status . River Basin Specific Pollutants were used in the classification of rivers, mainly based on grouping, to a lesser extent on monitoring and for some water bodies on expert judgement. Figure 3.9 Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Austria. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reports Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The ‘one-out, all-out’ principle was applied in all RBDs in deriving the overall classification of the ecological status of a water body. Figure 3.10 shows the percentage of surface water bodies that have not used particular types of elements in classifying ecological status or potential. Figure 3.10 Percentage of surface water bodies in Austria where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reports 3.2.Main changes in implementation and compliance between first and second RBMPs There was a significant increase in the proportion of rivers included in operational monitoring overall in Austria: from 6 % reported in the first RBMP to 20 % in the second. For lakes, there were two operational monitoring sites reported in the first RBMP, but none in the second. The number of monitoring of sites for the surveillance monitoring of rivers and lakes remained the same. All expected biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in rivers in Austria in the second RBMP, it was also the case in the first RBMP. In lakes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were reported as not monitored in the second RBMP , whereas in the first RBMP all required biological quality elements were reported to be monitored in lakes in one RBD, in the Rhine RBD, benthic invertebrates were not monitored in lakes and in the Elbe RBD the two lakes were not monitored at all. In the second RBMP, hydromorphological quality elements were reported not to be monitored in WISE in rivers and lakes in Austria , whereas they were monitored for the first RBMP. All expected general physicochemical quality elements were monitored in rivers and lakes in both RBMPs.

3.3.Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Further details on how the monitoring relates to the classification of water bodies would better support the selection of monitoring sites and their use for ecological status/potential classification. ·Recommendation: Although most biological quality elements are used for the classification of ecological status it should be clearer why some biological quality elements have not been considered for certain water body types. Assessment: Further details are still required and the reported information in WISE is not clear. Whilst all the required biological quality elements are monitored in rivers, there are now gaps in lakes. In addition, hydromorphological quality elements were reported not to be monitored in WISE (Austria clarified subsequently that hydromorphological elements are monitored in rivers and lakes, but the monitoring is continuous and not related to sites, thus they were not included in WISE). The classification of macrophytes was not based on monitoring results for any river water body even though this element was directly monitored. This was also the case for the other three biological quality elements used for classification of rivers where more water bodies were directly monitored than were subsequently classified using monitoring results. Expert judgement was used extensively. The justification for this is not known. Overall therefore, not enough information on progress regarding this recommendation could be found in the RBMP. Overall, there appears to be a deterioration in implementation, therefore, this recommendation has not been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: The identification of River Basin Specific Pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that to take an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place. Assessment: Detailed information on the monitored River Basin Specific Pollutants and their exceedances has been reported, all water River Basin Specific Pollutants included in surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the recommended minimum frequency, but this wasn’t the case for operational monitoring in water and for biota and sediments. Classification of rivers for Specific Pollutants was mainly based on grouping for rivers and exclusively for lakes, whereas no monitoring was reported in the second RBMP. Therefore, this recommendation is partially fulfilled.

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1.Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2.12.Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological status/potential and chemical status. Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow MS to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure, to efficiently and effectively review the design of their monitoring programmes, and to assess the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For operational purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting from the PoM. Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in Austria for the second RBMP. Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency . The vast majority of sites were used for monitoring of ecological status in rivers (99%) and all sites were used for monitoring of ecological status in lakes but no site was used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes and only 6% of sites were used for monitoring of chemical status in rivers. Hence the spatial coverage of the chemical monitoring programme appears to be limited. Austria explained that they designed their chemical monitoring programme on the basis of their pressure-impact assessment: Apart from mercury, the other priority substances are expected to cause a risk in a very low number of waterbodies and water bodies without risk from substances other than mercury were not monitored. Hence the limited number of water bodies monitored. However, it is not entirely clear how these monitoring programmes allow the assessment of the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity in waterbodies where no risk is expected at the moment. It is also not entirely clear how the monitoring programmes allow a validation of the impact assessment procedure for waterbodies in which no risk is expected from substances other than mercury.

In comparison to monitoring for chemical status in the first RBMP, there is a reduction in monitoring for lakes (13 sites and 10 water bodies reported in the first RBMP). To explain this reduction, Austria mentioned that they used the possibility offered in WFD, Annex V, 1.3.1. to monitor certain waterbodies every three cycles, when “the previous surveillance monitoring exercise showed that the body concerned reached good status and there is no evidence from the review of impact of human activity in Annex II that the impacts on the body have changed”. Overall, the number of sites used to monitor priority substances also decreased between the first RBMP (186 sites reported) and the second RBMP (127 sites reported). Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between water bodies monitored for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparative purpose, those for ecological status. Figure 4.1 Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Austria. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 4.2 Proportion of total water bodies in each category monitored, monitored for chemical status and, for comparison, monitored for ecological status, in Austria. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category Source: WISE electronic reporting 45 % of river waterbodies and 21 % of lake waterbodies were reported to be monitored in the second RBMP. All of these were included in the monitoring of ecological status. For chemical monitoring, no lakes and only 2 % of river water bodies were monitored. Water bodies where no ubiquitous substance was expected to cause a risk were not monitored. Only 0.4 % of river waterbodies and none of the lakes are identified to be at risk of failing good chemical status when mercury is not considered. Only 1.4 % of water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status were reported to be monitored in Austria as a whole. Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment Monitoring for status assessment Requirements Article 8(1) of the WFD requires MS to establish monitoring programmes in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless MS derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard. Spatial coverage As stated above, for chemical monitoring, no lakes and only 2 % of river water bodies were monitored (according to Austria this is based on their pressure-impact assessment, which has determined that 0.4 % of river water bodies and lo lakes are at risk of failure of good chemical status – please note these numbers do not include the ubiquitous substance mercury). Water bodies without risk from substances other than mercury were not monitored. Between 93 and 99 % of river water bodies in each of the three RBDs were reported not to be monitored for Priority Substances. However, 67, seven and one river water bodies in the Danube, Rhine and Elbe RBDs respectively were monitored for more than ten Priority Substances. Austria reported monitoring data for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in biota (fish) for status assessment at 27 to 31 sites (depending on the substance) in the Danube RBD and in the Rhine RBD. In the Elbe RBD, mercury is monitored in the water column only for status assessment (hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are not monitored). Frequencies

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. MS can choose to monitor less frequently for any matrix, provided they can justify greater intervals on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Monitoring frequencies were reported for 17 Priority Substances at site level in the Danube RBD, 15 in the Rhine RBD and nine in the Elbe RBD. All parameters with an environmental quality standard in water were reported to be monitored at least 12 times the year(s) they were monitored (one or two years per cycle), which is in accordance with the minimum recommended frequency for surveillance but not for operational monitoring. According to WISE, the parameters with an environmental quality standard in biota were monitored once or twice per cycle. Austria clarified that the biota monitoring was carried out once in each monitoring site, which is below the minimum recommended frequency. No explanation was provided for the reduced frequency. Monitoring for long-term trend assessment Requirements Article 3(3) of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 14 substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, for the purpose of long-term trend assessment. Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval. Spatial coverage In the Danube RBD all 14 relevant Priority Substances are reported to be monitored in biota / sediment for long-term trends in river water bodies but no such substance is reported to be monitored in lakes. Only five sampling locations are monitored for each substance hence the spatial coverage appears to be very limited. No long-term trend monitoring is reported in sediment and/or biota in either of the other two RBDs. Frequencies Where priority substances are monitored for long-term trends (in river water bodies in the Danube RBD only), monitoring is reported to be performed once every three years, in accordance with the WFD. Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) of the Directive states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.” MS are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. Austria reported that for all three RBDs, at least some discharged substances were not monitored. This was the case for chlorpyrifos in the Danube RBD, nonylphenol in the Rhine RBD and for tributyltin and brominated diphenylethers in the Elbe RBD. This seems to be in contradiction with the requirement of the WFD. Performance of analytical methods used For 33 of the 41 (groups of) Priority Substances, the analytical methods meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/90/EC , in all three RBDs. For the remaining eight substances, the analytical methods complied with the requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/90/EC in all RBDs (i.e. for these substances Austria used the best available analytical techniques not entailing excessive costs). The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification is as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC. 1.2.13.Chemical Status of surface water bodies MS are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status was based. This may be the year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored surface water bodies within the same group. In Austria, the chemical assessments were carried out in the period of 2010 to 2015 for all three RBDs, but the specific years have not been reported. The one-out-all-out approach was used for classification. The chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status and shows that all surface water bodies were classified as failing to achieve good chemical status. The assessment of chemical status for the second RBMP was expected to be based on the standards laid down in the EQS Directive (version in force on 13 January 2009 ). Some Member States did not fully implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs .





Map 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria based on the most recently assessed status of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3. Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) The chemical status of lakes and rivers in Austria for the first and second RBMP is given in Table 4.1 . More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency . Table 4.1 shows that there was a considerable shift in status from good to failing to achieve good between the two RBMPs.



Table 4.1 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria for the second and first RBMP. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the number of water bodies. Note: Chemical status assessment is based on the standards laid down in EQS Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009). Some Member States did not fully implement the Directive in the first RBMPs as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMPs Category Good Failing to achieve good Unknown Number % Number % Number % Second RBMP Lakes (62) 62 100% Rivers (8 065) 8 065 100% Total (8127) 8127 100% First RBMP Lakes (62) 62 100% Rivers (7 339) 7 299 99% 18 0.2% 22 0.3% Total (7401) 7361 99.5% 18 0.2% 22 0.3 Source: WISE electronic reporting The considerable change in chemical status between the first and second RBMP is attributable to the assessment of mercury in biota in the second RBMP. This change in status therefore results from a more accurate assessment of status in the second RBMP. Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. Almost all of the classifications were given a low level of confidence . Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMP was generally not reported by Member States .



Figure 4.3 Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria based on the most recently assessed status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting In Austria as a whole, 98 % of water bodies were classified for chemical status with low confidence and 1.2 % with high confidence. All lake water bodies and 98 % of river water bodies were classified with low confidence and only 1.2 % of river water bodies were classified with high confidence . Austria subsequently clarified that a medium level of confidence is associated to the assessment of chemical status when omitting ubiquitous, persistent bioaccumulative and toxic substances. Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria for the first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that expected by 2015. This again illustrates the marked change in status between the first and second RBMPs. The status given in the second RBMP is identical to the status expected in 2015.



Figure 4.4 Chemical status of surface water bodies in Austria for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for both cycles. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2010 to 2015. The year of the assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known Source: WISE electronic reporting As mentioned above, the considerable change in chemical status between the first and second RBMP results in particular from a more accurate assessment of status (assessment of mercury in biota). Directive 2013/39/EU amended the EQS Directive. In particular, it set more stringent environmental quality standards for seven substances . MS were required to indicate if the new standards caused the status of the surface water bodies to appear to deteriorate. This was not the case in Austria. Good chemical status should be reached by 2021 in relation to the revised Environmental Quality Standards, unless MS apply exemptions under WFD article 4(4) or less stringent objectives under WFD article 4(5). Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical status. The information for Austria is shown in Figure 4.5 . Good chemical status of surface water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the third planning cycle in the Rhine and Elbe RBDs. However it is expected that this will not be achieved in 15 river water bodies in the Danube RBD, which represents only 0.19 % of water bodies in the Danube RBD and 0.18 % of all water bodies in Austria as a