UK
UK01
01
Scotland
River water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedure described in CIS Guidance Document No 2, Identification of Water Bodies.
Rivers were sub-divided into water bodies using natural features as well as known pressures and existing water quality information. Refinements to the delineation of water bodies are made by SEPA as its understanding of the underlying status of the water environment improves. All rivers with a catchment area of > 10 km2 have been identified as water bodies. Further information on the procedures used to identify smaller river water bodies can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Guidance on the identification of small surface water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5420/TAG%202003%20WP%203a%20%28PR02%29
Heavily modified water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedures set out in CIS Guidance document no 4 Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Further information on the procedures used can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Criteria and Guidance Principles for the designation of
heavily modified water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/article_4/heavily_modified_wb
Surface water bodies have been identified as artificial where there is evidence that they have been created (by human activity) where no discrete and significant element of surface water previously existed.
N/A
SEPA has identified and assessed additional small waters where justified by environmental concerns and to meet the requirements of regulatory legislation such as for drinking water supplies. These small waters represent the range of issues encountered for many other small waters. Better information is needed to characterise these and other small waters and this will betaken forward in future years.
Lake water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedure described in CIS Guidance Document No 2, Identification of Water Bodies.
All lakes with a surface area of > 0.5 km2 have been identified as water bodies. Further information on the criteria used to identify smaller lake water bodies can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Guidance on the identification of small surface water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5420/TAG%202003%20WP%203a%20%28PR02%29
Heavily modified water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedures set out in CIS Guidance document no 4 Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Further information on the procedures used can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Criteria and Guidance Principles for the designation of
heavily modified water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/article_4/heavily_modified_wb
Surface water bodies have been identified as artificial where there is evidence that they have been created (by human activity) where no discrete and significant element of surface water previously existed.
N/A
SEPA has identified and assessed additional small waters where justified by environmental concerns and to meet the requirements of regulatory legislation such as for drinking water supplies. These small waters represent the range of issues encountered for many other small waters. Better information is needed to characterise these and other small waters and this will betaken forward in future years.
All transitional waters with a surface area of > 0.5 km2 have been identified as water bodies. Further information on the criteria used to identify smaller transitional water bodies can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Guidance on the identification of small surface water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5420/TAG%202003%20WP%203a%20%28PR02%29
Heavily modified water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedures set out in CIS Guidance document no 4 Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Further information on the procedures used can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Criteria and Guidance Principles for the designation of
heavily modified water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/article_4/heavily_modified_wb
Surface water bodies have been identified as artificial where there is evidence that they have been created (by human activity) where no discrete and significant element of surface water previously existed.
N/A
Details of transitional water body delineation is given in the transitional WaterBodyCriteria element.
Coastal water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedure described in CIS Guidance Document No 2, Identification of Water Bodies.
All coastal water within 3 nautical miles seaward of the baseline for territorial waters has been included in the identified water bodies
Heavily modified water bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedures set out in CIS Guidance document no 4 Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies
Further information on the procedures used can be found in the following UK technical guidance:
Criteria and Guidance Principles for the designation of
heavily modified water bodies http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/article_4/heavily_modified_wb
Surface water bodies have been identified as artificial where there is evidence that they have been created (by human activity) where no discrete and significant element of surface water previously existed.
Details of coastal water body delineation is given in the coastal WaterBodyCriteria element.
CW10
CW10
CW
CW11
CW11
CW
CW12
CW12
CW
CW2
CW2
CW
CW3
CW3
CW
CW4
CW4
CW
CW5
CW5
CW
CW6
CW6
CW
CW8
CW8
CW
Lowland Brackish Large Deep
Lowland Brackish Large Deep
LW
Lowland Brackish Large Shallow
Lowland Brackish Large Shallow
LW
Lowland High alkalinity Large Deep
Lowland High alkalinity Large Deep
LW
Lowland High alkalinity Large Shallow
Lowland High alkalinity Large Shallow
LW
Lowland Low alkalinity Large Deep
Lowland Low alkalinity Large Deep
LW
Lowland Low alkalinity Large Shallow
Lowland Low alkalinity Large Shallow
LW
Lowland Medium alkalinity Large Deep
Lowland Medium alkalinity Large Deep
LW
Lowland Medium alkalinity Large Shallow
Lowland Medium alkalinity Large Shallow
LW
Lowland Peat Large Deep
Lowland Peat Large Deep
LW
Lowland Peat Large Shallow
Lowland Peat Large Shallow
LW
Mid-altitude High alkalinity Large Deep
Mid-altitude High alkalinity Large Deep
LW
Mid-altitude Low alkalinity Large Deep
Mid-altitude Low alkalinity Large Deep
LW
Mid-altitude Low alkalinity Large Shallow
Mid-altitude Low alkalinity Large Shallow
LW
Mid-altitude Medium alkalinity Large Deep
Mid-altitude Medium alkalinity Large Deep
LW
Mid-altitude Medium alkalinity Large Shallow
Mid-altitude Medium alkalinity Large Shallow
LW
Mid-altitude Peat Large Deep
Mid-altitude Peat Large Deep
LW
High Siliceous Small
High Siliceous Small
RW
Lowland
Lowland
RW
Lowland Calcareous
Lowland Calcareous
RW
Lowland Calcareous Medium
Lowland Calcareous Medium
RW
Lowland Calcareous Small
Lowland Calcareous Small
RW
Lowland Organic
Lowland Organic
RW
Lowland Organic Medium
Lowland Organic Medium
RW
Lowland Organic Small
Lowland Organic Small
RW
Lowland Siliceous
Lowland Siliceous
RW
Lowland Siliceous Medium
Lowland Siliceous Medium
RW
Lowland Siliceous Small
Lowland Siliceous Small
RW
Mid-altitude Calcareous Large
Mid-altitude Calcareous Large
RW
Mid-altitude Calcareous Medium
Mid-altitude Calcareous Medium
RW
Mid-altitude Calcareous Small
Mid-altitude Calcareous Small
RW
Mid-altitude Organic Medium
Mid-altitude Organic Medium
RW
Mid-altitude Organic Small
Mid-altitude Organic Small
RW
Mid-altitude Siliceous
Mid-altitude Siliceous
RW
Mid-altitude Siliceous Large
Mid-altitude Siliceous Large
RW
Mid-altitude Siliceous Medium
Mid-altitude Siliceous Medium
RW
Mid-altitude Siliceous Small
Mid-altitude Siliceous Small
RW
NONE
NONE
RW
TW2
TW2
TW
TW3
TW3
TW
TW5
TW5
TW
TW6
TW6
TW
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
At water bodies selected for operational monitoring, one or more biological quality elements were chosen in relation to the pressures identified through characterisation as operating on the water body. The choice was guided by a UKTAG agreed matrix of priority pressures and sensitive quality elements : http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_08/12aGuidanceDoc/view
For example phytobenthos was chosen for selected river and lake water bodies at risk from nutrient pressure. Some classification tools are highly pressure specific e.g. phytobenthos and macrophytes being specific to nutrient pressure, whereas others e.g. the fish based classification system, are sensitive to all pressures. Clearly, there were limits to the amount of monitoring that was practical and affordable for widespread pressures e.g. nutrient and morphological pressures and for these, a representative number of water bodies were monitored in each river basin district.
For water bodies selected for surveillance monitoring, all biological quality elements were planned to be monitored over a 3 year rolling programme along with general supporting elements and the specific pollutants thought to be discharged in significant quantities.
Class boundaries for each biological element were either agreed through intercalibration or by UKTAG Task Teams with reference to the Annex V status descriptions. In general, an undesirable ecological disturbance will occur by the middle of moderate as shown for example by the ratio of sensitive to insensitive taxa, the number or abundance of taxa or other metrics of ecological disturbance.
Class boundaries for general supporting elements were derived from relationships with biological elements. Environmental standards for the supporting elements were chosen where possible in relation to the status boundaries for the most sensitive biological quality element UKTAG (Revised April 2008) UK environmental standards and conditions (phase 1): http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/UKTAG%20ReportAug%202006UKEnvironmentalStandardsandConditionsFinalReport and http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/UKTAG_Report_Surface_Water_Standards_and_Conditions
Specific pollutant boundaries were commissioned by UKTAG in compliance with section 1.2.6 of Annex V see report at: http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/final_specific_pollutants
Priority substances were monitored for chemical status assessment, if known to be discharged. The pass/fail status boundaries were those set by the Commission and now published in EQS Directive and ministerial directions.
Classification
Heavily modified and artificial water bodies were classified using the ‘alternative approach’ agreed through ECOSTAT in Prague, October 2005. In practice, a checklist was used to consider which mitigation measures could be used to increase ecological potential using guidance commissioned by UKTAG http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article%20_11/POMEnvStds/gep_guidance_finalIt sets out all possible mitigation measures for identified pressures which should be implemented except where the measure is: not practicable given the characteristics of the waterbody or will have a significant adverse impact on waterbody use or the wider environment. Financial costs of mitigation measures were not considered in the classification process. Where all viable measures are in place, the waterbody is defined as achieving “Good Ecological Potential or better”, where measures are not in place the waterbody is defined as “Moderate Ecological Potential or worse”.
Guidance on classification has been developed by the UK Technical Advisory Group. It is based on research and trials and includes a list of hydromorphological mitigation measures relevant to different water uses. Input has been provided from representatives from relevant sectors and other stakeholders.
The checklist identifies
• given pressures and impacts at a given site;
• mitigation measures already in place and their effectiveness against pressures and impacts;
• mitigation measures which would have adverse impacts on water use if implemented;
• mitigation measures which would only provide a slight ecological benefit; and
• identifying mitigation measures that could be implemented taking the above into account.
Determination of Quality Elements
UKTAG has identified environmental standards for a series of general chemical and physicochemical quality elements and specific pollutants. These standards were used in the classification of ecological potential in the same way as classifying ecological status for ordinary waterbodies. In some cases, application of these standards may not be appropriate i.e. where chemical/ physicochemical elements depend strongly on hydromorphological characteristics. If the hydromorphological characteristics of the waterbody being assessed vary substantially from those at which the standard was derived from, the standard is unlikely to be applicable. e.g dissolved oxygen
UKTAG has developed a range of biological tools for assessing ecological status of waterbodies. Where these biological quality element tools are not affected by hydromorphological alterations, these should be used to assess other pressures on the HMWABs . If these tools indicate “moderate status”, the waterbody is classified as “moderate ecological potential”. In most circumstances, the following tools can be used in this way: phytoplankton; phytobenthos and lake invertebrates.
Where biological tools do respond to hydromorphological alterations, it is not appropriate to use these for assessing HMWBs or AWBs, because application of sensitive tools to an unpolluted HMWB or AWB could result in a moderate or worse classification even though the hydromorphological characteristics of the waterbody are consistent with GEP. Therefore the tools for macrophytes river invertebrates and fish were not used for ecological potential classification unless an abstraction flow threshold was triggered.
Flow criteria (percentage change to natural flow below Q95) were used in classifying HMAWBs. If the flow criteria were breached then both the mitigation measures assessment and any biological quality element classifications were used to classify. The flow criteria are given in table 32, column 5, of the UKTAG phase1 environmental standards document: http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/UKTAG%20ReportAug%202006UKEnvironmentalStandardsandConditionsFinalReport
The one out all out principle and the CIS guidance on classification : http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/classification_ecologica/_EN_1.0_&a=d were used to derive water body classifications from multiple quality elements. The supporting quality elements for general conditions and specific pollutants were only allowed to classify down to moderate status. The biological quality elements classified over the whole status range from high to bad, if they were capable of doing so. For lakes, phytobenthos was only able to distinguish down to poor status. If two biological elements showed the same lowest class then the element with the highest certainty of that lowest class was selected as deciding the water body status.
For chemical status, a compliance assessment was carried out for all the monitored priority substances and certain other pollutants with any failure causing the water body to fail. In accordance with the WFD , for a water body to achieve overall good status both ecological and chemical status must be at least good.
These classification rules were coded into software which produced site and water body scale ecological status classifications.
General
The baseline against which any deterioration in water body status is assessed is taken as the water body classification published in the river basin management plans in 2009.
Water body classification to be updated annually, so any trends or changes in the status of individual elements of classification can be identified and appropriate action implemented to prevent any deterioration in overall water body status.
Investigations will take place to help improve the understanding of how pressures on the water environment are changing, for example as a result of climate change or population growth, and the current and future impact they will have on status. These investigations will allow any increase in the risk posed by pressures to be identified. Where appropriate, feasible and proportionate measures will then be implemented to prevent deterioration of water body status.
Investigations will also be undertaken to identify the cause of failures where this is currently unknown or uncertain. This will include identifying the location of the pressure, the specific activity causing it and/or the pathway by which a pollutant is entering a water body. The results of these investigations will, where appropriate, allow feasible and proportionate measures to be implemented to reduce the impact of these pressures and prevent deterioration of water body status.
No deterioration objective in groundwater
This will be achieved through effective implementation of prevent or limit measures. Upward trends in pollutant concentrations could lead to deterioration of status. Significant trends will be identified and measures implemented to reverse them. Good status groundwater bodies, where there is a significant deterioration in quality that could eventually lead to poor status, are a high priority for action.
If prevent or limit measures are effective, then good status will be maintained. However, in many aquifers there will be a significant time lag between a change in activities on the land surface and a corresponding change in groundwater quality, due to the time taken for water to percolate to the water table. For this reason, it is possible that groundwater status could deteriorate temporarily before any improvement measures become fully effective.
No specific objectives have been set for nutrient loads or connectivity
CIS guidance on classification
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/classification_ecologica/_EN_1.0_&a=d
UKTAG matrix of priority pressures and sensitive quality elements
http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_08/12aGuidanceDoc/view
UKTAG (Revised April 2008) UK environmental standards and conditions (phase 1)
http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/UKTAG%20ReportAug%202006UKEnvironmentalStandardsandConditionsFinalReport
UKTAG report on Surface Water Standards and Reference Conditions (Phase 2)
http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/UKTAG_Report_Surface_Water_Standards_and_Conditions
UKTAG Proposals for Environmental Quality Standards for Annex VIII Substances
http://www.wfduk.org/UK_Environmental_Standards/LibraryPublicDocs/final_specific_pollutants
UKTAG Guidance on the Classification of Ecological Potential for Heavily Modified Water Bodies and Artificial Water Bodies
http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article%20_11/POMEnvStds/gep_guidance_final
The Solway Tweed River Basin District (Surface Water Typology, Environmental Standards, Condition Limits and Groundwater Threshold Values) (Scotland) Directions 2009
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Water/WFD/RBMPFramework
Ecological classification map 1 comprise the overall ecological score for:
The condition of biological elements
Concentrations of supporting physico-chemical elements,
Concentrations of specific pollutants
hydromorphology
Ecological status is recorded on the scale from high to bad. ‘High’ denotes largely undisturbed conditions and the other classes represent increasing deviation from this natural condition described as ‘reference condition’. The ecological status classification for the water body (wb), and the confidence in this, is determined using the worst scoring quality element.
Maps 4 to 8 describe chemical status is assessed by compliance with environmental standards for chemicals that are listed in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC. These chemicals include priority substances, priority hazardous substances and eight other pollutants carried over from the Dangerous Substance Daughter Directives. Chemical status is recorded as good or fail. The chemical status classification for the water body, and our certainty in this, is determined by the worst scoring chemical.
An assessment of chemical status has been provided for water bodies where priority substances and other specific pollutants are known to be discharged in significant quantities. If a water body is labelled as "does not require assessment" it is because these pollutants are not discharged into this water body in significant quantities
Map 3 describes compliance with the objectives set for each Water Framework Directive protected area. Many Water Framework Directive protected areas are also water bodies; and for these, the protected area objectives apply in addition to the requirement to achieve the water body status objectives. It is important to note that water body status objectives in Annex B will not always be the same as the protected area objectives in this Annex even where the element is the same, for example phosphate. This can be for a number of reasons, for example the size and scale of water bodies under the Water Framework Directive may be larger than waters identified as protected areas; or the use of a particular environmental standard or condition varies under the different parent legislations governing the protected area from that of the Water Framework Directive - and so, the achievement of objectives in one is not always comparable with the other.
Where water body boundaries overlap with protected areas, the most stringent objective applies – the requirements of one particular EC Directive should not undermine the requirements of another.
Point source discharges require prior-authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. SEPA maintains a register of discharges authorised by registration or water use licence. Discharges identified as compromising, or contributing to compromising, the achievement of the objectives of the Directive were considered significant pressures for the purposes of river basin management planning.
SEPA used the following information together with modelling methods to identify diffuse source pressures:
• land-use information;
• information on the location of septic tanks;
• information (including monitoring data) collected for the purposes of the Nitrates Directive and used to identify nitrate vulnerable zones;
• load modelling results
• environmental monitoring results
Sources identified as compromising, or contributing to compromising, the achievement of the objectives of the Directive were considered significant diffuse source pressures for the purposes of river basin management planning. This assessment was made taking into account the environmental standards set out in the Scotland River Basin District (Surface Water Typology, Environmental Standards, Condition Limits and Groundwater Threshold Values) Directions 2009 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/06141049/0
All water abstractions are controlled activities and require authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. SEPA maintains a register of water abstractions authorised by registration or water use licence. SEPA used the following information to identify abstraction pressures:
• the location and magnitude of authorised abstractions;
• the characteristics of river catchments, including size and rainfall;
• surface water monitoring results - in particular river flow monitoring;
• flow modelling results
Abstractions identified as compromising, or contributing to compromising, the achievement of the objectives of the Directive were considered significant abstraction pressures for the purposes of river basin management planning. This assessment was made taking into account the environmental standards set out in the Scotland River Basin District (Surface Water Typology, Environmental Standards, Condition Limits and Groundwater Threshold Values) Directions 2009 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/06141049/0
All impounding works (including those regulating water flow) and all new engineering works in the water environment are controlled activities and require authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. SEPA maintains a register of impounding works and new engineering works authorised by registration or water use licence.
Existing morphological alterations were identified using a range of data sources including:
• New and historic maps;
• Aerial photography;
• Field surveys.
Impounding works and other morphological alterations identified as compromising, or contributing to compromising, the achievement of the objectives of the Directive were considered significant pressures for the purposes of river basin management planning. This assessment was made taking into account the environmental standards set out in the Scotland River Basin District (Surface Water Typology, Environmental Standards, Condition Limits and Groundwater Threshold Values) Directions 2009 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/06141049/0
A list of non-native species known to be invasive (and hence pose a risk to UK surface water ecosystems) was identified by UK experts from the national environment and conservation agencies. The list was subject to public consultation. Existing information on the distribution of these species in UK waters was collected. Using this information and current understanding of the impacts of the species, SEPA identified significant pressures. The list of invasive non-native species is set out in The Scotland River Basin District (Classification of Water Bodies) Directions 2009 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/12/14130729/0
Impacts were identified by a combination of:
• comparing available monitoring results with the environmental standards set out in the Scotland River Basin District (Surface Water Typology, Environmental Standards, Condition Limits and Groundwater Threshold Values) Directions 2009. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/06141049/0. The classification tools detailed, or referred to, in the Directions were used to interpret monitoring results; or
• estimating, using modelling approaches, whether pressures are likely to be causing a breach of the environmental standards for chemical, physicochemical and hydromorphological quality elements set out in those Directions.
Numeric models of river flow estimation were used to help assess the impact of abstraction;
Load modelling model estimates were initially used to help assess the impact of diffuse pollution;
Remote sensing data (including mapped information) were used to help estimate the impact of morphological alterations.
Existing monitoring data was supplemented by data collected specifically for the purpose (eg as part of the monitoring programmes and collection of additional pressure information). Modelling tools were developed and refined to improve impact prediction capability.
The outputs of impact assessments were reviewed by SEPA experts in its local offices. The initial impact assessment in 2005 was subject to public consultation.
Assessments of changes to chemical, physicochemical and hydromorphological conditions were used to help assess impacts on ecological status.
Around 18% of surface water bodies were identified as impacted by pollution. This included around 15% of surface water bodies identified as impacted by nutrient enrichment; 1% by acidification; 0.6% by priority substances; and 1.6% by specific pollutants, including ammonium). The impact of organic enrichment was not quantified separately. However, its impact is reflected in monitoring results for dissolved oxygen (37 water bodies impacted) and benthic invertebrates.
Contaminated sediments and saline intrusion were not identified as significant pressures on surface waters.
Around 18% of surface water bodies were identified as impacted by hydrological alterations; 16% by morphological alterations; 14% by barriers to fish migration; and < 1% by invasive non-native species
For the initial characterisation in 2004, the main information gaps were:
• the location and magnitude of abstractions, impounding works; morphological alterations, invasive non-native species;
• monitoring information on the impacts of these pressures and of diffuse source pollution;
• biological classification tools sensitive to the impacts of hydromorphological alterations;
• knowledge of barriers to fish migration
• SEPA's Freshwater Fish and Fisheries Advisory Group to coordinate research on understanding barriers to fish migration;
• on-going work at UK level to develop and refine methods for application in detecting the biological effects of hydromorphological alterations;
• work by members of the Rivers & Fisheries Trusts Scotland to identify invasive non-native species pressures.
Since 2005:
• information on the location and magnitude of abstractions and impounding works has been improved as a result of information provided by operators of controlled activities in accordance with the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005;
• information on morphological alterations has been improved by the establishment of a morphological pressures database;
• monitoring programmes have been established to improve data on the impacts of pressures. These have included the use of new biological monitoring methods
• Environmental standards have been established to help assess the impact of pressures on ecological quality;
• Impact modelling capabilities have been refined
None.
The following steps were involved in the process of identifying where the use of exemptions is applicable:
• using monitoring and modelling results, the scale of improvement needed to achieve good status was estimated for each water body identified as being at risk of failing to achieve good status;
• the improvements expected from on-going implementation of other directives were estimated;
• the time it would take for additional measures (in combination with natural recovery times) to be effective in delivering the additional improvements required was estimated (ie the improvements over and above those expected from the implementation of other directives);
• an extended deadline was applied if natural recovery times would prevent good status being achieved by 2015;
• a less stringent objective was set if there was no known feasible means of delivering the required improvement (ie water bodies impacted by certain invasive non-native species);
• a less stringent objective was set for water bodies for which Article 4.7 derogation has been applied for new hydromorphological alterations. Some of these water bodies may subsequently be identified as heavily modified water bodies. Where this is the case, their objective is likely to be good ecological potential. Cases where Article 4.7 derogations were applied were subject to public consultation. New hydromorphological alterations require prior-authorisation from SEPA (under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005). SEPA is required to apply the requirements of Article 4.7 before authorising any such alterations;
• good status by 2015 was set as the objective for all water bodies where the additional improvements required were expected to be deliverable using simple, low cost measures that would be effective over the required timescale;
• action on other water bodies was prioritised taking account of:
the magnitude of the benefits expected from achieving good status(eg in terms of river length improved);
the level of certainty that taking action would deliver these benefits (eg confidence that the water body is not misclassified as worse than good);
the relative complexity, difficulty and certainty of effectiveness (and hence likely scale of costs and risk of failure) of the actions required to achieve good status;
the time needed for the actions to be effective.
• good status was set as the objective for all water bodies for which it was judged feasible to achieve by 2015 without disproportionate expense;
• extended deadlines were set for other water bodies for the purposes of progressively achieving good status without incurring disproportionate expense.
The principles are described in more details in a policy statement issued by Scottish Ministers, Principles for Setting Objectives for the River Basin Management Plan [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/173709/0048450.pdf] and a later Ministerial guidance note to SEPA http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1057/0082160.pdf
Information on deadlines is provided as percentages of all bodies of surface water. There are 2,811 bodies of surface water in the river basin district.
Article 4.4
• The deadline for achieving good status has been extended to 2021 for around 6% of bodies of surface water;
• The deadline for achieving good status has been extended to 2027 for around 23% of bodies of surface water.
• The deadline for achieving good status has been extended to beyond 2027 for < 1% of bodies of surface water because natural conditions do not allow timely improvement in their status.
Article 4.5
A less stringent objective than good status has been applied to around 1% of bodies of surface water. These bodies are not expected to achieve good status. For seven of the bodies, achieving good status would require the impact of an invasive non-native species to be addressed. It is currently infeasible to address the impact of this species. For the remainder, new physical modifications have been permitted under Article 4.7 that will prevent the achievement of good status.
Article 4.6
No exemptions have been applied to allow for temporary deterioration of the status of a body of groundwater.
Article 4.7
Twenty nine exemptions were applied to allow for deterioration of the status of bodies of surface as a result of new physical modifications.