TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. General information.. 4

2. Status of River Basin Management Plan reporting and compliance.. 6

2.1. Main Strengths. 6

2.2. Main Gaps. 7

3. Governance.. 8

3.1. Timeline of implementation.. 8

3.2. Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities. 8

3.3. RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status. 10

3.4. Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties. 12

3.5. Cooperation and coordination with third countries. 13

3.6. Integration with other sectors. 14

4. Characterisation of river basin districts. 15

4.1. Water categories in the RBD.. 15

4.2. Typology of surface waters. 15

4.3. Delineation of surface water bodies. 18

4.4. Identification of significant pressures and impacts. 19

4.5. Protected areas. 23

5. Monitoring.. 26

5.1. General description of the monitoring network. 26

5.2. Monitoring of surface waters. 30

5.3. Monitoring of groundwater. 32

5.4. Monitoring of protected areas. 33

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater). 35

6.1. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters. 63

6.2. Ecological status assessment methods. 63

6.3. Application of methods and ecological status results. 68

6.4. River basin specific pollutants. 69

7. Designation of heavily modified water bodies (hmwb) and assessment of good ecological potential 71

7.1. Designation of HMWBs. 73

7.2. Methodology for setting good ecological potential (GEP). 75

7.3. Results of ecological potential assessment in HMWB and AWB.. 76

8. Assessment of chemical status of surface waters. 76

8.1. Methodological approach to the assessment. 76

8.2. Substances causing Exceedance. 77

9. Assessment of groundwater status. 79

9.1. Groundwater quantitative status. 79

9.2. Groundwater chemical status. 80

9.3. Protected areas. 81

10. Environmental objectives and exemptions. 81

10.1. Additional objectives in protected areas. 81

10.2. Exemptions according to Article 4(4) and 4(5). 82

10.3. Exemptions according to Article 4(6). 85

10.4. Exemptions according to Article 4(7). 85

10.5. Exemptions to Groundwater Directive. 85

11. Programmes of measures. 85

11.1. Programme of measures – general. 86

11.2. Measures related to agriculture. 87

11.3. Measures related to hydromorphology. 90

11.4. Measures related to groundwater. 92

11.5. Measures related to chemical pollution.. 93

11.6. Measures related to Article 9 (water pricing policies). 96

11.7. Additional measures in protected areas. 99

12. Climate change adaptation, water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management and other emerging and linked issues as part of the rbmp.. 100

12.1. Water Scarcity and Droughts. 100

12.2. Flood Risk Management. 101

12.3. Adaptation to Climate Change. 101

13. Recommendations. 102

1. General information

Figure 1.1: Map of River Basin Districts

|| || || International River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || International River Basin Districts (outside EU)

|| || || National River Basin Districts (within EU)

|| || || Countries (outside EU)

|| || || Coastal Waters

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Portugal is a republic comprised of a continental part and two autonomous regions. The total landmass area of Portugal is 92 072 km², and the economic exclusive zone spans 1 727 408 km². The population in 2011 (date of last census) is about 10.6 million[1]. The Azores autonomous region has a population of 246 thousand across 9 islands, while the Madeira autonomous region has a population of 268 thousand across 2 islands.

There are three different administrative jurisdictions governing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation in Portugal: mainland Portugal (PTRH1 to PTRH8) and the Azores (PTRH9) and Madeira (PTRH10) autonomous regions. At the time of preparation of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) there were five independent regional water authorities in mainland Portugal (see below).

RBD || Name || Size (km2)[2] || Countries sharing borders

PTRH1 || Minho and Lima || 2465* || ES

PTRH2 || Cávado, Ave and Leça || 3584 || -

PTRH3 || Douro || 19219* || ES

PTRH4 || Vouga, Mondego, Lis and Ribeiras do Oeste || 16981 || -

PTRH5 || Tejo || 25665 || ES

PTRH6 || Sado and Mira || 12149 || -

PTRH7 || Guadiana || 11611 || ES

PTRH8 || Ribeiras do Algarve || 5511 || -

PTRH9 || Açores || 10047 || -

PTRH10 || Madeira || 2248 || -

Table 1.1: Overview of Portugal’s River Basin Districts

* Area in Portuguese territory

Source: River Basin Management Plans reported to WISE[3]: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/be/eu/wfdart13

There are some peculiarities in some RBMPs. For PTRH4 there are two RBMPs, one for Vouga, Mondego, Lis and another for Ribeiras do Oeste. This is because the Ribeiras do Oeste RBMP was produced and implemented by the regional water authority of Tejo (PTRH5), while the Vouga, Mondego, Lis RBMP was produced by the water authority of the Centro (PTRH4)[4]. The Azores archipelago is composed of nine islands, comprising the PTRH9; there is a Characterisation and Diagnostic chapter including a study of status, pressures, monitoring and economic analysis for each island, summarised in the main RBMP.

Portugal shares four river basin districts with Spain: Minho and Lima, Douro, Tejo and Guadiana. There are no joint RBMPs with Spain but there has been some coordination with, in particular, the relevant Spanish River Basin District (RBD) authorities.

Name international river basin || National RBD || Countries sharing borders || Co-ordination category

2

km² || %

Miño/Minho || PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) || ES || 817 || 5.0

Limia /Lima || PTRH1 (Minho-Lima) || ES || 1220 || 47.1

Duero/Douro || PTRH3 (Douro) || ES || 18650 || 19.3

Tajo/Tejo || PTRH5 (Tejo) || ES || 25026 || 21.7

Guadiana || PTRH7 (Guadiana) || ES || 11599 || 17.3

Table 1.2: Transboundary river basins by category (see CSWD section 8.1) and % share in Portugal[5].

Category 1: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body, RBMP in place.

Category 2: Co-operation agreement, co-operation body in place.

Category 3: Co-operation agreement in place.

Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Source: EC Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU. Area data was supplied by the PT authorities after the assessment of the RBMPs had been carried out.

This Annex covers the RBMPs of mainland Portugal (PTRH1 to PTRH8), and of the Azores (PTRH9) and Madeira (PTRH10) autonomous regions.

2. Status of River Basin Management Plan reporting and compliance

The RBMPs for mainland Portugal were adopted on 22 March 2013 by a Resolution of the Council of Ministers (RCM) and were reported to the Commission in September 2013. The Azores RBMP was adopted on 27 March 2013 (Resolution of the Council of the Government[6] n.º 24/2013) and reported in September 2013 to the Commission. The Madeira RBMP was adopted on 20 February 2014[7] (Resolution n.º 81/2014) and was submitted to WISE from 1 to 4 April 2014.

RBD || RBMP Date of Adoption || RBMP Date of Reporting

PTRH1 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013

PTRH2 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013

PTRH3 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013

PTRH4 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013

PTRH5 || 22/03/2013 || 27/09/2013

PTRH6 || 22/03/2013 || 29/09/2013

PTRH7 || 22/03/2013 || 29/09/2013

PTRH8 || 22/03/2013 || 29/09/2013

PTRH9 || 27/03/2013 || 27/09/2013

PTRH10 || 20/02/2014 || 04/04/2014

Table 2.1: Adoption and reporting to the Commission of Portugal's RBMPs.

Source: RBMPs, WISE

While the RBMPs were reported to WISE in September 2013 (except for Madeira (PTRH10), as mentioned above), the XML data files had been reported in 2011 and 2012, hence prior to the conclusion of the RBMP. Data on WISE does not always match with the actual plans. In this report the source of data is clearly referenced.

2.1. Main Strengths The RBMPs are quite complete with detailed explanations on methodology, assumptions and approaches, complemented with maps, drawings and data tables. The RBMPs’ development was subject to public participatory processes, including the creation of the multi-stakeholder River Basin District Councils for each river basin district. All documentation of the public participation, as well as the Strategic Environmental Assessment documents, is available at the same website as the RBMPs. In almost all river basin districts there is limited information on a number of water bodies. In some river basin districts, monitoring programmes are not fully set up or only a limited number of parameters is monitored. However, the RBMPs show that efforts have been made to overcome the lack of data and to achieve classification of water bodies through alternative methods, such as modelling, expert judgment, etc. The methods used are explained with a fair degree of detail. The Programme of Measures is detailed with information on which measures will be applied in which water bodies. Furthermore, the justification for each measure is provided. This is particularly the case for PTRH6, 7 and 8. A significant number of measures aim to increase knowledge on the water bodies through research and strengthening the monitoring network, and through the update or improvement of inventories of pressures. The goal is to increase the data available in the next WFD programming cycle, and to be able to classify a larger number of water bodies and increase the precision of delimitation and classification in other cases. There has been coordination between Portugal and Spain for the international RBDs, although no joint plans or actions have been devised. 2.2. Main Gaps Overall there is limited information on water bodies and several water bodies could not be classified in terms of ecological and chemical status (see tables in section 6), or have only preliminary classification. Reference conditions for the classification of transitional and coastal waters have not yet been defined and the classification is thus considered preliminary. The monitoring network in Portugal has had maintenance challenges since 2009 and as a result has serious limitations, mainly for surface waters. In 2014 a new monitoring network contract was signed for new and revamped monitoring stations to be operational in 2015. For groundwater the monitoring network is more representative. With regards to biological assessment methods, only a few BQEs are used for the classification of water bodies. For example, only the phytobenthos and the benthic invertebrates are considered for the classification of river water bodies and only phytoplankton parameters (namely, chlorophyll a, total biovolume, % of cyanobacteria biovolume and a compositional index) are used in the classification of heavily modified water body (HMWB) lakes (there are no natural lakes in mainland Portugal). This decision is taken at the national level. Even if more BQEs are monitored in some RBMPs, they are not used for the assessment. There is limited information on the methodology to identify significant pressures. Also non-existent or very preliminary is the definition of ecological flow[8], information on groundwater dependent ecosystems, analysis of trends, and other issues requiring the existence of good data sets. The links between pressures, status and measures are not clear. The lack of base information, together with a lack of analysis of the expected impacts of the measures renders unclear if and what WFD objectives will be attained for many water bodies.

· No comprehensive funding has been specifically secured under RBMPs for the implementation of the Programme of Measures (PoM). Nevertheless, some of the measures included in the PoM are derived from other ongoing plans, some of which have funds for implementation.

As stated above, the WISE summary reports are not always up to date as data was uploaded prior to the conclusion of the RBMPs and some changes were introduced in the RBMPs after the submission of data to WISE. As a result, some information is missing and there are differences between data reported on WISE and data in the RBMPs. 3. Governance 3.1. Timeline of implementation

RBD || Timetable || Work programme || Statement on consultation || Significant water management issues || Draft RBMP || Final RBMP

Due dates || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/06/2006 || 22/12/2007 || 22/12/2008 || 22/12/2009

PTRH1 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 03/10/2011 || 01/06/2012

PTRH2 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 03/10/2011 || 01/06/2012

PTRH3 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 03/10/2011 || 01/06/2012

PTRH4 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 01/10/2011 || 31/10/2012

PTRH5 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 22/08/2011 || 30/09/2012

PTRH6 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009[9] || 20/06/2011 || 22/03/2012

PTRH7 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 15/07/2011 || 22/03/2012

PTRH8 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2007 || 01/02/2009 || 19/09/2011 || 01/06/2012

PTRH9 || 01/11/2006 || 01/11/2006 || 01/11/2006 || 01/02/2010 || 15/12/2011 || 15/06/2012

PTRH10 || 29/12/2005 || 19/10/2009 || 19/08/2013 || 02/08/2013 || 02/08/2013 || 25/02/2014

Table 3.1.1: Timeline of the different steps of the implementation process

Source: WISE Summary 1.3.2 for each RBD

3.2. Administrative arrangements - river basin districts and competent authorities

Between the conception and drafting of the RBMPs, the time in which the plans were finalised and published and the current implementation, some major institutional changes occurred, with impacts on the process. This is mostly reflected in the case of mainland Portugal.

In mainland Portugal the development of the RBMPs has been undertaken by five River Basin District Administrations (formerly the ‘RBD Authorities’), vested at the time with administrative and financial autonomy. There was also the Water Institute which was Portugal´s National Water Authority. The latter focused on providing technical assistance and coordination, for example by issuing national guidelines.

From July 2011 to July 2013 (during the time in which the RBMPs were submitted for final review and were approved), there was a Ministry for Agriculture, Maritime Affairs, Environment and Spatial Planning (MAMAOT) in charge of defining and coordinating policies related to water (including coastal waters), as well as farming and fisheries. The organic law (Decree Law nº 7/2012, of 17 January 2012) set up a new institution – the Portuguese Environment Agency, I.P. (APA), in which the National Water Institute and the five River Basin District Administrations were included (Decree Law nº 56/2012, of 12 March 2012). As a result, the former RBD authorities are currently regional departments of APA, implementing water policy at a regional level. APA thus operates now as the single National Water Authority for all of Portugal’s mainland RBDs.

Shortly after the publication of the RBMPs on 27 July 2013, the MAMAOT was split into the Ministry of Agriculture and Sea (MAS) responsible for marine affairs, and the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (MAOTE), which included the water and coastal zone management legal competences. This is the present situation, whereby in particular APA retained its competences.

According to the water authority (APA), relations and contacts between the two ministries are excellent and constant (“helped by the fact that officials have worked together for decades”). Efforts are being made to consider coastal and transitional waters as a common concern. In particular, coordination and cooperation efforts are focused on:

• “Development of monitoring programmes and indicators, especially in the context of marine waters, including coastal waters, where the Portuguese challenges are higher considering the large area of jurisdiction and its deep sea nature;

• Reporting, including harmonised schedules and formats;

• Establishment of programmes of measures, including the required economic analysis and management procedures.”

A further key player in Portugal’s water management is the Water and Waste Services Regulatory Entity (ERSAR), established in 2006. ERSAR plays a crucial role in the definition of urban water cycle water tariffs, and also importantly in the implementation of the water resources tax. The regulator has newly revised statutes published by Law 10/2014 of 6 March 2014.

Other bodies, established by the Water Law (Law nº 58/2005), are the River Basin District Councils. The councils have an advisory role and played important roles in the development of the RBMPs, particularly in terms of technical assistance and advice. However, their competencies, composition and functioning will be set up in a specific legal act (yet to be published).

The General Direction of Natural Resources and Maritime Safety and Services (DGRM) of MAS is responsible for the licensing of activities in the public maritime space, as well as for the regulation, inspection, surveillance, coordination and control of the protection of marine resources, fisheries, aquaculture, maritime and port safety. Monitoring of the coastal and transitional waters is undertaken by the recently created Portuguese Institute of the Sea and Atmosphere (which integrates the functions of the previous meteorology institute and the marine research institute).

The competences of the RBD authority of the Azores Autonomous Region have been approved by the Regional Regulatory Decree nº 23/2011/A, which establishes that the Competent Authority is the Regional Secretariat of Environment and the Sea, which as of March 2014 has become Regional Secretariat of Natural Resources (SRRN). Water is managed by the Directorate of Environment which is part of the SRRN. There is also a Regional Water and Waste Services Regulatory Entity established by Regional Legal Decree nº 8/2010/A of 5 March 2010.

The competences of the RBD authority of the Madeira Autonomous Region have been approved by the Regional Legislative Decree nº 33/2008/M, which establishes that the Regional Water Authority is the Regional Directorate of Environment, and that the coastal zone and safety issues (floods, safety and security related to dams) are administered by the Regional Secretariat of Social Equipment, except in ports in which the authority is the Port Administration of the Autonomous Region of Madeira.

3.3. RBMPs - Structure, completeness, legal status

Usually, the RBMPs for Portugal are composed of specific parts, and in each part specific chapters. The specific parts consist of characterisation and diagnosis, objectives and exemptions, prospective scenarios, economic analysis, the programme of measures, monitoring and evaluation. Each part has written documents, as well as complementary documents with maps and drawings. Each of the chapters within the parts can have hundreds of pages followed by annexes. The documents on complementary processes such as Strategic Environmental Analysis, Public Participation and Information Systems of Support to Decision Making, as well as a Non-technical summary are provided at the website of the Water Authority where the RBMP can be easily located[10].

The RBMPs are sectoral plans subject to the Spatial Planning legal regime, according to which their development is subject to guidelines set by the national programme planning policy, and shall also be compatible with regional plans. RBMPs stand at an intermediate level between the National Water Plan (the strategic water management which they implement) and the specific River Basin Management Plans that include measures to protect and enhance water resources. RBMPs cannot contradict national guidelines or decisions as their territorial scope is limited to the river basin and they are subject to the relevant applicable laws.

The Water Law (Law 58/2005) transposes the Water Framework Directive into Portuguese law, and also applies to the Azores and Madeira autonomous regions (Article 101). In the case of Madeira, the Regional Legislative Decree nº 33/2008/M adapts the water law to Madeira and DL 77/2006 complements it.

Article 63 of the Water Law (Law 58/2005) defines the following conditions and requirements for attribution of the right to use water: compliance with the standards and principles of the Water Law; compliance with the provisions of the RBMPs; compliance with the instruments of territorial planning and specific water expanses management; and compliance with quality standards and discharge standards.

Article 62 of the Water Law establishes that the following activities in the private water domain require a previous licence and are specifically subject to the RBMPs: discharge of wastewater; waste immersion; recharge and artificial injection in groundwater; extraction of inert; landfills and excavations.

The legal regime for water uses was established by DL 226-A/2007, which is extended to the Azores by Regional Order Nº 67/2007. Madeira does not have an equivalent legislative act. The regime establishes that the competent authority may temporarily modify the titles for water use (licence or concession) whenever it is required to ensure their compliance with the RBMPs (Article 28 (d), DL 226-A/2007), or in case of drought or other natural disaster or force majeure (Article 67 (3), Water Law).

As a general rule the planning cycle defined under the Water Law is reflected in the legal regimes for the different uses specified below. In fact, water use requirements are mandatory for all water uses for which a permit is issued under the Water Law by the National Water Authority. This permit is necessary to gain an operating permit by activity sector.

However, regarding concessions, the DL 226-A/2007 which regulates water uses states that the new regime does not impact on the existing contracts. There are causes for modification or revocation of concessions; the obligation to comply with the applicable laws and regulations and with the instructions of the granter is one of them, but the compliance with the RBMP is not expressly mentioned in old concessions. The method followed in Portugal is to make amendments to requirements when concessions are renewed. The majority of the existing dams are old and in most cases their permits have several decades duration.

Dams for hydropower and/or for agriculture constitute examples of the above. Currently, in order to operate a new dam, a water use permit issued by the line minister for environment is a pre-requisite to the final licence. The old concessions were established by the line ministers of Energy (and/or Economy), Agriculture, or other.

Generally the period of time of the permits for water use and sectorial activity permits are compatible or the same. The Minister in charge of Agriculture shall grant concessions to use of public irrigation infrastructure for a period of 20 years in accordance with Order 1473/2007.[11] In these concessions there is a general clause stating that the granter reserves the right to review the concession’s conditions in order to ensure their compliance, and any modification to the applicable legislation and rules on management of the hydro agriculture uses, water resources and environmental policy (Basis VI, Order 1473/2007).

The license for exploitation of an IPPC installation and its modifications can only be issued after the environmental license administrative decision which aims at ensuring prevention and control of pollution establishing the measures required to avoid, or if that is not possible, reduce emissions. Minimising water discharge is a sine qua non condition for the operation of the installation. Supplementary conditions in order to ensure compliance with the objectives of environmental quality (Article 18, DL 173/2008) are explicitly foreseen. The use of water resources by an IPPC installation can be requested by the operator directly to the APA regional department, and the permit is annexed to the environmental license and shall comply with the legal regime for water uses (DL 226-A/2007 as amended) and the Water Law (Article 26, DL 173/2008).

3.4. Consultation of the public, engagement of interested parties

The section below takes into account that the River Basin District Authorities existed while the consultation process occurred. See above sections for information on changes that are ongoing. The details of future consultation processes are still not known in detail, although by-and-large they will reportedly follow established legal requirements and practice.

The general principle of participation is established under Article 84 of the Water Law according to which the State shall, through the Portuguese Water Authority and the River Basin District Authorities (RBDAs) (both now integrated into APA), promote active participation of natural and legal persons in establishing, reviewing and updating the RBMPs. This task is attributed to the Regional Secretariat dealing with Environment in the Azores and Madeira Autonomous Regions. Stakeholders are to be involved in drafting, reviewing and evaluating the RBMPs through the process of public discussion and representation of the users in water management advisory bodies.

The opening of the period of public discussion was announced through a note published in Portugal´s official journal and disseminated through the media[12]. This note includes the following information: (i) period of consultation (it has been fixed at six months for each RBMP); (ii) the scope of consultation (draft version of the RBMP including technical report and non-technical summary for each river basin; the environmental reports; and the non-technical summaries of the SEA); (iii) the competent authorities’ websites. After the public discussion period, each RBDA shall assess the results and prepare the final version. The RBMP shall indicate the measures of information and public consultation including the results and amendments made to the plans accordingly.

In each RBD, the River Basin District Councils (RBDCs) play a central role in the public consultation process during the elaboration of the RBMPs. They are an advisory body of the RBDAs and can also receive claims and complaints from individual and legal persons. RBDCs include representatives from: the ministries; other bodies of public administration; municipalities with a direct interest; representative bodies of main users related to the consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water in the respective river basin - associations from different sectors such as users of water resources, agriculture, fisheries, tourism; technical and scientific organisations on environment and water resources; and non-governmental organisations on environment and water resources. The RBDC composition and operation is to be established in the Statute of each RBDA in accordance with the characteristics of each river basin district[13]. The frequency of meetings is to be determined by the President of the RBDC in accordance with the general rules applicable to collective bodies under the Code of Administrative Procedures. The RBDC of the RBDA of Tejo, for instance, met three times in 2009 and 2010 and twice in 2011 - the reports and lists of participants are publicly available.[14]

The consultation period for all Portuguese RBMPs was compliant with the law referred to above and the WFD. Information for public consultation was provided through the media, internet, printed material and invitations to any interested parties. The consultation process took place through face-to-face meetings, written consultation and web-based submissions. Workshops and meetings with relevant sectors were held, as well as workshops for the general public.

The stakeholders involved in the consultation process included water companies, energy companies, farmers, ports, fisheries, industries, conservation bodies, local planning authorities, NGOs, consumer groups, universities and the general public.

The impact of the consultation process on the final plans resulted in changes to measures and changed information. There was also a parallel strategic environmental assessment with public participation.

The existing documentation for some RBMPs does not allow a clear distinction between the impact of the direct public consultation on the RBMPs and that of the SEA.

3.5. Cooperation and coordination with third countries

Portugal has four international RBDs shared with Spain: Minho, Douro, Tejo and Guadiana. No international RBMPs have been adopted or are being developed. However, there has been some cooperation between homologous water authorities.

Cooperation was arranged in terms of participation by Spanish and Portuguese water authorities in public meetings organised both in Spain and in Portugal on Significant Water Management issues, and by submission of comments by the Portuguese and the Spanish authorities on each other’s RBMPs. This has occurred for PTRH1 and PTRH3 with Miño-Sil (ES010) and Duero (ES020); PTRH5 with Tajo (ES030); and PTRH7 with Guadiana (ES040).

Besides this, there is a bilateral agreement on the shared water resources safeguarding quantity and quality of water at the border[15]: the Convenção de Albufeira, 1998, revised in 2008 by Parliament Resolution (Resolução da Assembleia da República) nº 62/2008. Within the framework of the bilateral meetings of the Convention, the delimitation of the water bodies and river and reservoir typologies has been agreed.

An information platform is in place and several joint studies have been carried out. However, so far there has been no joint implementation of PoMs in Portugal and Spain. In some cases the Portuguese RBMP contains an overall measure which relates to Spanish authorities implementing their RBMP in order for the surface and groundwater at the border to be in good ecological status.

As the Portuguese Water Authorities report, for the new planning cycle (2015-2021), Portugal and Spain have agreed at the December 2013 plenary session of the Commission for the Implementation and Development of the Albufeira Convention (CADC), to enhance communication and coordination in the various stages of the process, in particular on:

· Updating the delimitation of boundary and trans boundary water bodies;

· Updating the classification systems;

· Status assessment of boundary and trans boundary water bodies;

· Defining common environmental objectives for boundary and trans boundary water bodies and related compliance timeframes;

· Harmonisation of PoMs;

· Definition of common elements for public participation processes of each RBMP (eg. Non-technical Summary, joint public meetings, etc.);

· Coordination on pressures and impacts, water body status and initial objectives (planned for October 2014).

3.6. Integration with other sectors

Water planning is subject, inter alia, to the principle of integration in accordance with which it shall be compatible with other administrative planning instruments at the same hierarchical rank in the environmental, spatial and economic fields.

The National Programme of Spatial Planning Policy (PNPOT), approved by Law nº 58/2007[16], prevails over all other instruments of spatial planning in force, establishing the guidelines for the elaboration of new sectoral plans. The PNPOT and the National Water Plan shall be coordinated in order to ensure the proper integration and compatibility of their policy options. On the other hand, the sectoral plans and programmes with significant water impacts shall integrate the objectives and measures foreseen in the water planning instruments. The water planning instruments are binding on the Public Administration and include development plans of public water reservoirs, coastal zone management plans and estuaries management plans.

The “National Programme of Dams with High Hydropower Potential” approved in October 2007, identifies and prioritises investments in hydroelectric power plants for the period 2007-2020, in order to meet European and national renewable energy and climate change targets – including post-2020. The general objective of the Portuguese Government is to achieve a total of 7 000 MW installed hydroelectric power by 2020, in order to accomplish the goals of Directive 2001/77/EC and Directive 2009/28/EC (31% of renewable energy in final energy consumption). The RBMPs specifically refer to this Programme with regard to sectoral policy guidelines to which the RBMP must comply. The implementation of this Programme will have a strong impact on the RBD and some water bodies will have to be reclassified, particularly in PTRH3.

Besides links to the sectors above, the RBMP contains links to other policy sectors such as nature conservation, agriculture (including livestock and forest), rural development, maritime issues, climate change, water supply and wastewater services, solid waste management, tourism, and transport.

4. Characterisation of river basin districts 4.1. Water categories in the RBD

Nine of the ten assessed RBDs in Portugal contain rivers, lakes, transitional waters, and coastal waters. In mainland Portugal there are no natural lakes and the reservoirs are considered heavily modified lakes (see further below). For PTRH10 Madeira, there are only rivers and coastal waters and, although there are artificial waters (the “levadas”), the lack of information prevents their delimitation and characterisation.

The Azores (PTRH9) is a volcanic archipelago composed of nine islands. This characteristic explains the high number of coastal water bodies. The RBMP also explains that due to orographic and hydrologic characteristics of the islands, the lakes are represented in a larger number than rivers.

Water bodies were delineated according to the guidance in the CIS document “Identification of Waterbodies” – WFD CIS Guidance Document nº 2 (2003) and WFD CIS Guidance Document nº 4 (Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies), in conjunction with a clustering method that takes into account natural characteristics, such as morphology or salinity and anthropogenic pressures, such as phosphorous and nitrogen loads and their impacts, organic matter load and dissolved oxygen.

4.2. Typology of surface waters

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

PTRH1 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 1

PTRH2 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 1

PTRH3 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 2

PTRH4 || 6 || 2 || 1 || 2

PTRH5 || 10 || 3 || 1 || 2

PTRH6 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 2

PTRH7 || 4 || 2 || 1 || 1

PTRH8 || 5 || 1 || 1 || 3

PTRH9 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 3

PTRH10 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 2

Table 4.2.1: Surface water body types at RBD level

Source: WISE Summary 2.2.2

All river water bodies were considered to have a minimum length of 2 km and drainage basin of 10 km2. For the lake category a threshold of 0.4 km2 (area) was used to identify water bodies. Thus, no natural lake water bodies were identified in mainland Portugal; reservoirs were identified as water bodies and subsequently they were identified and designated as HMWB Lakes. As this was not in line with the WFD CIS guidance n°4 this will be changed in the second cycle and reservoirs will be considered as HMWB Rivers for reporting purposes.

For mainland Portugal the types of Rivers and reservoirs have been defined using System B of Annex II of the WFD to establish abiotic typology. Afterwards, the typology was checked against biological communities to see if they were compliant with the distribution of the biological quality elements in order to ensure that water status assessment was not biased by typology problems. Some adjustments were made in the case of some river types. The method is established in the national guidance document Critérios para a classificação do estado das massas de água superficiais – rios e albufeiras issued in 2009 by the former Portuguese Water Institute.

For rivers, the biological elements that were used are those typical of this water body category, i.e. benthic invertebrates, phytobenthos, macrophytes and fish populations. Data obtained from sampling conducted at reference points in the 2004 - 2005 campaigns was taken into account. The process led to the definition of 15 types of rivers for mainland Portugal.

The definition of the type of reservoirs was based on system B involving multivariate statistical analysis of 23 abiotic variables. The end result was the definition of three major types: North, South and Main Course.

For transitional waters, the process of typology definition was composed of a top-down expert judgment approach and a bottom-up cluster analysis approach using the tool "Deluxe Integrated System for Clustering Operations" (DISCO) Based on the guidance document “WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 5” (2003 ), mandatory and optional factors for water bodies greater than 1 km2 were selected . In the expert approach, classification of transitional waters was performed by the B system. A team of national and international experts reached consensus on a list of types. Cluster analysis included obligatory and optional factors of the B system. The final typology was achieved through a comparison of the types obtained with the expert approach and cluster analysis. This resulted in two types: A1 - Stratified Mesotidal Estuary, present in the north of Portugal, where the rainfall regime is uniformly distributed over the winter months; and A2 - Homogeneous Mesotidal Estuary in the central and southern regions of the country, where intense precipitation episodes occur leading to irregular river flows.

The definition of types of coastal water bodies was performed using a similar methodology as for transitional waters. The definition of the types has been done by the project “Ticor: Typology and Reference Conditions for Portuguese Transitional and Coastal Waters.” By applying the B system, five types of coastal waters have been identified for mainland Portugal: two that correspond to coastal lagoons (A3 - Semi - closed Mesotidal pond and A4 – Shallow Mesotidal Pond) and three types for the open coast (A5 – Exposed Mesotidal Atlantic Coast, A6 - Moderately Exposed Mesotidal Atlantic Coast and A7 - Sheltered Mesotidal Atlantic Coast).

Both coastal and transitional water bodies’ typologies were checked against biology using the methodology described in Bettencourt et al., (2004).[17]

According to the respective RBMPs, the water bodies of the archipelagos of Azores and Madeira present unique characteristics, not allowing a comparison with mainland water bodies or with the broad EU-types defined in the intercalibration exercise. In the Azores, system A of Annex II of the WFD was applied to transitional and coastal waters and system B was applied in natural lakes and rivers. In Madeira, system B was used for rivers, with the crucial differentiation parameter being precipitation, while system A was used for coastal waters, with the differentiation factor being depth (200 m).

The RBMP of the Azores states that although it would be logical to establish two types of river water body, according to altitude and variation of biological communities, the border between the two types could not be established due to limited available information (low number of monitoring points). Therefore, only one type of river water body was considered in the RBMP. For lakes, two types were defined according to geographical and physical factors and anthropogenic pressures, and relative abundance of the planktonic communities in relation to the coastal benthonic communities (phytobenthos and benthic fauna). Transitional waters are small coastal ponds, which receive freshwater inputs mainly from groundwater and constitute unique ecosystems. Three types of transitional water were defined: A-T-O/P Oligohaline waters with salinity in the range 0.5-5%, A-T-M/P Mesohaline water with salinity in the range 5-18%, and A-T-P/P Polihaline waters with salinity in the range 18-30%. The three types of coastal waters depend on depth: shallow, intermediate depth, and deep. For transitional and coastal waters the typologies were not checked against biology.

Madeira has defined three types of rivers according to the geographic location, altitude, geology, dimension (drainage basing larger than 1km2 in Madeira and 0.5km2 in Porto Santo), and precipitation. The typologies were not checked against ecological and chemical conditions. Two types of coastal waters have been defined, using salinity, depth and ecoregion as parameters. The differentiation factor of the two types is the 200m bathymetric level; the other two parameters are alike in the two types. The RBMP states that the 200 m bathymetric was used as it is the limit of the eutrophic zone where the majority of fisheries resources occur.

Regarding reference conditions, the work is not completed in several RBDs of Portugal, in relation with the existing gaps in monitoring and development of assessment methods. The work is more advanced in mainland Portugal. For the Azores and Madeira there is less data and the water bodies are different from the ones in the mainland and unique to the islands. Whenever possible Madeira used parameters’ reference values as specified in the national guidance documents. In other cases reference values were obtained using expert judgement, results from different studies and ad-hoc methodologies. However, much work on defining reference conditions is yet to be done.

4.3. Delineation of surface water bodies

A minimum size threshold has been set for each category of surface water. Most of the delineation of the water bodies was based on the CIS EU Guidance No. 2, but there were some exceptions. For rivers, the threshold was set at a catchment area of 10 km2 in mainland Portugal and in the Azores, but at 1 km2 in Madeira Island. All reservoirs with an area larger than 0.4 km2 were considered HMWB Lakes, in addition to some reservoirs with a smaller area, used for water supply. In the Azores a minimum surface area within the range of 0.01-0.5 km2 was considered. Small water bodies with the same type and status were incorporated into adjacent water bodies. After that, based on expert analysis, water bodies were iteratively grouped so as to lead to a minimum number of water bodies for which it is possible to clearly establish the environmental quality objectives. For transitional and coastal waters, the typology described in Bettencourt et al. (2004)[18] does not consider the existence of small water bodies. However, the minimum size of water bodies considered is 1 km2. In the second RBMPs, delineation of water bodies will be revised in all RBDs to account for improved data on hydromorphological pressures and consideration for smaller water bodies where relevant.

RBD || Surface Water || Groundwater

Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal

Number || Average Length (km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km) || Number || Average Area (sq km)[19]

PTRH1 || 56 || 9 || 3 || 5 || 10 || 4 || 2 || 29 || 2 || 1203

PTRH2 || 69 || 10 || 7 || 6 || 6 || 1 || 1 || 222 || 4 || 840

PTRH3 || 361 || 14 || 17 || 5 || 3 || 2 || 2 || 181 || 3 || 6274

PTRH4 || 236 || 16 || 9 || 3 || 10 || 13 || 8 || 387 || 30 || 510

PTRH5 || 395 || 17 || 24 || 6 || 4 || 92 || 2 || 191 || 12 || 2236

PTRH6 || 195 || 11 || 19 || 5 || 9 || 24 || 3 || 688 || 8 || 1050

PTRH7 || 222 || 14 || 16 || 20 || 5 || 7 || 2 || 9 || 9 || 1300

PTRH8 || 64 || 14 || 3 || 2 || 3 || 3 || 10 || 176 || 23 || 163

PTRH9 || 13 || 63* || 24 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 27 || 286 || 54 || 43

PTRH10 || 94 || 6 || - || - || - || - || 8 || 181 || 4 || 196

Total || 1705 || 17,4 || 122 || 6 || 53 || 16 || 65 || 235 || 149 || 13815

Table 4.3.1: Surface water bodies, groundwater bodies and their dimensions

Source: WISE (Summary 2.2.1.1 and 2.3.1.1 for each RBD) * In PTRH9 all water courses inside the catchment area were considered for the overall length of the water bodies.

In PTRH7, the large size of lakes (reservoirs) is due to the Alqueva reservoir, the largest reservoir in Europe. In the first RBMP this reservoir was considered as one water body because not enough data was available to divide it into several water bodies. This will change in the second RBMP.

In PTRH5 the large size of transitional waters is due to the Tagus estuary, one of the largest estuaries in Portugal.

4.4. Identification of significant pressures and impacts

The methodology used for identification of significant pressures generally follows a national approach regarding the pressures to consider (Decree Law 77/2006). However, limited data regarding pressures, namely in inventories of point source pollution, water abstraction and hydromorphological pressures affect the results. The methodology to assess significant pressures includes a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment based on existing information which varies between RBDs. It is stated that significant pressures are those that produce an impact on the water bodies that causes the non-compliance with at least one of the established criteria for the classification of the Ecological Status/Potential and Chemical Status, and consequently contributes to status worse than "Good". The RBMPs do not provide information on all numerical values used and for some types of pressures (e.g. hydromorphological), different RBDs used different criteria.

For hydromorphological pressures, the decision of what is significant is done at RBD level but the rationale is not explained. National guidelines to assess hydromorphological pressures and impacts were developed, but they are broad and the rules used to assess significance are unclear. Besides this, the level of the existing information was not the same in each RBD and, as a result, RBDs have chosen some of the impacts (but never all of them) based on expert judgement and on limited information. For example, in PTRH3, hydromorphological pressures are moderate if there is at least one dam with a wall of 5 m, or the pressure is considered significant if at least one of the dams does not have a fish passage. In PTRH7, however, if a water body has a dam with a wall of 2 m it is considered that there is a significant pressure. Similarly, for the extension of a regulated stretch of river; for PTRH7 the existence of a regulated stretch of 500 m or more is significant; in the case of PTRH3 it is significant if the 500 m is bordered by vertical walls, or the riverbed is waterproof.

In PTRH9 there are some significant hydromorphological pressures, particularly in two water bodies with dam walls of 3 m (one of which is a cascade of dams). However, no HMWB was defined. In PTRH10 Madeira, 27 out of 97 river flow regulations were considered significant pressures (since they have an extension greater than 500 m), and two dams were considered to impose significant pressures as their wall is higher than 2 m (these data are included as river management in Table 4.4.1). However, no HMWB were defined in Madeira. The non-definition of HMWBs might be related to lack of data, but no further explanation could be found in the RBMP.

Flow regulation was assessed using expert judgment, along with GIS maps and pressure datasets, including the River Habitat Survey and their corresponding indicators (Habitat Modification Score).

For water abstraction, high regime uses, permits and estimates of self-use were taken into account. The RBDs acknowledge that the inventory of water abstraction is incomplete in terms of the number of abstractions and their characteristics, as a result of the available data at the time of the development of the first RBMPs. Meanwhile, there has been an improvement in the licensing procedures and it is expected that this data will improve for the second RBMPs.

Reported data from point sources was used to assess pollution pressure. Where there was no data, coefficients related to production in the municipality were considered. For the ports, a qualitative analysis was undertaken. In protected areas, “significant” means that the point sources prevent the quality norms of specific legislation from being achieved. For point sources, discharge permit values were converted to load values for different substances and concentrations were compared to relevant standards to identify risks to WFD compliance. For diffuse sources, information on land use cover, agricultural census data and water quality classification was used to provide a risk category.

The analysis shows that all existing pressures were unevenly covered in the different RBDs without harmonised criteria. The National Water Authority has committed to address this in the update of the analysis required under WFD Article 5.

The following chart indicates the significant pressures seen in Portugal. There is some regional variation. Given the difference in the number of water bodies in each RBD, it is better to look at the proportion of RBDs affected.

RBD || No pressures || Point source || Diffuse source || Water abstraction || Water flow regulations and morphological alterations || River management || Transitional and coastal water management || Other morphological alterations || Other pressures

No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PTRH1 || 52 || 73 || 1 || 1.41 || 10 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 12 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 7.04

PTRH2 || 61 || 73 || 9 || 10.84 || 17 || 20 || 0 || 0 || 11 || 13 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1.2

PTRH3 || 265 || 69 || 17 || 4.44 || 103 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 80 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 24 || 6.27

PTRH4 || 174 || 66 || 52 || 19.77 || 62 || 24 || 0 || 0 || 26 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 3.8

PTRH5 || 217 || 51 || 138 || 32.47 || 208 || 49 || 3 || 0.7 || 76 || 18 || 10 || 2.35 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH6 || 31 || 14 || 132 || 58.41 || 183 || 81 || 9 || 4 || 77 || 34 || 1 || 0.44 || 7 || 3.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH7 || 16 || 7 || 138 || 56.33 || 209 || 85 || 6 || 2.5 || 155 || 63 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 0.82 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH8 || 3 || 4 || 34 || 42.5 || 76 || 95 || 4 || 5 || 58 || 73 || 1 || 1.3 || 4 || 5 || 1 || 1.25 || 0 || 0

PTRH9 || 42 || 63 || 0 || 0 || 19 || 28 || 1 || 1.5 || 4 || 6 || 3 || 4.5 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2.99 || 0 || 0

PTRH10 || 63 || 62 || 7 || 7 || 10 || 10 || 3 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 28 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 924 || 48 || 521 || 27 || 887 || 46 || 23 || 1.2 || 499 || 26 || 15 || 0.8 || 13 || 0.7 || 3 || 0.2 || 40 || 2.1

Table 4.4.1: Number and percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

Source: WISE SWB_PRESSURE

Figure 4.4.1: Graph of percentage of surface water bodies affected by significant pressures

1 = No pressures

2 = Point source

3 = Diffuse source

4 = Water abstraction

5 = Water flow regulations and morphological alterations

6 = River management

7 = Transitional and coastal water management

8 = Other morphological alterations

9 = Other pressures

Source: WISE SWB_PRESSURE (PTRH10 is not in SWB_PRESSURE WISE report. Data therefore extracted directly from WISE database)

The sectors which contribute most to chemical pollution include: wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and agriculture including livestock, particularly pig farming. In some RBDs abandoned mines or industrial sites needing environmental rehabilitation also pose pressures.

Point and diffuse source pollution are considered stronger pressures in the south of Portugal. In the Azores point source pollution is not considered a pressure. However, looking at the number of water bodies affected it is clear that PTRH3 and PTRH5 are affected by diffuse source pollution. PTRH5 also has a large number of water bodies affected by point source pollution, as is expected due to existing industry and pig farming as well as human agglomerations. Water flow regulations and morphological alterations are considered significant pressures in the Douro (PTRH3) and Tejo (PTRH5) river basins due to the hydropower dams. Similarly, dams are significant pressures in PTRH7 due to the Alqueva-Pedrógão system and an upstream dam in Spain, and the south of Portugal in Alentejo (PTRH6) and Algarve (PTRH8) due to water scarcity and the dams and reservoirs required for agriculture and human consumption. For the Azores major pressures are related with diffuse source pollution (28%). The level of significant pressures from water abstraction is surprisingly low. According to the Portuguese water authority the abstraction inventory is incomplete in terms of the number of abstractions and their characteristics, as a result of the data available at the time of the development of the first RBMPs. With the improvements made on the licensing procedures it is expected that data will improve for the second RBMPs.

4.5. Protected areas

The following tables identify the protected areas within the scope of the Water Framework Directive in Portugal. Table 4.5.1 is derived from a different source to the subsequent tables and some differences do exist. Tables 4.5.2 onwards were provided by the Portuguese Water Authorities and did not include Madeira.

RBD || Number of PAs

Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || National || Nitrates || Shellfish || UWWT

PTRH1 || 33 || 15 || 2 || || 7 || 6 || || || || ||

PTRH2 || 35 || 46 || 1 || || 11 || 2 || || || 1 || ||

PTRH3 || 79 || 46 || 5 || || 9 || 13 || || || || || 4

PTRH4 || 56 || 106 || 5 || || 22 || 14 || || || 2 || || 2

PTRH5 || 43 || 57 || 9 || || 19 || 16 || || || 2 || || 2

PTRH6 || 23 || 33 || 10 || || 5 || 8 || || || || || 2

PTRH7 || 52 || 4 || 11 || || 6 || 7 || || || 2 || || 1

PTRH8 || 18 || 103 || 4 || || 2 || 8 || || || 2 || || 1

PTRH9 || 193 || 52 || 15 || || || 22 || 78 || || 8 || 34 ||

PTRH10 || 164 || 31 || 4 || 3 || || 11 || || 5 || || ||

Total || 696 || 493 || 66 || 3 || 81 || 107 || 78 || 5 || 17 || 34 || 12

Table 4.5.1: Number of protected areas of all types in each RBD and for the whole country, for surface and groundwater[20]

Source: WISE (PA_NB) and RBMPs for PTRH9 and PTRH10

GWB: Number of Protected Areas || Number of GWB with Protected Areas

RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Nitrates || RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Nitrates

PTRH1 || 25 || 0 || PTRH1 || 2 || 0

PTRH2 || 23 || 1 || PTRH2 || 2 || 1

PTRH3 || 29 || 0 || PTRH3 || 1 || 0

PTRH4 || 25 || 2 || PTRH4 || 25 || 2

PTRH5 || 12 || 2 || PTRH5 || 12 || 3

PTRH6 || 19 || 0 || PTRH6 || 6 || 0

PTRH7 || 43 || 2 || PTRH7 || 3 || 3

PTRH8 || 16 || 2 || PTRH8 || 1 || 5

PTRH9 || 207 || 0 || PTRH9 || 39 || 0

Total || 399 || 9 || Total || 91 || 14

Table 4.5.2: Number of protected areas in groundwater bodies in each RBD and number of groundwater bodies with protected areas

Source: Additional information provided by the PT authorities after assessment of RBMPs.

SWB: Number of Protected Areas

RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || Nitrates || Shellfish

PTRH1 || 8 || 15 || 19 || 0 || 15 || 41 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH2 || 12 || 46 || 4 || 0 || 25 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH3 || 50 || 46 || 92 || 4 || 24 || 146 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH4 || 31 || 106 || 20 || 3 || 61 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH5 || 31 || 57 || 42 || 0 || 76 || 88 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH6 || 4 || 33 || 33 || 2 || 28 || 74 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH7 || 9 || 4 || 81 || 1 || 22 || 85 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH8 || 2 || 103 || 37 || 1 || 9 || 53 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH9 || 3 || 51 || 24 || 0 || || 42 || 125 || 13 || 79

Total || 150 || 461 || 352 || 11 || 260 || 604 || 125 || 13 || 79

Table 4.5.3: Number of protected areas in surface water bodies in each RBD

Source: Additional information provided by the PT authorities

Number of SWB with Protected Areas

RBD || Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water || Bathing || Birds || European Other || Fish || Habitats || Local || Nitrates || Shellfish

PTRH1 || 6 || 5 || 19 || 0 || 15 || 39 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH2 || 9 || 6 || 4 || 0 || 24 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH3 || 43 || 14 || 91 || 4 || 22 || 137 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH4 || 21 || 26 || 20 || 3 || 53 || 51 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH5 || 26 || 19 || 42 || 0 || 69 || 86 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH6 || 4 || 4 || 31 || 2 || 28 || 72 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH7 || 9 || 3 || 76 || 1 || 22 || 84 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH8 || 2 || 9 || 35 || 1 || 9 || 45 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH9 || 3 || 13 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 38 || 13 || 25

Total || 123 || 99 || 337 || 11 || 242 || 566 || 38 || 13 || 25

Table 4.5.4: Number of surface water bodies with protected areas in each RBD

Source: Additional information provided by the PT authorities

In mainland Portugal bivalve production areas were not designated as protected areas. This is because Portugal considers that they can only be classified as a direct result of the application of Directive 79/923/CE. However, specific associated constraints were considered in the application of other Directives, including the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the licensing of wastewater discharges. For the second RBMPs the areas identified for production of shellfish (Dispatch Nº 15264/2013, 2nd grade, Nº 227 – 22 November 2013) will be classified as protected areas.

5. Monitoring 5.1. General description of the monitoring network.

Figure 5.1: Maps of surface water (left) and groundwater (right) monitoring stations

|| • || || River monitoring stations

|| • || || Lake monitoring stations

|| • || || Transitional water monitoring stations

|| • || || Coastal water monitoring stations

|| • || || Unclassified surface water monitoring stations

|| • || || Groundwater monitoring stations

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

The RBMPs do not show progress in comparison with the 2009 implementation report. Monitoring networks in several RBDs are not considered representative, and the PoMs for all RBDs include measures to strengthen the monitoring network.

RBD || Rivers || Lakes

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.3 Macrophytes || QE1.2.4 Phytobenthos || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

PTRH1 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH2 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH3 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH4 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH5 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH6 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH7 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH8 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || || - || || || || -

PTRH9 || - || - || || || || - || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH10 || || || || || || || || || || || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || -

RBD || Transitional || Coastal

QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants || QE1.1 Phytoplankton || QE1.2 Other aquatic flora || QE1.2.1 Microalgae || QE1.2.2 Angiosperms || QE1.3 Benthic invertebrates || QE1.4 Fish || QE1.5 Other species || QE2 Hydromorphological QEs || QE3.1 General Parameters || QE3.3 Non priority specific pollutants || QE3.4 Other national pollutants

PTRH1 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH2 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH3 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH4 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH5 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH6 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH7 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH8 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH9 || || || || || || || - || || || || - || || || || || || - || - || || || || -

PTRH10 || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || || || || || || || || || || || -

Table 5.1: Quality elements monitored

|| QE Monitored

|| QE Not monitored

- || || Not Relevant

Source: WISE 4.1.7 and 4.1.8

RBD || Rivers || Lakes || Transitional || Coastal || Groundwater

Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Surv || Op || Quant

PTRH1 || 19 || 7 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 0 || 4

PTRH2 || 16 || 23 || 6 || 2 || 7 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 9 || 23 || 8

PTRH3 || 58 || 62 || 4 || 12 || 3 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 12 || 0 || 10

PTRH4 || 65 || 62 || 4 || 5 || 9 || 0 || 3 || 2 || 117 || 57 || 86

PTRH5 || 83 || 84 || 10 || 14 || 3 || 5 || 1 || 2 || 222 || 52 || 163

PTRH6 || 21 || 31 || 2 || 7 || 9 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 20 || 0 || 8

PTRH7 || 16 || 41 || 3 || 9 || 4 || 0 || 1 || 0 || 30 || 52 || 26

PTRH8 || 20 || 12 || 3 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 2 || 0 || 59 || 31 || 115

PTRH9 || 23 || 0 || 23 || 15 || 3 || 0 || 42 || 0 || 100 || 0 || -

PTRH10 || 22 || 0 || - || - || - || - || 0 || 0 || - || - || -

Total by type of site || 343 || 322 || 56 || 64 || 42 || 5 || 54 || 4 || 575 || 215 || 420

Total number of monitoring sites[21] || 665 || 120 || 47 || 58 || 1117

Table 5.2: Number of monitoring sites by water category.

Surv = Surveillance, Op = Operational, Quant = Quantitative

Source: Portuguese Water Authority (June 2014) and RBMP of Madeira (PTRH10)

5.2. Monitoring of surface waters

In Portugal there are approximately 500 surveillance monitoring stations, and 400 operational monitoring stations. However, there are still approximately 1100 surface water bodies that are not monitored at all. The time series length varies between stations and some parameters are measured only in a limited number of stations and are not retained in the monitoring programme of the first cycle (despite data being collected). Madeira (PTRH10) is the most serious case, since only 22 river water bodies are monitored and only for general parameters.

For surveillance monitoring the WFD requires the assessment of all quality elements which are relevant for the respective water category.

Mainland Portugal

Parameters and monitoring frequency of the surveillance and operational monitoring for the surface water network and the network of quantitative and chemical status of groundwater is defined in Annexes VI and VII of Decree Law nº 77/2006, of 30 March 2006, which complements the transposition of the WFD. In situations where the monitoring stations simultaneously fit the criteria for the surveillance and operational monitoring networks, it has been decided to integrate them in the operational programme since the water bodies are considered to be at risk. Once the water bodies achieve Good Status or Good Ecological Potential, they will be integrated into the surveillance network. There is no international monitoring programme for surface waters in place for the international RBDs.

The limited knowledge on transitional water bodies led to the adoption of a surveillance monitoring programme that is more demanding than the operational programme. Stations were selected according to the following criteria: a) all water bodies whose typology was not covered by the intercalibration exercise, aiming at validating class boundaries of biological status of defined metrics and at confirmation of the ecological and chemical status[22]; b) all water bodies classified as in doubt or at risk within the intercalibration exercise systems, to confirm the degree of risk; c) representativeness of the water; d) transition points for coastal waters. The risk analysis on the chemical status was updated based on the draft Directive on Environmental Quality Standards and based on new monitoring data.

For coastal waters the selection of stations followed the same criteria of transitional waters. The locations were selected in order to: i) enable an overall assessment of the state of ecological and chemical quality; ii) detect significant pressures for the delineation of programmes of measures; iii) detect temporal changes in ecological and chemical status due to natural or anthropogenic factors; iv) verify compliance of the quality status with national and diverse EU legislation (EU Directives); and v) exchange information within the EU.

Regarding biological quality elements, for rivers, surveillance monitoring does not include phytoplankton since the high variability of the natural conditions of the Mediterranean Rivers, does not allow for the establishment of stable phytoplankton communities in Portuguese rivers. Therefore, Portugal considers it is not possible or adequate to use this biological quality element to assess water body status in the majority of Portuguese rivers. In reservoirs the surveillance monitoring excludes macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates. According to the RBMPs this is because macrophytes and phytobenthos are limited in abundance and diversity in reservoirs, and the communities of benthic invertebrates at the margin are not representative of the water body situation.

A crucial aspect of operational monitoring concerns the selection of the biological quality element(s) considered to be most sensitive to a pressure. For rivers, where organic pressures and nutrients are the most important pressures benthic invertebrates are monitored each Spring, physico-chemical supporting elements and specific pollutants are monitored every three months. Where water bodies are also subject to important hydromorphological pressures (as well as the two pressures mentioned above), benthic invertebrates and fish fauna are monitored together with supporting hydromorphologic elements. For reservoirs it has been considered that organic pollution and nutrients were the most meaningful pressures, thus phytoplankton and physico-chemical supporting elements are monitored. Moreover, with regard to the hydromorphological quality elements and given the important nature of the residence time, it has been decided to also monitor the hydrological regime. Specific pollutants are monitored when they are expected to be discharged in significant quantities. The monitoring stations are located where concentrations of priority substances higher than the quality standards included on the proposal for a Directive on Environmental Quality Standards are known to have occurred.

According to the National Water Authority (June 2014), monitoring networks have been revamped and updated in order to fill some of the gaps identified in the first cycle plans. This revision retained the monitoring programmes of all the elements of the WFD and included water bodies that had not yet been monitored. Human and financial resources to address gaps in monitoring networks, in terms of coverage of surface water bodies and inclusion of all required biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements, are still the main constraints. Recently, financial resources were approved to carry out the foreseen monitoring programmes and a new service provider contract was signed so as to ensure the new monitoring network is operational from 2015 onward.

Azores

The PTRH9 RBMP states that overall the monitoring network is insufficient to respond to the legal and technical requirements for an adequate evaluation of the ecological and chemical status of the surface water bodies.

The operational network in the Azores aims to evaluate the spread of cyanobacteria and the concentration of its toxins. The network covers 15 lake water bodies. The operational monitoring is done in the same stations as the surveillance monitoring, where the cyanobacteria toxins are measured every 3 months. There is no investigative monitoring in the Azores.

Madeira

The surveillance monitoring occurs only in 19% of the water bodies of Madeira, although they cover 67% of the RBD. Only the physico-chemical elements are monitored (except phosphates). There is no operational monitoring network, nor is there a monitoring network for coastal waters.

5.3. Monitoring of groundwater

The monitoring networks are based on the existing ones from the former National Water Institute, or the Regional Environmental Directorate of the Azores, prior to the Water Framework Directive. Hence their planning followed a common methodology. For most RBDs the monitoring network is not considered representative (as stated in the RBMPs).

A quantitative groundwater monitoring programme has been established in all RBDs of mainland Portugal. In PTRH9 (Azores) there is no quantitative monitoring network.

In PTRH10 (Madeira) there is no groundwater (quantitative or qualitative) monitoring network, and the piezometric and quality parameters levels are only monitored by the regional water supply company (a public company whose shareholders are the Madeira regional government and municipalities) at the abstraction zones. This monitoring occurs in protected areas for water abstraction for human consumption.

The monitoring of groundwater chemical status is designed to be able to detect significant and sustained upward trends, in particular for nitrates. This is considered to be the most problematic parameter. In the Azores there is a qualitative surveillance network, but pesticides are not monitored. 32 of the 34 monitored water bodies have a representative index below 80%.

In some RBDs, operational monitoring programmes are in place only in the water bodies considered at risk. The usual parameter being monitored is nitrates. Some RBDs have no water bodies considered at risk.

No international monitoring programme for groundwater is in place. In fact, the geological formations in the border of Portugal and Spain consist mainly of igneous and metamorphic formations, which correspond to fractured media with low hydraulic conductivities and reduced yields. The average flow of exploitation in this type of rock does not generally exceed the 1 L/s threshold, creating aquifers only with local importance. In these circumstances, transboundary groundwater bodies between Portugal and Spain were not identified.

Portugal recognised the need to increase the density of monitoring sites to improve the quantitative and chemical assessment of groundwater bodies, as well as maintaining the frequency and continuity of sampling sites. This is, however, subject to the available financial resources. For the second RBMPs Portugal intends to carry out the assessment of trend reversals for the groundwater bodies identified with poor chemical status in the first RBMPs.

5.4. Monitoring of protected areas

Figure 5.2: Map of monitoring stations for protected areas Source: WISE database

The specific monitoring network for protected areas was not reported to WISE, and it is only possible to capture it in the RBMPs.

RBD || Surface waters || Ground-water drinking water

Surface drinking water abstraction || Quality of drinking water || Bathing water || Birds sites || Fish || Habitats sites || Nitrates[23] || Shell- fish || UWWT

PTRH1 || 11 || 11 || 15 || 5 || 6 || 5+18 || || 2+6 || - || 6

PTRH2 || 13 || 13 || 46 || 1 || 16 || 1+10 || 22 (GWB) || || 7 || 9

PTRH3 || 50 || 50 || 47 || 32 || 9 || 40+30 || 7[24] (GWB) || 7+9 || 9 || 12

PTRH4 || 38 || 38 || 106 || 16 || 23 || 16 || 4(GWB) || 21 || 8 || 44

PTRH5 || 26 || 26 || 57 || 27 || 20 || 53 || 2 (GWB) || 35 || 10 || 88

PTRH6 || 6 || 6 || 36 || 13 || 6 || 40 || 4 (GWB) || 5 || 5 || 16

PTRH7 || 9 || 9 || 6 || 27 || 8 || 45 || 1 (GWB) || 6 || 8 || 13

PTRH8 || 3 || 3 || 103 || 16 || 3 || 25 || 3 (GWB) || 2 || 2 || 1

PTRH9 || 2 || 2 || 53 || 18 || || || 15 || || || 98

PTRH10 || - || || 31 || || || || || || || 27

Total || 158 || 158 || 392 || 27 || 91 || 283 || 15 (SWB) 43(GWB) || 93 || 49 || 314

Table 5.3: Number of monitoring stations in protected areas[25].

Legend: surveillance + operational monitoring

Source: RBMPs, and PT Water Authority after assessment of RBMPs. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

Regarding protected areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption, the process of defining their protection perimeters is still ongoing. These perimeters need to be enacted by a legal instrument. As a result, many of the monitoring points referred in the table above are for monitoring of drinking water and not necessarily for drinking water protected areas.

According to the Portuguese National Water Authority:

· “Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species” – these areas are designated by the Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC). Until 2013 these areas were monitored according to the Directive (parameters and frequency). In 2014, the monitoring sites were all included in the surveillance or operational monitoring programmes.

· “Bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 2006/7/EC” – Portugal monitors all the bathing waters as required by the Bathing Waters Directive.

· “Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as Vulnerable Zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas designated as Sensitive Areas under Directive 91/271/EEC” – These areas are included in the surveillance or in the operational monitoring programmes, and a specific set of parameters and their monitoring frequency were defined for the sites located in these areas.

· “Areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 79/409/EEC”. The specificities of these areas were considered in the definition of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes, particularly in selecting monitoring sites. However, no other monitoring requirements were considered besides the ones already included in the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes.

6. Overview of status (ecological, chemical, groundwater)

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

PTRH1 || 61 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 72 || 10 || 16 || 5 || 8 || 1 || 2 || 1 || 2

PTRH2 || 65 || 1 || 2 || 33 || 51 || 16 || 25 || 9 || 14 || 5 || 8 || 1 || 2

PTRH3 || 356 || 1 || 0 || 251 || 71 || 79 || 22 || 21 || 6 || 3 || 1 || 1 || 0

PTRH4 || 239 || 5 || 2 || 150 || 63 || 41 || 17 || 25 || 10 || 5 || 2 || 13 || 6

PTRH5 || 368 || 20 || 5 || 178 || 48 || 56 || 15 || 30 || 8 || 15 || 4 || 69 || 19

PTRH6 || 171 || 4 || 2 || 71 || 42 || 69 || 40 || 23 || 13 || 3 || 2 || 1 || 1

PTRH7 || 206 || 4 || 2 || 85 || 41 || 71 || 34 || 41 || 20 || 2 || 1 || 3 || 1

PTRH8 || 70 || 6 || 9 || 29 || 41 || 17 || 24 || 6 || 9 || 3 || 4 || 9 || 13

PTRH9 || 67 || 27 || 40 || 16 || 24 || 16 || 24 || 7 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1

PTRH10 || 102 || 25 || 25 || 24 || 24 || 18 || 18 || 21 || 21 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 14

Total || 1705 || 93 || 5% || 881 || 52% || 393 || 23% || 188 || 11% || 37 || 2% || 113 || 7%

Table 6.1: Ecological status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: River Basin Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

RBD || Total || High || Good || Moderate || Poor || Bad || Unknown

No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%) || No. || (%)

PTRH1 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 50 || 4 || 40 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 10 || 0 || 0

PTRH2 || 18 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 44 || 5 || 28 || 4 || 22 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 6

PTRH3 || 27 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 26 || 17 || 63 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 7

PTRH4 || 23 || 0 || 0 || 8 || 35 || 10 || 43 || 4 || 17 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4

PTRH5 || 57 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 31 || 54 || 10 || 18 || 2 || 4 || 14 || 25

PTRH6 || 65 || 0 || 0 || 22 || 34 || 25 || 38 || 7 || 11 || 3 || 5 || 8 || 12

PTRH7 || 54 || 0 || 0 || 17 || 37 || 21 || 39 || 10 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 6 || 11

PTRH8 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 7 || 70 || 1 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 || 20

PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH10 || 0 || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*] || 0 || [*]

Total || 264 || 0 || 0 || 74 || 28% || 114 || 43% || 36 || 13% || 6 || 2% || 34 || 13%

Table 6.2: Ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies.

Source: River Basin Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

[*] The RBMP states that there are artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data available to define them.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PTRH1 || 61 || 15 || 25 || 0 || 0 || 46 || 75

PTRH2 || 65 || 18 || 28 || 3 || 5 || 44 || 68

PTRH3 || 356 || 63 || 18 || 4 || 1 || 289 || 81

PTRH4 || 239 || 166 || 70 || 6 || 3 || 67 || 28

PTRH5 || 368 || 16 || 4 || 0 || 0 || 352 || 96

PTRH6 || 171 || 25 || 15 || 2 || 1 || 144 || 88

PTRH7 || 206 || 21 || 10 || 0 || 0 || 185 || 90

PTRH8 || 70 || 26 || 37 || 1 || 1 || 43 || 61

PTRH9 || 67 || 67 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 0 || 0 || 53 || 52

Total || 1705 || 466 || 27% || 16 || 1% || 1223 || 72%

Table 6.3: Chemical status of natural surface water bodies.

Source: River Basin Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

RBD || Total || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PTRH1 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 50

PTRH2 || 18 || 8 || 44 || 0 || 0 || 10 || 55

PTRH3 || 27 || 13 || 48 || 0 || 0 || 14 || 52

PTRH4 || 23 || 7 || 30 || 0 || 0 || 16 || 70

PTRH5 || 57 || 15 || 26 || 1 || 2 || 41 || 72

PTRH6 || 65 || 16 || 24 || 0 || 0 || 49 || 75

PTRH7 || 54 || 10 || 19 || 0 || 0 || 44 || 81

PTRH8 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 0 || 0 || 5 || 50

PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH10 || [*] || [*] || - || [*] || - || [*] || -

Total || 264 || 79 || 30% || 1 || 0 || 184 || 70%

Table 6.4: Chemical status of artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies.

Source: River Basin District Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

[*] The RBMP states that there are artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data available to define them.

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PTRH1 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH2 || 2 || 50 || 2 || 50 || 0 || 0

PTRH3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH4 || 21 || 75 || 7 || 25 || 0 || 0

PTRH5 || 8 || 67 || 4 || 33 || 0 || 0

PTRH6 || 7 || 88 || 1 || 13 || 0 || 0

PTRH7 || 6 || 67 || 3 || 33 || 0 || 0

PTRH8 || 19 || 83 || 4 || 17 || 0 || 0

PTRH9 || 50 || 93 || 4 || 7 || 0 || 0

PTRH10 || 3 || 75 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 25

Total || 121 || 82% || 25 || 17% || 1 || 1%

Table 6.5: Chemical status of groundwater bodies.

Source: River Basin Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

RBD || Good || Poor || Unknown

No. || % || No. || % || No. || %

PTRH1 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH2 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH3 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH4 || 27 || 96 || 1 || 4 || 0 || 0

PTRH5 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH6 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH7 || 8 || 89 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 11

PTRH8 || 22 || 96 || 0 || 0 || 1 || 4

PTRH9 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

PTRH10 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Total || 144 || 98% || 1 || 1% || 2 || 1%

Table 6.6: Quantitative status of groundwater bodies.

Source: River Basin Management Plans. The data provided on WISE is not correct.

RBD || Total || Global status (ecological and chemical) || Global status 2021 || Global status 2027 || Global exemptions 2009 (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 71 || 45 || 63 || 45 || 63 || 0 || 53 || 75 || 71 || 100 || 18 || 0 || ||

PTRH2 || 83 || 39 || 47 || 40 || 48 || 1 || 70 || 84 || 78 || 94 || 41 || 0 || ||

PTRH3 || 383 || 257 || 67 || 273 || 71 || 4 || 296 || 77 || 383 || 100 || 26 || 0 || || 3

PTRH4 || 262 || 159 || 61 || 166 || 63 || 2 || 206 || 79 || 237 || 90 || 26 || 0 || || 1.5

PTRH5 || 425 || 197 || 46 || 266 || 63 || 17 || 318 || 75 || 341 || 80 || 16 || 0 || || 2

PTRH6 || 236 || 97 || 41 || 125 || 53 || 12 || 202 || 86 || 228 || 97 || 50 || 0 || || 0.5

PTRH7 || 260 || 109 || 42 || 112 || 43 || 1 || 196 || 75 || 247 || 95 || 53 || 0 || ||

PTRH8 || 80 || 42 || 53 || 50 || 63 || 10 || 61 || 76 || 69 || 86 || 29 || 0 || || 1.3

PTRH9 || 67 || 44 || 66 || 48 || 72 || 6 || 61 || 91 || 67 || 100 || 28 || 0 || ||

PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 57 || 56 || 8 || 60 || 59 || 80 || 78 || - || - || ||

Total || 1969 || 1038 || 53% || 1182 || 60% || 7% || 1523 || 77% || 1801 || 91% || 31 || 0 || || 1

Table 6.7: Surface water bodies: overview of status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Waterbodies with good status in 2009 fall into the following category:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

Waterbodies expected to achieve good status in 2015 fall into the following categories:

1. Ecological status is high or good and the chemical status is good, exemptions are not considered

2. Chemical status is good, and the ecological status is moderate or below but no ecological exemptions

3. Ecological status is high or good, and the chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no chemical exemptions

4. Ecological status is moderate or below, and chemical status is failing to achieve good but there are no ecological nor chemical exemptions

Note: Waterbodies with unknown/unclassified/Not applicable in either ecological or chemical status are not considered

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

RBD || Total || Ecological status || Good ecological status 2021 || Good ecological status 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 61 || 42 || 69 || 46 || 75 || 6 || 48 || 79 || 61 || 100 || 16 || || ||

PTRH2 || 65 || 31 || 48 || 32 || 49 || 1 || 60 || 92 || 64 || 98 || 42 || || ||

PTRH3 || 356 || 251 || 71 || 242 || 68 || -3 || 264 || 74 || 356 || 100 || 24 || || || 3

PTRH4 || 239 || 151 || 63 || 164 || 69 || 6 || 199 || 84 || 222 || 93 || 24 || 0.4 || || 2

PTRH5 || 368 || 198 || 54 || 243 || 66 || 12 || 282 || 77 || 299 || 81 || 15 || || || 1

PTRH6 || 171 || 75 || 44 || 100 || 58 || 14 || 154 || 90 || 171 || 100 || 49 || || ||

PTRH7 || 206 || 89 || 43 || 100 || 49 || 6 || 168 || 82 || 206 || 100 || 51 || || ||

PTRH8 || 70 || 35 || 50 || 41 || 59 || 9 || 52 || 74 || 60 || 86 || 33 || || || 1

PTRH9 || 67 || 44 || 66 || 48 || 72 || 6 || 61 || 91 || 67 || 100 || 28 || || ||

PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 57 || 56 || 8 || 60 || 59 || 80 || 78 || || || ||

Total || 1705 || 965 || 56% || 1073 || 63% || 7% || 1348 || 79% || 1586 || 93% || 29 || 0.1 || 0 || 1

Table 6.8: Natural surface water bodies: ecological status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

RBD || Total || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all SWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 61 || 15 || 25 || 46 || 75 || 50 || 48 || 79 || 61 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH2 || 65 || 18 || 28 || 32 || 49 || 21 || 60 || 92 || 64 || 98 || || || ||

PTRH3 || 356 || 63 || 18 || 242 || 68 || 50 || 264 || 74 || 356 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH4 || 239 || 151 || 63 || 164 || 69 || 6 || 199 || 83 || 222 || 93 || || || ||

PTRH5 || 368 || 16 || 4 || 244 || 66 || 62 || 283 || 77 || 300 || 82 || || || ||

PTRH6 || 171 || 25 || 15 || 50 || 29 || 14 || 104 || 61 || 121 || 71 || 1 || || ||

PTRH7 || 206 || 21 || 10 || 32 || 16 || 6 || 100 || 49 || 137 || 67 || || || ||

PTRH8 || 70 || 21 || 30 || 41 || 59 || 29 || 52 || 74 || 60 || 86 || 1 || || ||

PTRH9 || 67 || 67 || 100 || 67 || 100 || 0 || 67 || 100 || 67 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH10 || 102 || 49 || 48 || 57 || 56 || 8 || 60 || 59 || 80 || 78 || - || - || - || -

Total || 1705 || 446 || 26% || 975 || 57 || 31% || 1237 || 73 || 1468 || 86% || 0.2 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.9: Natural surface water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

RBD || Total || GW chemical status || Good Global status 2021 || Good Global status 2027 || GW chemical exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH2 || 4 || 3 || 75 || 3 || 75 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 25 || 0 || ||

PTRH3 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH4 || 30 || 23 || 77 || 24 || 80 || 3 || 29 || 97 || 30 || 100 || 23 || 0 || ||

PTRH5 || 12 || 8 || 67 || 9 || 75 || 8 || 11 || 92 || 12 || 100 || 25 || 0 || ||

PTRH6 || 8 || 7 || 88 || 7 || 88 || 0 || 7 || 88 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH7 || 9 || 6 || 67 || 6 || 67 || 0 || 8 || 89 || 9 || 100 || 33 || 0 || ||

PTRH8 || 23 || 19 || 83 || 19 || 83 || 0 || 22 || 96 || 23 || 100 || 17 || 0 || ||

PTRH9 || 54 || 50 || 93 || 50 || 93 || 0 || 54 || 100 || 54 || 100 || 7 || 0 || ||

PTRH10 || 4 || 3 || 75 || 3 || 75 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || || || ||

Total || 149 || 124 || 83% || 126 || 85% || 2% || 144 || 97% || 149 || 100% || 14 || 0 || ||

Table 6.10: Groundwater bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

RBD || Total || Groundwater quantitative status || Good quantitative status 2021 || Good quantitative status 2027 || GW quantitative exemptions (% of all GWBs)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 2 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 2 || 100 || 2 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH2 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH3 || 3 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 3 || 100 || 3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH4 || 30 || 29 || 97 || 29 || 97 || 0 || 30 || 100 || 30 || 100 || 3 || 0 || ||

PTRH5 || 12 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 12 || 100 || 12 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH6 || 8 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 8 || 100 || 8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH7 || 9 || 8 || 89 || 8 || 89 || 0 || 9 || 100 || 9 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH8 || 23 || 22 || 96 || 22 || 96 || 0 || 22 || 96 || 23 || 100 || 4 || 0 || ||

PTRH9 || 54 || 54 || 100 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 54 || 100 || 54 || 100 || 0 || 0 || ||

PTRH10 || 4 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || 0 || 4 || 100 || 4 || 100 || - || - || ||

Total || 149 || 146 || 98% || 146 || 98% || 0 || 148 || 99% || 149 || 100% || 3 || 0 || ||

Table 6.11: Groundwater bodies: quantitative status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Ecological potential || Good ecological potential 2021 || Good ecological potential 2027 || Ecological exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 7 || 70 || 20 || 8 || 80 || 10 || 100 || 30 || || ||

PTRH2 || 18 || 8 || 44 || 8 || 44 || 0 || 10 || 56 || 18 || 100 || 39 || || ||

PTRH3 || 27 || 7 || 26 || 7 || 26 || 0 || 8 || 30 || 27 || 100 || 56 || || ||

PTRH4 || 23 || 8 || 35 || 12 || 52 || 17 || 17 || 74 || 23 || 100 || 44 || || ||

PTRH5 || 57 || 12 || 21 || 36 || 63 || 42 || 49 || 86 || 55 || 96 || 21 || || ||

PTRH6 || 65 || 22 || 34 || 25 || 38 || 4 || 48 || 74 || 57 || 88 || 51 || || ||

PTRH7 || 54 || 20 || 37 || 22 || 41 || 4 || 38 || 70 || 52 || 96 || 62 || || ||

PTRH8 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 8 || 80 || 30 || 8 || 80 || 8 || 80 || || || ||

PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || || 0 || || || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || ||

PTRH10 || [*] || [*] || || [*] || || || [*] || || [*] || || || || ||

Total || 264 || 87 || 33% || 125 || 47% || 14% || 186 || 70% || 250 || 95% || 58 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.12: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: ecological potential in 2009 and expected ecological potential in 2015, 2021 and 2027[26]

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

[*] The RBMP states that there are artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data available to define them.

RBD || Total HMWB and AWB || Chemical status || Good chemical status 2021 || Good chemical status 2027 || Chemical exemptions (% of all HMWB/AWB)

Good or better 2009 || Good or better 2015 || Increase 2009 -2015 || Art 4.4 || Art 4.5 || Art 4.6 || Art 4.7

No. || % || No. || % || % || No. || % || No. || % || % || % || % || %

PTRH1 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 7 || 70 || 20 || 8 || 80 || 10 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH2 || 18 || 8 || 44 || 8 || 44 || 0 || 10 || 56 || 18 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH3 || 27 || 13 || 48 || 13 || 48 || 0 || 13 || 48 || 27 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH4 || 23 || 7 || 0 || 11 || 48 || 48 || 16 || 70 || 22 || 96 || || || ||

PTRH5 || 57 || 15 || 26 || 29 || 51 || 25 || 42 || 74 || 48 || 84 || || || ||

PTRH6 || 65 || 16 || 25 || 19 || 29 || 4 || 42 || 65 || 51 || 78 || || || ||

PTRH7 || 54 || 10 || 19 || 12 || 22 || 3 || 28 || 52 || 42 || 78 || || || ||

PTRH8 || 10 || 5 || 50 || 8 || 80 || 30 || 8 || 80 || 10 || 100 || || || ||

PTRH9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || ||

PTRH10 || [*] || [*] || || [*] || || || [*] || || [*] || || - || - || - || -

Total || 264 || 79 || 30% || 107 || 41% || 11% || 167 || 63% || 228 || 86% || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Table 6.13: Heavily modified and artificial water bodies: chemical status in 2009 and expected status in 2015, 2021 and 2027[27]

Source: RBMPs (data in the RBMPs differs from WISE).

[*] The RBMP states that there are artificial water bodies (“levadas”) but there is no data available to define them.

Figure 6.1: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.2: Map of ecological status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || High

|| || || Good

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).

Source: RBMPs, Eurostat (NB: some RBMPs do not contain sufficient detail to create accurate maps showing a detailed breakdown of status in 2015).

Figure 6.3: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.4: Map of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good or better

|| || || Moderate

|| || || Poor

|| || || Bad

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(ii).

Source: RBMPs, Eurostat (NB: some RBMPs do not contain sufficient detail to create accurate maps showing a detailed breakdown of status in 2015).

Figure 6.5: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2009

Figure 6.6: Map of chemical status of natural surface water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: RBMPs, Eurostat

Figure 6.7: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2009

Figure 6.8: Map of chemical status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Failing to achieve good

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3.

Source: RBMPs, Eurostat

Figure 6.9: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.10: Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5.

Source: RBMPs, Eurostat

Figure 6.11: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2009

Figure 6.12: Map of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 2015

|| || || Good

|| || || Poor

|| || || Unknown

|| || || River Basin Districts

|| || || Countries outside EU

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4.

Source: RBMPs, Eurostat

6.1. Assessment of ecological status of surface waters

The assessment of ecological status of surface waters generally follows a national approach. In mainland Portugal, for rivers and lakes, it has been defined in a document titled: Critérios para a classificação do estado das massas de água superficiais – rios e albufeiras, issued in 2009 by the former National Water Institute. Assessment methods are only partially developed for rivers and reservoirs. Natural lakes only exist in the Azores (PTRH9) and these have not been considered in the national approach. However, the RBMP for PTRH9 took the national guidelines into consideration as much as possible. The RBMP for PTRH10 also takes into account the national methodology in terms of the specific pollutants to establish the chemical status.

While the RBMPs were being finalised, a project (Avaliação do Estado Ecológico das Massas de Água Costeiras e de Transição Adjacentes e do Potencial Ecológico das Massas de Água Fortemente Modificadas, POVT-12-0233-FCOES-000017) was ongoing at the national level, aiming to establish the assessment methods and threshold values for the characterisation of coastal and transitional waters, as well as determining the reference conditions for the ecological potential of HMWBs. It is therefore stated in the RBMPs that classifications are only preliminary. Some RBMPs classify these two categories of water using methodologies that vary for different RBDs as explained in the RBMP. Some RBMPs used preliminary results from the above mentioned study in the classification of some water bodies. Others used ad-hoc methods specifically developed for the RBD. For some other RBDs, no classification is achieved.

Overall, data is quite limited. Monitoring networks are not considered to be representative and available remaining data are scarce (see above comparison between number of water bodies and monitoring stations). The majority of water bodies have been classified using alternative methods derived in each RBD, according to available data, modelling, pressures analysis, bibliography analysis and/or expert judgment. The level of precision in these cases is rather low. In fact most of the PoMs contain measures such as further research and improved monitoring and inventory of pressures to be able to confirm the classifications of the water bodies and increase confidence and precision.

Since the elaboration of the RBMPs there have been changes in the licensing regime, as well as progress on the inventories of pressures, and the monitoring network has been improving. Hence it is expected that detection and reporting of pressures will be more precise for the second RBMPs.

6.2. Ecological status assessment methods

The one-out-all-out principle was used in all classifications. It can be stated that, with the exceptions of transitional waters, very large rivers and HMWBs, the vast majority of national types have a classification system (although not for all QEs). There are considerable gaps regarding full compliance with the WFD requirements. This section ends with a list of remaining gaps.

In mainland Portugal, following national procedures, only phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are considered in the classification of river water bodies[28]. For reservoirs only phytoplankton is used. For coastal waters phytoplankton, macroalgae and benthic invertebrates are used, where available, in the classification.

In the Azores the classes for the BQEs of phytobenthos, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates in rivers are still to be developed. In lakes phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates are used in the classification, but the classes for macrophytes are still being developed. In cases where no monitoring data exists, the analysis was done via pressures analysis and expert judgment. For transitional[29] and coastal waters, at the time of developing the RBMPs there were preliminary results for classification but no official data. In coastal waters, no BQEs were considered in the classification due to lack of data. All Azorean freshwater fish are introduced, so an autochthonous freshwater fish community does not exist. Since fish are absent in pristine situations, reference conditions for fish fauna cannot be set, and therefore cannot be used to assess water body status in the fresh water bodies of Azores.

In Madeira, for 33% of the river water bodies, the biological elements used were benthic invertebrates and bryoflora (macrophytes). It is not stated if the methods are fully developed. In cases where no monitoring data exists, the analysis was done via pressures analysis and expert judgment. For coastal waters only phytoplankton is used in the characterisation. The RBMP states that the indicators used are those that were intercalibrated with Azores (PT) and Canary Islands (ES).

For rivers and reservoirs, environmental quality standards (EQSs) have been set for some national chemical specific pollutants, and for some physico-chemical parameters. For the former, the guidance document states that “work still needs to be done with the Portuguese Environmental Agency (which is currently the National Water Authority) to define threshold values for some specific pollutants in accordance with 1.2.6 of Annex V of the WFD”. For the latter, only border values between good and moderate and only for some parameters were defined. The national guidance document (also followed in Azores and Madeira) lists the parameters and the threshold values, but no information is found on the methodology to achieve them – hence it is not possible to ascertain whether the standards have been set in accordance with the procedure in the WFD Annex V 1.2.6. Transitional waters were monitored but no classification was established. For coastal waters the RBMPs state that the physico-chemical reference conditions are not yet established.

Regarding hydromorphology for rivers, the borders between classes were defined through relations between BQEs and expert analysis. The nati