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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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”

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

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

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

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”?