WFD Characterisation Report

1. 29 October 2003 WFD Characterisation Report Dr Tom Leatherland Environmental Quality Manager

2. Introduction • What is a characterisation report? • Timetable – immediate and longer-term • Water bodies – definition and draft numbers • Pressures and risk assessments • Involvement of other organisations • Risk assessments to date • Possible issues for consideration

3. Characterisation Report • Produced to meet requirements of Article 5 of WFD – hence alternative name • A key output, sent to EC, which will inform future river basin management plans (RBMP) • ~50 pages for main summary report (aimed at public) • Technical annexes on internet • Economic analysis • Includes Register of Protected Areas

4. Characterisation Report Details • Water body identification, and typology. • Assessment of pressures on every water body. • Determination of impact of pressures, and assessment of whether these put water body “at risk” of not attaining good status in 2015 unless management action is taken. • Provisional identification of “Heavily Modified Water Bodies”, HMWB) • Pressures and impacts information will be main part of text

5. Characterisation Timetable • Autumn 2003: UK publication of risk assessment criteria, and work on identification of “at risk” water bodies. • December 2003: Seminar for interested stakeholders • Public consultation on draft report: July-Sept 2004 • Final report to Scottish Executive, Dec 2004 • Data used as basis for determination of Scottish Water Q&S3 investment needs 2006-2014

6. Characterisation Future • Characterisation is not a once and for all activity • It must be repeated by 2013, and carried out every 6 years thereafter • Future reports will deal with problems where we currently have insufficient information or knowledge – thus 2004 report may only briefly mention radioactive substances, alien species • Just as the current report will be the basis for 2009 RBD management plan, so future reports will be basis for 6-yearly RBMP revisions

7. Water bodies – draft numbers • Rivers – 2360 • Lakes – 350 • Transitional waters – 50 • Coastal waters – 450 • Groundwaters – 150 (but will increase) • (Surface area of Scotland ~ 81,600 km2)

8. Pressures and Risk Assessments • Will cover a much wider range of pressures than current monitoring and classification schemes, which are geared to current regulatory controls. • Point and diffuse source pollution • Abstraction, flow regulation and river continuity • Morphological alterations (such as canalisation) • Artificial recharge (groundwater only) • Hence involvement of other organisations in risk assessment to draw upon their expertise • Ecology other – diatoms, macrophytes • Ecology fish – SFCC, FRS • Hazardous substances – monitoring/pressure

9. Wider Involvement • SEPA has established a risk assessment group to involve partner organisations in the characterisation process • SNH has many relevant interests, and RHS, SERCON methodologies • Fish ecology information from FRS, SFCC • BGS for groundwaters information • British Waterways for canals • Scottish Water and CEH

10. Risk assessments • Confidence that water bodies are at risk of not achieving good status is variable dependent upon the number and degree of pressures • At least for this first characterisation round, three degrees of confidence are being used: • High confidence that water body is “at risk” • Medium confidence, where additional data or information will be sought now • Low confidence • Other water bodies are identified as “not at risk”

11. Risk Assessments to Date • 26% of river water bodies at risk from point or diffuse pollution sources (high/med confidence) • Similar percentages at risk from flow regulation or abstraction, and from morphological change • 23% of lakes at risk from point or diffuse pollution sources, but bigger % “at risk” from abstraction or flow regulation • Maximum of 30% of coastal water bodies identified as “at risk” from all pressure sources

12. Other work in progress • Diffuse pollution screening tool • Trend analysis of nutrients • Identification of potential HMWB • Assessment of local/structure plans • Land use change (info from SNH) • Groundwater risk assessments • Wetlands identification and characterisation • Numerous EU and UK R&D projects

13. Closing Remarks • Pragmatic approach • Iterative process – this is only the start • Adopt open approach – shouldn’t hide areas of weakness but say how we will address these • We and partner organisations do know much about our water environment, and have good local expertise • Confident Scotland can produce a good Characterisation Report

14. Issues for Consideration • Where confidence of water bodies not attaining “good status” is low, should they be omitted from the “at risk” lists in the 2004 report? • What level of proof should be required to identify a water body as “at risk”? • Current vision of “good status” is geared to SEPA quality classification. How ambitious should Scotland be in its input to the development of EU interpretation of “good status”?