UK UK02 02 Solway Tweed Groundwater bodies have been identified in accordance with the procedure described in CIS Guidance Document No 2, Identification of Water Bodies. Further information on the procedures followed can be found in the following UK technical guidance: Guidance on Groundwater Delineation and Characterisation http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5312/TAG2003%20WP6a%20%2802%29 Guidance on the selective identification of groundwater bodies on islands http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5420/TAG%202003%20WP%206a%20%2802%29 Since the initial identification of bodies of groundwater for the purposes of characterisation exercise in 2004, the boundaries of a number of bodies of groundwater have been revised in the light of further environmental monitoring information and improved modelling so as to better reflect differences in status of the groundwater resource. In England the GWB delineation method was as follows: • Define ‘aquifer types’; • Sub-divide into manageable units within catchment abstraction management (CAMS) boundaries; and • Further sub-divide or amalgamate with respect to pressure and impact distributions as appropriate. Define ‘Aquifer Types’ The definition of aquifer types is based on 1:250K digital geological maps and definition of aquifer types by national and local hydrogeological experts. This resulted in three solid geology aquifer types - principal, secondary and unproductive strata - which can be mapped to cover all of the River Basin District according to definitions as follows: • ‘principal’ aquifers – those with significant resources which need to be managed through abstraction licensing in order to prevent over-exploitation, or those with a significant role in sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems; • ‘secondary’ aquifers – which also have significant resources but with hydraulic properties which limit over-exploitation. These aquifers would not normally warrant special consideration from an abstraction point of view but may still support important abstractions and dependent ecosystems which may be subject to risks associated with pollution pressures; • ‘unproductive strata’ – mostly limited to Tertiary and Jurassic Clays, which are generally unable to support abstractions greater than 10 m3/d, are unlikely to provide significant baseflow or wetland discharges, and will be considered as ‘not at risk’ without further analysis. Significant Drift aquifers were also defined where significant groundwater resources occur within the drift overlying unproductive strata. Elsewhere drift aquifers overlying productive solid formations are considered as part of the same, layered groundwater body. Having categorised the formations as mapped into these types, GIS based techniques were employed to dissolve small inliers of one aquifer type within another so as to avoid creation of ‘micro-bodies’. We have not presented maps of overlapping aquifers. This means that confined areas of principal aquifers (e.g. the Chalk ‘principal’ aquifer underlying the London Clay ‘unproductive strata’) are not shown. There will also be many areas where drift aquifers, which could be classified as groundwater bodies in their own right, overlie more significant ‘principal’ or ‘secondary’ solid aquifer types. In these cases a single groundwater body will be defined but managed according to its hydrogeological characteristics. This simplified representation was necessary for characterisation, risk assessment, classification and national mapping purposes. A three-dimensional delineation of groundwater bodies will be introduced in future river basin management planning cycles as conceptual models for the individual aquifers develop. Following expert review, the size criteria were changed for some of the most productive sandstone aquifers (Sherwood Sandstone). This was because there are areas where the outcrop/subcrop (as marked on the 1:250,000 map) is quite small but yet the resource potential is significant in connection with the rest of the aquifer. This was resolved by including all the outcrop areas irrespective of the size of the outcrop. 14265-44-2 Phosphate 89 93.5 µg/l 75 Groundwater body 540-59-0 1,2-Dichloroethylene 2.25 µg/l 75 Groundwater body 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 2.25 µg/l 75 Groundwater body 67-66-3 Chloroform 5.0302 µg/l 75 Groundwater body 7440-42-8 Boron 750 µg/l 75 Groundwater body 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 7.5 µg/l 75 Groundwater body 7664-41-7 Ammonia 0 1.13 mg/l 75 Groundwater body Nitrates 11.15 10.86 mg/l 75 Groundwater body Sulphate 146.6 146.6 mg/l 75 Groundwater body Tetrachloroethylene 7.5 µg/l 75 Groundwater body Trichloroethylene 7.5 µg/l 75 Groundwater body Nitrates 31 mg/l 75 RBD Arsenic 50 25 µg/l 75 RBD Cadmium 0.25 0.08 µg/l 75 RBD Lead 7.2 µg/l 75 RBD Ammonium 0.6 0.3 mg/l 75 RBD Mercury 0.05 µg/l 75 RBD Trichloroethylene 7.5 µg/l 75 RBD Tetrachloroethylene 7.5 µg/l 75 RBD Conductivity 1000 Other micro-Siemens/cm 75 RBD 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0075 µg/l 75 RBD 7440-47-3 Total chromium 37.5 µg/l 75 RBD 75-09-2 Dichloromethane 1.5 µg/l 75 RBD Values have been established for those pollutants identified as potentially placing bodies of groundwater at risk. Environmental standards established for surface waters associated with a body of groundwater act as threshold values for identifying potential risks to the ecological or chemical quality of surface waters. The method used to establish threshold values is described in UK guidance, Groundwater Chemical Classification for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Daughter Directive [http://www.wfduk.org/stakeholder_reviews/stakeholder_review_1-2007/LibraryPublicDocs/gw_chemical_classification_paper_final_draft] In England, threshold values are groundwater quality standards that have generally been set at a local groundwater body scale, for the purpose of assessing groundwater chemical status. They are triggers, such that their exceedance prompts further investigation to determine whether the conditions for good status have been met, rather than representing the boundary between good and poor status. The groundwater quality standards prescribed in the GWD for nitrate and pesticides are used in the assessment process in the same way. However, if all standards and thresholds are met at all monitoring points then, under Article 4.2(b) of the GWDD, the groundwater body is considered to be at good status and no further investigation is necessary. The process of setting threshold values is complex. Initially, component threshold values (referred to as criteria values in EC CIS guidance) have been derived for the purpose of assessing each of the tests for good chemical status. The threshold/criteria values are derived by taking into account the relevant criteria for protection of each receptor. For example values may be derived from surface water environmental quality standards or from drinking water standards. In each case the natural background concentrations are taken into account such that a threshold value will not be lower than the upper limit of the natural background concentration within the groundwater body. This only applies to naturally occurring substances. In determining threshold values the source characteristics and properties of the pollutant has bee taken into account as well as the attenuating properties along the pathways between source and receptor. Natural background concentrations are taken into account in establishing threshold value such that threshold values are not set that would be lower than the upper limit (95th percentile) of natural background concentration within the groundwater body. Further details can be found in UK Guidance, Groundwater Chemical Classification for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Daughter Directive [http://www.wfduk.org/stakeholder_reviews/stakeholder_review_1-2007/LibraryPublicDocs/gw_chemical_classification_paper_final_draft] In England, threshold values (TVs) have been derived by taking into account of the natural background concentrations of naturally occurring substances in the groundwater body. TVs have been established so that they are no lower than the upper limit (95th percentile) of the natural background (baseline). The natural background concentration ranges have been determined through a research project to determine the natural quality of groundwater in England and Wales. These reports are published on the Environment Agency’s website. Threshold values were derived by taking into account the relevant criteria for protection of each receptor and groundwater body objective. For example, for the associated surface water good status requirement, values were derived from surface water environmental quality standards; for the drinking water protected area good status requirement, thresholds were derived from drinking water standards. Further details can be found in UK Guidance, Groundwater Chemical Classification for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Daughter Directive [http://www.wfduk.org/stakeholder_reviews/stakeholder_review_1-2007/LibraryPublicDocs/gw_chemical_classification_paper_final_draft] Achieving ‘good chemical status’ for groundwater involves meeting a series of conditions which are defined in Annex V of the WFD and in Articles 3 and 4 of the Groundwater Daughter Directive and applied to the groundwater body. Groundwater status objectives set by the WFD rely in part on the protection of, or objectives for, other associated waters and dependant ecosystems. The objectives for these must be known before groundwater classification can be fully completed. These associated waters and dependant ecosystems may have different sensitivities to water level and/or pollutants. As a result it is possible that different environmental standards may apply within a single groundwater body to reflect these varying sensitivities. There are five chemical status tests. Whilst the WFD emphasises the use of monitoring data during classification, in practice a weight of evidence approach, with monitoring data complemented by conceptual understanding and risk assessment data, is essential to ensure reliable classification of groundwater bodies and subsequent proper targeting of measures in the River Basin Planning process. The worst case classification from the five chemical tests is reported as the overall chemical status of the groundwater body. This is the one-out all-out system, as required by the WFD. If any one of the tests results in poor status, then the overall classification of the body will be poor. The confidence associated with the worst case test result is also reported. Achieving ‘good status’ for groundwater involves meeting a series of conditions which are defined in Annex V of the WFD and applied to the groundwater body. Groundwater status objectives set by the WFD rely in part on the protection of, or objectives for, other associated waters and dependant ecosystems. The objectives for these must be known before groundwater classification can be fully completed. These associated waters and dependant ecosystems may have different sensitivities to water levels, flow and/or pollutants. As a result it is possible that different environmental standards may apply within a single groundwater body to reflect these varying sensitivities. There are four quantitative status tests. Whilst the WFD emphasises the use of monitoring data during classification, in practice a weight of evidence approach, with monitoring data complemented by conceptual understanding and risk assessment data, is essential to ensure reliable classification of groundwater bodies and subsequent proper targeting of measures in the River Basin Planning process. The worst case classification from the four quantitative tests is reported as the overall quantitative status. This is the one-out all-out system, as required by the WFD. If any one of the tests results in poor status, then the overall classification of the body will be poor. The confidence associated with the worst case test result is also reported. To determine whether a GWB has a significant and sustained upward/downward trend, the results from the analysis of trends at individual monitoring sites have been assessed. Where a statistically significant trend is identified this trend must be tested for environmental significance. This assesses whether the trend is likely to lead to a failure of one or more environmental (status) objectives in the groundwater body. If one or more environmentally significant trends are identified, the GWB will reported as having a significant and sustained upward trend. Note: the presence of a statistically significant trend at an individual monitoring point does not on its own lead to a groundwater body having an upward trend. The trend must also be environmentally significant. The approach used follows EU CIS guidance. The trend assessment process is described further in UKTAG guidance: Groundwater Trend Assessment (http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5332/gw_trend) For the First River Basin Plan only upward trends have been reported. Success in achieving trend reversal will not be reported until the second River Basin Management Plans when the programmes of measures have had time to take effect. This is in accordance with CIS guidance. 75% used in all cases No relevant plumes identified There are no transboundary groundwaters in this RBD SEPA completed an initial assessment of the characteristics of bodies of groundwater in 2004. It used this to inform an analysis of the likely impact of pressures on the status of the bodies. For bodies identified as "at risk" on the basis of this analysis, SEPA has since been iteratively improving its understanding of the bodies' characteristics and the affects of pressures on their status. Further characterisation of groundwater has involved: • on-going work to improve information on the location and the groundwater conditions needed for wetland protection; • improving information on pressures through the introduction of authorisation requirements for groundwater abstractions and the introduction of requirements (as conditions of authorisation) for operators to provide data to SEPA on the volumes abstracted; • use of data obtained from the groundwater monitoring programmes (targeted on the basis of the initial characterisation); • revisions to the delineation of bodies of groundwater to better reflect the underlying status of the resource (sub-division of the a number of bodies that were initially identified) In England the pressures and impacts analysis for all groundwater bodies was reviewed in 2008 prior to carrying out groundwater body classification and trend assessment. As a result the risk assessments were updated using new and additional data. This has led to a general reduction in uncertainty and provided a sound base for classification and trend assessment. One area where significant progress was made was in assessing the risks to drinking water (DW) abstractions. No assessment was made in 2005 for DW and so this has marked a significant improvement in the groundwater risk assessment process. In addition each of the pressures and impacts (risk) assessments carried out has been linked directly to the status assessment/classification process. Further consultation with local experts has also been carried out to improve confidence in the risk assessments. Further Characterisation Reference http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33268.aspx The conditions for good quantitative groundwater status are defined solely in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and we have designed a series of tests for each of the elements defining good quantitative status, following CIS guidance (as noted below). There are four quantitative tests. Each test is applied independently and the results combined to give an overall assessment of groundwater body quantitative status. The worst case classification of the quantitative tests is reported as the overall quantitative status for the groundwater body. Groundwater bodies are classified as either at good or poor status. The classification process is described further in UKTAG guidance: Paper 11b(ii) : Groundwater Quantitative Classification for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive ( http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article%20_11/POMEnvStds/gw_quantitative), and also in EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance: Guidance Document No. 18: Guidance on Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment (http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidance_n18pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d). The UK has not reported maps of chemical status for individual pollutants. It has undertaken classification in accordance with EU CIS guidance and applied a series of tests to determine chemical status. Each test addresses specific criteria/objectives for defining good status, as defined in the WFD. The tests consider overall impacts on the receptor not the impacts of individual pollutants. As a result, only one map showing groundwater body chemical status has been produced - as required by the WFD. Nitrate is a pollutant that is considered in several of the tests, along with other pollutants. It is therefore not reported separately. The UK has not reported maps of chemical status for individual pollutants. It has undertaken classification in accordance with EU CIS guidance and applied a series of tests to determine chemical status. Each test addresses specific criteria/objectives for defining good status, as defined in the WFD. The tests consider overall impacts on the receptor not the impacts of individual pollutants. As a result, only one map showing groundwater body chemical status has been produced - as required by the WFD. Individual pesticides (and total pesticides) are pollutants that are considered in several of the tests, along with other pollutants. They are therefore not reported separately. The achievement of good chemical status in groundwater involves meeting a series of conditions which are defined in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and Groundwater (Daughter) Directive (2006/118/EC). We have designed a series of tests for each of the quality elements defining good chemical groundwater status, following CIS guidance, as noted below. There are five chemical tests. Each test is applied independently and the results combined to give an overall assessment of groundwater body chemical status. The worst case classification from the relevant chemical status tests is reported as the overall chemical status for the groundwater body. Groundwater bodies are classified as either at good or poor status. The classification process is described further in UKTAG guidance: Paper 11b(i): Groundwater Chemical Classification for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Daughter Directive (http://www.wfduk.org/LibraryPublicDocs/gw_chemical_classification_paper_final_draft), and also in EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Guidance: Guidance Document No. 18: Guidance on Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment (http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidance_n18pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d). To determine whether a GWB has a significant and sustained upward/downward trend, the results from the analysis of trends at individual monitoring sites have been assessed. Where a statistically significant trend is identified this trend must be tested for environmental significance. This assesses whether the trend is likely to lead to a failure of one or more environmental (status) objectives in the groundwater body. If one or more environmentally significant trends are identified, the GWB will reported as having a significant and sustained upward trend. Note: the presence of a statistically significant trend at an individual monitoring point does not on its own lead to a groundwater body having an upward trend. The trend must also be environmentally significant. The approach used follows EU CIS guidance. The trend assessment process is described further in UKTAG guidance: Groundwater Trend Assessment (http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/Folder.2004-02-16.5332/gw_trend There are no transboundary groundwater bodies in this RBD In Scotland point source discharges (including inputs from contaminated land; landfill sites; etc) require prior-authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. Authorised discharges are controlled so that they do not affect the status of bodies of groundwater. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities maintain registers of contaminated land sites causing inputs of pollutants to groundwater. Information relating to these sites was used to identify those likely to be putting the achievement of one or more of the WFD's objectives at risk. The results of these risk assessment were used to target further on-going investigations and inform the design of operational monitoring programmes. In England and Wales point source pollution may result either from deliberate discharges to ground (e.g. treated sewage effluent), or accidental discharges (e.g. leakage of fuel from a storage tank). Deliberate discharges are generally adequately controlled through existing regulations e.g. the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 and the Groundwater Regulations 2009. Deliberate discharges are therefore unlikely to cause groundwater pollution. Accidental discharges, by their nature, are harder to control. We do however try to minimise the occurrence and impact of accidental discharges through pollution prevent campaigns (e.g. The Oil Care Campaign) and regulatory enforcement activity (e.g. serving Anti-Pollution Works Notices). A summary of the methodology is set out below. For further information please refer to ‘Environment Agency, River Basin Characterisation –RBC2, Groundwater – Overall Point Source Risk Document, Summary Assessment Method’. Methodology The assessment comprised two parts: 1) Consultation with EA area staff to identify significant point sources of pollution and classify them as ‘high’, ‘moderate’, or ‘low’ risk. 2) Identification of potential point sources of pollution from databases to classify groundwater bodies into ‘low’ and ‘no’ risk. For the identification of significant point sources of pollution EA staff provided details such as location and type of source, contaminants and degree of impact on receptors. The types of sources identified were generally closed landfill sites or those with a history of poor management. The significance of the impact from these sources was assessed against: a) Impact on dependent surface water body or terrestrial ecosystem; b) Groundwater abstraction data and exceedance of the UK drinking water standard (prior to treatment) c) Extent and degree of groundwater pollution. The threshold used was that the plume needed to exceed 1km in length (unless an alternative receptor was located nearer to the source). 17 sources were identified for assessment and 11 were assessed as ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ risk. For identification of potential point sources of pollution databases were analysed and the point sources including authorised discharges to ground, operational landfill sites or petrol stations, IPPC/PPC sites, groundwater pollution database mapped. A scoring system based on expert opinion was used to assess the potential risk of pollution. It took account of size and significance of pollution. The total density of scores for each groundwater body was calculated and a threshold determined to classify the sources into ‘low’ and ‘no risk’. The approach was limited by available data and also excluded some potential pollution sources e.g. contaminated land sites, scrap yards, and closed landfill sites. A confidence level was attached to the assessment depending on how good the evidence base was. The results were mapped onto the final combined ‘risk and confidence’ categories for reporting to Europe. Issues - The assessment only took into account current impacts on groundwater and did not consider mitigation measures to be implemented prior to 2015. - Time-lags of pollution to reach the receptor were not taken into account. - The focus has been on the size and location of sources that would potentially cause failure of a WFD environmental objective. SEPA used the following information to identify diffuse source pressures (including from agricultural; mine workings; etc) and impacts: • information (including monitoring data) collected for the purposes of the Nitrates Directive and used to identify nitrate vulnerable zones; • land-use information (including modelling of soil leaching); • information on the groundwater body characteristics including the overlying strata; • monitoring results for surface waters associated with bodies of groundwater; • groundwater monitoring results (including minewater adits). SEPA used this information to assess risks to the achievement of each of the requirements for good groundwater chemical status. In England 11 methods were used for the assessment. For further information refer to the individual WFD risk characterisation methods as drafted by the EA afted by the EA http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33332.aspx. In Scotland all groundwater abstractions are controlled activities and require authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. SEPA used the following information to identify abstraction pressures and impacts: • the location and magnitude of authorised abstractions; • the characteristics of bodies of groundwater, including the location of associated surface waters and wetlands; • rainfall and recharge estimations; • land use; • surface water monitoring - in particular river flow monitoring/modelling; • groundwater level monitoring; • expert judgements on the effects of groundwater level alterations on wetlands. SEPA used this information to assess risks to the achievement of each of the requirements for good groundwater quantitative status. In England four methods were used to assess four components of the groundwater abstraction and flow pressure in order for the groundwater bodies (GWBs) to be quantitatively characterised. The pressures for groundwater abstraction related to: 1) GWB resource balance (Water balance) 2) Deterioration of dependent surface water body (SWB) status 3) Significant damage to wetlands 4) Saline and other intrusions For further information refer to the individual WFD risk characterisation methods as drafted by the EA http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33332.aspx. Not applicable Intrusions result from abstractions drawing water into bodies of groundwater from adjacent groundwater or from surface water. All groundwater abstractions are controlled activities and require authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005. SEPA used the following information to identify groundwater intrusion pressures and impacts: • the location and magnitude of authorised abstractions - including their proximity to the coast and to areas of polluted groundwater and surface water; • monitoring results, including information on the quality of water abstracted for drinking water or agricultural irrigation. In England risk from Groundwater Intrusion was assessed under Diffuse Source Pollution and Groundwater Abstraction pressure methods. Please refer to the method text for these pressures. Not applicable The following risk categories causing an impact in groundwater bodies have been identified in the Solway Tweed RBD (English portion): • Diffuse Source Pollution - Drinking Water Protected Area risk • Diffuse Source Pollution – Nitrate • Diffuse Source Pollution – Phosphate • Diffuse Source Pollution – Urban • Diffuse Source Pollution – Forestry • Diffuse Source Pollution -Upward Trend Nitrate • Water Abstraction and Flow regulation - Abstraction and flow regulation • Water Abstraction and Flow regulation - Terrestrial Ecosystems • Water Abstraction and Flow regulation - Impact on Surface Water • Water Abstraction and Flow regulation - Water Balance Impacts from identified pressures are described briefly in the following sections. Abstraction and other artificial flow pressures Unsustainable abstraction from groundwater can lower groundwater levels and affect dependent river flows or wetlands, or can induce the intrusion of poorer quality water from the sea or from deeper aquifers. Outflow from groundwater bodies contributes to the surface water flows required to support the biological classification. Unsustainable rates of abstraction reduce surface water flows and may result in lower flow velocities, reduced depths and reduced flow continuity that may limit ecological status. In addition, groundwater pumping may locally reduce spring flows and water levels important to retaining the ecological diversity and resilience of groundwater fed wetlands. Urban and Transport Pressures Various pollution issues relate to the urban environment and transport networks. These include: • Urban drainage containing a variety of pollutants, • Air emissions from vehicles which are then deposited to water or land, • Run-off from air strips that may contain de-icers and pesticides to control weeds, • Leaching of pollutants from contaminated land. Mines and Minewaters Minewaters are often acidic (low pH) and the main contaminants are metals, for example; copper, iron, manganese and zinc. Minewater may also contain priority substances such as cadmium and lead. These contaminants are released when oxygen in the air or water reacts with minerals in the rock found near coal seams and mineral veins. The metals are then dissolved in the groundwater which discharges back into surface water bodies, or by diffuse run-off in the case of spoil heaps. Such minewater related pollution may have significant ecological impacts. Nitrates High nitrate concentrations can impact on terrestrial ecosystems, such as wetlands, for example, through excessive nettle growth. High nitrate concentrations in drinking water are a threat to human health and are controlled by meeting the standards in the Drinking Water Directive (50 mg/l nitrate for water at the point of supply). All groundwater bodies have been designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas. Two of the five tests used to assess groundwater chemical status directly consider nitrate impact – the General Chemical Test and the Drinking Water Protected Area test. Nitrate impact is also considered when carrying out the Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystem test (wetlands). Action programmes have been established for all Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in the Solway Tweed RBD.

Although significant progress has been made, there remain a number of data gaps and uncertainties in the pressures and impacts (risk) assessment process that will continue to be filled as we obtain more, and better, data. The most reliable data and knowledge exist for nutrient (nitrate) pressures and for pesticide pressures – these are considered to pose the greatest risk to groundwater. For other pollutants, whilst there is reasonable knowledge of pressures there is often only limited monitoring data to identify impacts. The linkages between pollutant sources and pressures, receptors and the effect on these receptors (changes in ecological status) is also not always well known. This reflects the complex nature of groundwater systems, the movement of groundwater and the behaviour of pollutants. In addition much of the data required to make the assessment is new and there is currently insufficient data in some areas to carry out a thorough and detailed risk assessment. On-going data gathering will continue to support the process and reduce uncertainty in the future. This will include better understanding of the groundwater systems as well as the impacts that pressures have on groundwater and associated surface waters and wetlands. The pressures and impacts analysis for all groundwater bodies was reviewed in 2008 prior to carrying out groundwater body classification and trend assessment. As a result the risk assessments were updated using new and additional data. This has led to a general reduction in uncertainty and provided a sound base for classification and trend assessment. One area where significant progress was made was in assessing the risks to drinking water (DW) abstractions. No assessment was made in 2005 for DW and so this has marked a significant improvement in the groundwater risk assessment process. In addition each of the pressures and impacts (risk) assessments carried out has been linked directly to the status assessment/classification process. Improved groundwater quality monitoring has been implemented. Investigations for both quantitative and chemical status are planned to better characterise the pollutant pathways and pressure linkages where risks have been identified. Research has been proposed to better understand the sources and behaviour of pollutants in the sub-surface and their impact on receptors, including the formulation of conceptual models for “at risk” groundwater bodies.

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 (eg Nitrates Directive) were estimated; • the time it would take for measures (in combination with natural recovery times) to be effective in delivering the additional improvements was estimated; • a less stringent objective was applied to a water body if making the required additional improvements (even by 2027) was judged to be infeasible; • an extended deadline was applied if natural recovery times would prevent good status being achieved by 2015; • 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 the length of an associated river that would be 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 and difficulty (and hence 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 all 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 Details of the methodology used to determine where the exemption provisions of Article 4 (4-7) should apply in England and Wales (E&W) can be found in Annex E ‘Actions appraisal and justifying objectives’ for each of the RBMPs. The methodology used took into account CIS guidance on the use of exemptions (CIS Guidance Document no. 20). Extended deadlines and less stringent objectives (Articles 4.4 and 4.5) In E&W exemptions or alternative objectives have been identified for some WBs based on the conditions set out in Articles 4.4 and 4.5 of the WFD. These exemptions relate to the setting of an extended deadline or less stringent objective. These alternative objectives were determined through a process of measures appraisal and objective setting which included technical assessments (including consideration of technical infeasibility), economic assessment (to consider issues of disproportionate expense) and public consultation. In carrying out these processes, the programme of measures (see Annex C of RBMPs) was reviewed and, for each water body, modelling and/or expert judgement was used to predict the status that each element will achieve (and by when) once the measures are implemented. Checks were also made to ensure that the measures proposed for different pressures are compatible in terms of timing and benefits. If multiple pressures adversely affected WBs each pressure was individually assessed and then combined to identify the earliest date at which good status could be achieved. The predicted outcomes were translated to a set of overall objectives for each water body using the same ‘one out all out rules’ used in classification. Where any of the predicted outcomes for the elements of status were not ‘good status by 2015’, alternative objectives were set. Table 1 in Annex E lists the reasons (justifications) for setting alternative objectives (for full details please refer to Table 1). The three main reasons are Technically infeasible, Disproportionately expensive & Natural conditions. In identifying objectives, the best current available information was used. Initial focus has been on gathering information on WBs that can be improved by 2015. There is uncertainty in how pressures and technology will change after 2015. This could impact on WBs where an extended deadline has been set. Investigations (approximately 8,500 in E&W) are planned to help reduce this uncertainty and also current uncertainty about the cause of failures and feasible measures. New physical modifications and new sustainable human development activities (Article 4.7) No exemptions were applied to groundwaters under Article 4.7. General information The default objective is to obtain good status by 2015. If the predicted outcome for a WB is not ‘good status’ by 2015 alternative objectives have been set. For groundwater WBs the alternative objectives that have generally been set are those with extended deadlines. Where an objective has been set using an extended deadline, in the majority of cases this is ‘good status’ by 2027. Less stringent objectives have been set for five groundwater bodies in England and Wales. Detailed information Table 4 in Annex E (for each RBMP) lists the number of GWBs in the RBD where alternative objectives have been set. Annex B (for each RBMP) provides the status objectives for each WB. Overall status objectives are summarised in at RBD level. Information is also presented for each WB in individual tables, including the overall status objective (e.g. ‘Good by 2027’) plus the quantitative and chemical status objectives. Northumbria: Less stringent objectives have been set in 2 GWBs where there is currently no technical solution that can be applied to return the groundwater body to good status before 2027. The objective for these bodies, in relation to this problem, is to return them to good status as soon as is practically and technically possible. North West: Less stringent objectives are set in 3 GWBs where it would be either disproportionately costly or technically infeasible to achieve good status by 2027. None