EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 58 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: United Kingdom







Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 1.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first Cycle 3.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations

Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 4.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Exemptions 8.3 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle

8.4 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 9.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle 12.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance in the first cycle

13.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle and main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 14.2 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 15.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 16.3 Progress with European Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Water Information System for Europe Annex 0 Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting.

The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.



General Information Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: 2012 assessment reports, WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International River Basin Districts (within European Union) International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) National River Basin Districts (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters The information on areas of the national RBD (Map A), including sharing countries, is provided in Table A. The share of the United Kingdom in the respective international RBD is 75.4 % (Neagh Bann) and 39.8 % (North Western) as shown in Table B. Table A: Overview of the United Kingdom‘s River Basin Districts RBD RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing RBD UK01 Scotland 113920 - UK02 Solway Tweed 17511 - UK03 Northumbria 9029 - UK04 Humber 26051 - UK05 Anglian 27868 - UK06 Thames 16190 - UK07 South East 10199 - UK08 South West 21478 - UK09 Severn 21300 - UK10 Western Wales 16647 - UK11 Dee 2235 - UK12 North West 13160 - UKGBNIIENB Neagh Bann 8289 (6100 in UK) IE UKGBNIIENW North Western 14709 (4900 in UK) IE UKGBNINE North Eastern 3995 - UKGI17 Gibraltar 33.4 including coastal waters - Source: WISE electronic reports Table B: Transboundary river basins by category and % share in the United Kingdom Name international river basin Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category Total 1-4 2 km² % km² % Neagh Bann IE 6125 75.4 6125 75.4 North Western (rivers Erne and Foyle) IE 4900 39.8 4900 39.8 Total 11031 11031 Source: WISE electronic reports

Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.

Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of 15 of the 16 RBMPs of the United Kingdom (Scotland, Solway Tweed, Northumbria, Humber, Anglian, Thames, South East, South West, Severn, Western Wales, Dee, North West, Neagh Bann, North Western, North Eastern) were published between 22 February 2015 and 18 February 2016. A RBMP for Gibraltar has not been published in WISE. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency (EEA) EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of the United Kingdom are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation In all of the United Kingdom RBDs stakeholders were involved via a broad range of mechanisms, including advisory groups and (in England and Wales) catchment partnerships. The information available concerning the public consultation of the draft RBMP for Scotland is contradictory, with some documents indicating a 4-month consultation period and others a 6-month period. The WFD requires a minimum of six months for the public consultation on the Plans. The United Kingdom did not adopt and publish all the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. The United Kingdom RBMP for Gibraltar was adopted but not reported in WISE. ·Characterisation of the RBD Significant efforts appear to have been made for the re-delineation and characterisation of groundwater bodies in the second RBMP. The identification of more groundwater bodies was due to better conceptual understanding of groundwater and an improved risk/ status assessment. Further characterisation work has also included the assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. The definition of significance of pressures on surface water was reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives in all 15 RBDs, whereas significance was defined in terms of thresholds in 12 of the 15 RBDs. For groundwater, the definition of significance of pressures was in terms of thresholds and was linked to the potential failure of objectives in 12 of the 15 RBDs that reported. However, in the second RBMPs the pressure affecting the greatest proportion of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom as a whole was “unknown anthropogenic pressures” (28 % of surface water bodies). In addition, a range of pressures were reported not to have been assessed. All RBDs established an inventory of emissions. Only 11 substances were included in an inventory for all 15 RBDs. The RBMPs stated that substances are only included in the inventories if they are assessed as being relevant. The CIS Guidance Document recommends providing basic estimation of emission including for substances of minor relevance, but this does not seem to have been done. Different combinations of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the methodology were implemented (while the CIS Guidance Document recommends using at least Tier 1+2 for all substances deemed relevant at RBD level. The data quality ranged from good to very uncertain, or was not reported. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status In the three RBDs in Northern Ireland, there was an increase in the number of monitoring sites in coastal waters, lakes and rivers, while the number of sites in transitional waters decreased.

In 12 of the 15 RBDs in Scotland, England and Wales there was a reduction in the number of monitoring sites in all water categories. The largest decreases were generally in transitional waters and coastal waters. The United Kingdom subsequently explained that this reduction is due to better targeting the monitoring effort on the basis of increased knowledge. The proportion of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring decreased, with respect to the first RBMPs, in 12 of the 15 RBDs. The required biological quality elements are not monitored in any water body included in surveillance monitoring for all water categories. Fish are not monitored in any lake in Scotland, England and Wales but are monitored in lakes in Northern Ireland. River continuity is reported not to be monitored in any of the RBDs. Not all River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored at the minimum recommended frequency. Environmental Quality Standards have not been established for sediment or biota, while some River Basin Specific Pollutants have been monitored in these matrices There is a lack of comprehensive reference conditions for a significant proportion of types in each water category, particularly for hydromorphological quality elements. The United Kingdom subsequently highlighted that this is a consequence of using an alternative method for determining ecological potential, by selection of mitigation measures rather than biological quality elements. There is some evolution in the development of assessment methods since the first RBMPs, as there are now developed assessment methods for phytoplankton in transitional waters and angiosperms in coastal waters. However, this is still not the case for fish in lakes, with the exception of the three RBDs in Northern Ireland, nor for hydromorphological quality elements. In Northern Ireland, biological quality element assessment methods are still missing for benthic fauna in lakes and transitional waters, and for macroalgae in transitional waters in one of the three RBDs. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies In the UK overall there has been a net reduction in the number of sites and water bodies monitored for chemical status; only 16 %, 2 %, 3 % and 8 % of the total monitoring sites across the RBDs in the UK are used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes, rivers, transitional and coastal waters respectively. There was no monitoring in territorial waters and their status is not assessed. This reduction can partially be explained by the implementation of a risk based approach (in England, Wales and Scotland) to identify which water bodies require monitoring in order to rationalise the monitoring programme. There was a large increase (from 36 to 96 %) in the proportion of surface water bodies classified as good for the second RBMP compared to the first cycle. There was also a decrease in the proportion with unknown status (from 63 to 2 %). The majority of Priority Substances (ranging from 13 to 41 as monitored) listed across the United Kingdom RBDs are monitored in water for status assessment. Monitoring is undertaken at frequencies that meet the minimum requirements in the Directive at some sites but not at others. Mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene are monitored in biota in most RBDs, at a limited number of sites but at a frequency that meets the requirements of the Directive. Arrangements are in place for the long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those Priority Substances listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota in most RBDs, not all (10 of the 14) substances are monitored consistently across the RBDs. Monitoring frequencies meet the requirements of the Directive. The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification is as specified in the Directive for 12 of the 15 RBDs; three RBDs in Northern Ireland reported the use of a different method. The majority of Priority Substances in inventories and discharged are monitored in the UK RBDs. However, a total of 20 Priority Substances were discharged but not monitored in at least one RBD, with more than three Priority Substances discharged but not monitored in the majority of RBDs. The UK, however, suggests this may be a reporting mistake. More than 80 % of surface water bodies in the UK were classified for chemical status with low confidence and the remainder with either medium confidence or high confidence. A high proportion of water bodies classified in good status but with low confidence were not monitored but classified on the basis of a risk based approach. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies A large proportion (73 %) of the groundwater bodies are not subject to monitoring. Quantitative status is assigned to all groundwater bodies but the method for assigning status without monitoring data is unclear. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Surveillance monitoring is implemented in a limited number of groundwater bodies and operational monitoring does not cover all groundwater bodies at risk.

Substances causing risk are not completely covered by operational monitoring. WFD core parameters are not monitored at all in seven river basin districts and ammonium is not monitored in the remaining eight river basin districts. Groundwater associated surface waters have not been considered in status assessment in the Scotland RBD. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential In general, the methodology for heavily modified water bodies’ designation is well explained in guidelines and/or appendices to RBMPs for all relevant aspects, including significant adverse effects and better environmental options. However, specific information on the outcomes of the assessment of significant adverse effects and better environmental options is not provided at the water body level. Furthermore, physical alterations are not reported for all water categories designated as heavily modified water bodies in all RBDs. For England and Wales, it was explained that information is not held about the history of water bodies that are now considered heavily modified, therefore data on physical alterations cannot be provided. Good ecological potential is defined using the Prague approach (England, Wales and Scotland) or a hybrid approach (Northern Ireland). Good ecological potential has not been defined in terms of biological quality elements for any of the RBDs but on the basis of mitigation measures that must be undertaken to reach good ecological potential. Several mitigation measures for defining GEP are reported in all RBDs but specific assessments of ecological changes expected from taking these measures are not mentioned. However, monitoring is recommended to identify biological changes delivered by the implementation of mitigation measures. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported in all RBDs as well as for chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies. Information is also provided on when the objectives will be achieved. Information on drivers, pressures and impacts leading to exemptions was reported. Still a significant number of exemptions is applied and those related to Article 4(5) have increased. The justifications for exemptions are made more transparent and are provided at the water body level. However, there is still a lack of detail for the justifications and applied criteria in several plans assessed, and those related to Article 4(5) need to be reconsidered.



·Programme of Measures Progress has been fairly good overall with 7 out of the 15 RBDs stating that all measures included in the first Programme of Measures (PoM) had been completed, three RBDs reporting that some of the planned measures had been completed and five RBDs reporting that all planned measures had been started. Changes in the second RBMP have been made in response to improvements in understanding pressures and impacts, significant management challenges and understanding where to prioritise action. Financing of measures has been secured in 12 out of 15 of the RBDs but not for the RBDs in Northern Ireland. With respect to coordination with the Floods Directive, joint consultation was carried out in England and Wales. The objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive have been considered in the second RBMP in all RBDs, specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures have been included in the PoM. The design of new and existing structural measures for the Floods Directive have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives. The plans are not fully integrated, and a joint consultation has not been carried out in Scotland or Northern Ireland. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Five RBDs have reported high values of Water Exploitation Index +, one of them likely beyond sustainability. Most of the abstraction pressure is caused by public water supply, usually from both surface water bodies and groundwater bodies. There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment and a register of impoundments (under Article 11(3)(e)). ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture

The link between pressures and measures has been established on a general level and an appraisal of the gaps between pressures and measures has been done. ·The English RBMPs describes whether measures are mandatory or voluntary. For other RBDs it was not clear whether the measures being recommended were entirely mandatory or voluntary . In many cases measures are based on regulations making them mandatory, but there are a large number of other measures which are likely to be voluntary schemes. ·Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.) are found in all RBDs except Scotland. ·Financing of agricultural measures is secured in all basins, except those in Northern Ireland and Scotland. ·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture The measures proposed are generic and do not address individual Priority Substances, River Basin Specific Pollutants or Groundwater pollutants. There is no information on funding to tackle any of the surface water or groundwater measures included in the UK’s RBMPs. ·Measures related to hydromorphology Operational KTM to address hydromorphological pressures and indicators on the gap to be filled for hydromorphological pressures are explicitly reported for the RBDs in Scotland, England and Wales. For the RBDs of Northern Ireland, relevant KTM have been linked to national hydromorphological measures but they have not been reported as tackling specific significant pressures. The RBMP refers to a "prioritisation of issues" such as barriers to fish migration and to co-ordination of river restoration and continuity work by 2020. However, in most RBDs there is no explicit mention of implementing specific technical measures that will address the priority issues. In the RBDs of Scotland, England and Wales, ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodies, but have been implemented only in some of the water bodies (work still ongoing). In the RBDs of Northern Ireland, ecological flows have been only derived for some relevant water bodies but have not been implemented yet. There are plans to do so in the second RBMP. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies Cost recovery is explained in general but not transparently presented for all relevant user sectors in all RBDs. Only general information on the application the polluter pays principle was reported. ·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) For Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives (associated with both surface and groundwater), additional objectives have been set for the most part. For a proportion of these, it is noted that work is still ongoing to establish the needs. For a small proportion, mainly associated with Natura 2000 sites, the achievement of the WFD objectives is assessed to be sufficient also to achieve the objectives of the other Directives. For Protected Areas associated with shellfish production, specific objectives are set to be identical to the repealed Directive 2006/113/EC in all but a very small number of Protected Areas in the Scotland RBD. The reported monitoring activities are very limited and this represents a significant change since the first RMBP as there was a significant monitoring programme specifically for protected surface water areas covering all relevant Directives and for most of RBDs. Hence reported monitoring activities in relation to Protected Areas seem to be now very limited and lacking for most RBDs, although the monitoring would be reported through other different instruments. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in various ways in all RBDs and it is stated that the guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. However, not all RBDs have performed a climate proofing of measures, and not all have linked measures to the national adaptation strategy.

·There is a sub-plan on water scarcity and droughts for the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs, and in all RBDs in England but no such sub-plans are reported for the other RBDs where drought and water scarcity are identified as issues related to climate change.

Recommendations The United Kingdom needs to ensure that, in the preparation of the next RBMPs, the public is duly consulted taking into account these documents purpose and complexity. The United Kingdom should continue to develop and improve international cooperation in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. The United Kingdom needs to provide a more detailed explanation on the way in which the apportionment of pressures among sources is carried out. Further work is needed in the assessment of pressures, as a wide range of pressures have not been assessed and no specific reasons could be identified for their exclusion. Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances have been established in all RBDs, but not for all Priority Substances and other substances identified in part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive. Complete inventories need to be established. The United Kingdom should strengthen monitoring of surface water by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories for all regions. The United Kingdom should complete the development of assessment methods, including reference conditions, for all relevant quality elements, including hydromorphological quality elements. Assessment methods for biological quality elements should be developed for all water categories. The monitoring for status assessment to reach sufficient confidence and spatial coverage for all the Priority Substances should be continued (including territorial waters whose status should be also assessed). In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to classify all water bodies, and all priority substances should be considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If reduced frequencies or a different matrix are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directive. The United Kingdom should perform trend monitoring to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. The United Kingdom should address the large uncertainties reported in relation to the assessment of the status, the pressures and the effect of potential measures for groundwater bodies. The monitoring of groundwater networks should also be significantly improved. The process to identify heavily modified water bodies and to define good ecological potential needs to be completed. This should be done by providing information on the outcomes of the assessment of significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use or on the wider environment and the lack of better environmental options at water body level (designation tests according to Articles 4(3)a and 4(3)b) in all RBDs. This will improve the transparency of the designation process. Ecological potential needs to be defined in terms of biology in all RBDs. A significant number of exemptions have been applied in the second RBMPs and those related to Article 4(5) have increased. Efforts should continue to further improve justifications for the application of exemptions in relation to Article 4(4) and 4(5) and to make them more transparent in all RBMPs. Particularly the criteria used for the justification of Article 4(5) exemptions need to be reconsidered. The United Kingdom should ensure in all RBDs a thorough assessment of any planned new modifications in line with the requirements of the WFD and as further specified by the Judgment of the Court in case C-461/13. The use of exemptions under Article 4(7) needs to be based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as requested by the WFD and made transparent in the RBMPs. Although indicators of the gaps to good status for significant pressures on groundwater and surface waters have been reported electronically to WISE across the United Kingdom RBDs, indicators of the level of progress expected in the implementation of measures is less well defined. It should be ensured that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and that the Programmes of Measures are designed and implemented to close that gap. KTMs should be operational and cover all the pressures causing failure to reach the objectives. In addition, all individual Priority Substances, River Specific Pollutants and Groundwater pollutants identified as causing failure should be associated with KTMs. The United Kingdom should ensure that funding for the implementation of measures has been secured for all RBDs and that all the costs are reported. The problem of water scarcity and over-abstraction, which are significant pressures in certain RBDs, should be better tackled with targeted measures. The United Kingdom could consider extending controls to all water abstractions, including the smaller ones. For all UK RBDs, it should be stated clearly to what extent, in terms of area covered and pollution risk mitigated, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) or supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) will contribute to achieving the WFD objectives.

The UK should ensure the definition and implementation of appropriate measures to address the significant hydromorphological pressures. The prioritisation of issues does not seem to have been translated into specific actions to tackle the relevant pressures. The UK should finish the establishment and implementation of ecological flows for all relevant water bodies in all RBDs. The United Kingdom should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). It should transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. The United Kingdom should also transparently present the water-pricing policy, including the use of adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. The United Kingdom should extend the establishment of safeguard zones to protect drinking water sources in designated groundwater bodies to all RBDs to ensure that such areas are protected. The United Kingdom should clarify if monitoring programmes for relevant Protected Areas covering both groundwater and surface waters in RBDs are being carried out.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs In the United Kingdom, implementation of the WFD is mainly undertaken at the sub-national level: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. The UK has identified 16 RBDs, of which 12 lie in England, Scotland and Wales, three in Northern Ireland and one in Gibraltar. The United Kingdom did not report a RBMP for Gibraltar in WISE although it was reported to the European Commission as a separate document. The UK shares two international RBDs with the Republic of Ireland: the Neagh Bann and North Western RBDs. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities There are eight authorities reported for the United Kingdom across the five main jurisdictions: ·For Scotland, Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ·For England, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency ·For Wales, the National Assembly of Wales and Natural Resources Wales (which took over the Environment Agency's role for the WFD in Wales in the first cycle) ·For Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; ·And for Gibraltar, the Department of the Environment and Climate Change. 1.1.3River Basin Management plans – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment

Sub-plans to the RBMPs were reported only for Scotland and Solway Tweed, where sub-plans cover water scarcity and droughts, invasive non-native species, restoration of physical conditions (hydro-morphology) and fish barriers. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Strategic Environmental Assessments were carried out for the RBMPs; this was not the case for Scotland and Solway Tweed . 1.1.4Public consultation For all RBMPs except Scotland, it is reported that documents were available for consultation for the requisite six months. For the Scotland district the consultation opened on 9 December 2014 and closed on 9 April 2015. In all UK RBDs, stakeholders were actively involved by authorities. This is reported to include stakeholders in the following areas: agriculture, energy, fisheries, industry, navigation (and ports), water supply, mining and quarrying, urban infrastructure and transport industries, consumer groups, NGOs/nature protection and local/regional authorities. In Scotland, the mechanisms used for active involvement of stakeholders in the development of the RBMPs consisted of advisory groups. In England and Wales, stakeholders were involved via advisory groups, the formation of alliances and involvement in the drafting. In the planning process, authorities engaged with stakeholders using a range of organisations such as catchment partnerships, liaison panels, regional flood and coastal committees, customer challenge groups, and various sector-specific groups such as the estuaries and coasts sub group and the England fisheries group. In Scotland, the changes that were made in the RBMPs in response to issues raised by stakeholders and impacts on the RBMP included introduction of new information, adjustments to specific measures, changes to the selection of measures and commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle. In England and Wales, impacts on the RBMP included introduction of new information, adjustments to specific measures, changes to the methodology used, changes to the selection of measures, commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle and commitment to further research. Further specific impacts included the use of plain English and improved signposting to detailed data and information; providing detailed catchment level information in consultation and updated RBMPs; improved linkages between RBMPs and flood plans and describing links with other plans and processes. Impacts of public participation on the RBMPs are also reported for Northern Ireland: adjustments to specific measures and changes to selection of measures. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive In England and Wales, a joint consultation was carried out between the RBMPs and the Flood Risk Management Plans prepared under the Floods Directive . This was not the case in Scotland, Solway Tweed RBD or Northern Ireland. For RBDs in England and Wales, RBMPs included sections on coordination of measures with the Floods Directive. The Scotland and Solway Tweed RBMPs contain information on links with flood risk management. For England and Wales, a joint consultation was carried out between the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive ; in addition, a document was prepared to assist estuarine and coastal stakeholders respond to the consultation on the draft RBMPs in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. A review found some references to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive but not to that Directive’s objectives. In the RBMP for the South West RBD in England, reference is made to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as a plan affecting water management, but no specific reference is made to the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. There is a link to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive PoM on the RBMP Page of the Defra website . The RBMP for Neagh Bann in Northern Ireland references the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and notes that the Marine Strategy Framework Directive PoM will complement that for the WFD but does not specifically cite the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The RBMP for Scotland provides a reference to the Marine Scotland Act 2010, though not to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive itself. 1.1.6International coordination and co-operation The UK has reported that there is an international agreement and a permanent co-operation body in place with the Republic of Ireland – covering the Neagh Bann and North Western in the United Kingdom (designated as category two cooperation). Joint RBMPs, however, were not prepared. The UK reported that there was no international co-ordination on public participation. Coordination between the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and the Republic of Ireland takes place via the Joint North South WFD Coordination group, a working group under the Joint North South Ministerial Council. Areas of coordination include: local management issues, strategic environmental assessment, monitoring programmes, joint funding of transboundary projects, public communication and a joint approach to setting exemptions . 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle

1.3Progress with European Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: River basin management plans for Gibraltar shall be reported. Assessment: A RBMP for Gibraltar has been adopted . It has not, however, been reported to WISE . Consequently, the United Kingdom has partially fulfilled this recommendation.



Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies Overall in the United Kingdom, there has been a decrease in the numbers of delineated surface water bodies compared to the first cycle, with the biggest decrease occurring for river water bodies (17 %) ( Table 2.1 ). There was a decrease in numbers of river water bodies in 14 of the 15 RBDs with a small increase in Scotland. There are big differences among the four regions and the RBDs. For example, there was a 37 % decrease in the number of river water bodies in the South West RBD (England) and the Western Wales RBD (Wales), around 20 % decrease in numbers of river water bodies in Northern Ireland and a small increase (1 %) in Scotland. For lakes, there was no change in numbers in five RBDs, an increase in one RBD and a decrease in nine RBDs. There was no change between the two cycles in terms of transitional waters in seven RBDs, a decrease in six RBDs and an increase in two RBDs. The regional differences are again highlighted by the fact that there was a small decrease in identified transitional waters in Scotland compared to 15 % increase in the South East RBD (England). Of the 13 RBDs with identified coastal water bodies, there was no change in numbers in six RBDs, an increase in two RBDs and a decrease in five RBDs. Concerning the reasons for the changes, in the Neagh Bann RBD changes made to river water bodies in the second plans were based on aggregation of water bodies of less than 10km2 catchment areas, aggregation of water bodies previously split because they contained more than one monitoring site, or as a result of the review of cross-border water bodies. No changes were reported for lakes. Changes made to transitional and coastal water bodies were due to splitting of water bodies where only part was heavily modified, aggregation of water bodies below the minimum size threshold and changes based on monitoring evidence from the first cycle. Some water bodies with significantly differing quality at different monitoring stations were split. There was also a review of cross-border water bodies which influenced these changes. Similarly, in the Scotland RBD increased understanding of status due to new monitoring data allowed some water bodies to be split where pressures and status varied. In the Severn RBMP, it was explained that the mapping of the network of surface water bodies was updated using a ‘detailed river network’ for the second RBMP. This resulted in a number of very small ‘non-reportable’ water bodies being removed and resolved some errors. No changes to the methodology were made for transitional or coastal water bodies, though some changes have been made to the delineation on a case-by-case basis. For example, some coastal water bodies were changed to transitional water bodies with a corresponding change in the monitoring networks. Table 2 .2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom between the second and first RBMPs. The minimum sizes largely remained the same but there was an increase overall in the minimum length of rivers, which changed from an average minimum length of 0.12 km in the first RBMPs to 1.02 km in the second RBMPs. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes. Table 2.3 summarises the information provided by the United Kingdom on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles for both surface water and groundwater. For surface water, the largest changes were for river water bodies where there were a significant number of deletions and aggregations of water bodies. This may also account for the increase in minimum river water body length if smaller water bodies were aggregated or removed.



Table 2.1Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in the United Kingdom for the second and first cycles Year RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 UK01 2 028 20 810 309 962 39 605 449 45 868 2016 UK02 505 6 154 35 45 11 390 8 1 913 2016 UK03 315 3 514 45 29 7 25 7 524 2016 UK04 844 11 216 134 42 7 328 2 339 2016 UK05 526 6 664 46 44 18 316 13 2 437 2016 UK06 414 5 320 73 32 10 336 1 43 2016 UK07 220 2 309 28 6 23 121 11 1 646 2016 UK08 590 7 025 61 19 23 235 23 3 498 2016 UK09 681 8 199 68 38 6 546 2016 UK10 428 3 858 64 26 28 135 23 4 331 2016 UK11 71 730 21 14 1 109 2016 UK12 434 5 610 163 66 11 279 5 1 511 2016 UKGBNIIENB 199 10 393 2 5 3 227 2016 UKGBNIIENW 162 8 175 2 34 1 166 2016 UKGBNINE 89 3 2 2 1 15 915 2016 Total 7 506 81 409 1 068 1 894 190 3 464 561 63 419 2010 UK01 2 013 20 817 309 961 40 605 449 45 796 2010 UK02 526 6 189 35 45 12 695 8 1 913 2010 UK03 380 3 560 73 29 7 25 7 705 2010 UK04 968 11 179 136 44 8 328 1 329 2010 UK05 757 7 432 49 47 18 328 11 2 256 2010 UK06 483 5 455 76 40 11 336 1 43 2010 UK07 340 2 508 34 47 20 54 16 1 712 2010 UK08 938 7 559 63 27 23 234 25 3 498 2010 UK09 791 8 303 75 43 6 545 2010 UK10 676 4 224 62 26 27 135 24 4 331 2010 UK11 87 753 21 14 1 109 2010 UK12 547 6 020 164 66 12 279 8 1 509 2010 UKGBNIIENB 255 6 754 10 394 2 5 3 227 2010 UKGBNIIENW 208 6 383 9 149 2 35 1 166 2010 UKGBNINE 111 2 612 3 2 3 1 16 916 2010 Total 9 080 99 749 1 119 1 933 192 3 715 570 63 400 Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2.2Size distribution of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom in the second and first cycles

Year RBD River length (km) Lake area (km2) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Mini-mum Maxi-mum Average Mini-mum Maxi-mum Average Mini-mum Maxi-mum Average Mini-mum Maxi-mum Average 2016 UK01 0.08 69.66 10.26 0.5 55.34 3.11 0 70.75 15.52 0 4,448.15 102.16 2016 UK02 0.64 78.9 12.19 0.02 8.69 1.28 0.16 305.78 35.43 42.22 653.19 239.16 2016 UK03 1.37 70.77 11.16 0 10.3 0.64 0.45 11.45 3.57 0.19 126.48 74.93 2016 UK04 1.07 102.13 13.29 0 3.13 0.31 0.06 247.94 46.93 158.42 180.58 169.5 2016 UK05 1.17 189.97 12.67 0 12.12 0.97 0.12 133.63 17.58 0.11 1,195.34 187.45 2016 UK06 0.77 69.69 12.85 0 3.09 0.44 0.05 201.01 33.57 42.67 42.67 42.67 2016 UK07 1.48 87.97 10.49 0 0.78 0.22 0.08 30.94 5.24 0.05 449.76 149.63 2016 UK08 1.6 111.6 11.91 0 3.79 0.32 0.1 70.88 10.2 5.14 825.53 152.08 2016 UK09 0.55 78.72 12.04 0 4.65 0.56 2.02 466.27 90.97 0 0 0 2016 UK10 1.02 47.22 9.01 0 4.93 0.4 0.09 22.13 4.83 0.05 899.88 188.32 2016 UK11 1.5 65.11 10.28 0 4.15 0.66 109.34 109.34 109.34 2016 UK12 1.1 83.06 12.93 0 8.47 0.41 0.1 98.18 25.34 27.88 455.55 302.12 2016 UKGBNIIENB 0 0 0 0.55 381.14 39.28 2.5 2.56 2.53 44.52 122.06 75.75 2016 UKGBNIIENW 0 0 0 0.61 52.79 21.91 13.08 21.42 17.25 166.47 166.47 166.47 2016 UKGBNINE 0 0 0 0.51 0.95 0.7 0.33 0.6 0.46 1.29 162.89 61.01 2010 UK01 0.08 69.61 10.34 0.5 55.33 3.11 0 70.74 15.13 0 4,454.96 102 2010 UK02 0.56 77.64 11.77 0.02 8.68 1.28 0.16 305.68 57.95 42.23 653.19 239.14 2010 UK03 0.21 75.96 9.37 0 10.29 0.4 0.16 11.43 3.51 0.19 257.77 100.66 2010 UK04 0.11 111.22 11.55 0 3.12 0.32 0.06 247 41.01 328.85 328.85 328.85 2010 UK05 0.01 116.54 9.82 0 12.12 0.96 0.12 133.61 18.21 0.11 1,195.91 205.09 2010 UK06 0.06 82.33 11.29 0 4.86 0.52 0.05 201.04 30.56 42.68 42.68 42.68 2010 UK07 0.03 83.41 7.38 0 36.03 1.4 0.08 30.91 2.71 0.05 450.01 107 2010 UK08 0.12 109.91 8.06 0 6.72 0.43 0.23 70.84 10.19 0.02 825.3 139.91 2010 UK09 0 101.65 10.5 0 4.65 0.57 2.02 465.92 90.9 0 0 0 2010 UK10 0.08 54.03 6.25 0 4.93 0.41 0.09 22.13 4.99 0.05 899.63 180.46 2010 UK11 0.16 65.08 8.66 0 4.15 0.66 109.28 109.28 109.28 0 0 0 2010 UK12 0.1 82.27 11.01 0 14.36 0.4 0.11 98.1 23.27 0.16 451.38 188.61 2010 UKGBNIIENB 0.71 162.78 26.49 0.54 381.79 39.35 2.5 2.56 2.53 44.54 122.09 75.79 2010 UKGBNIIENW 0.65 140.21 30.69 0.56 57.78 16.53 0.77 34.48 17.63 165.73 165.73 165.73 2010 UKGBNINE 1.16 111.69 23.53 0.53 0.88 0.67 0.07 0.59 0.33 1.29 185.73 57.22 Source: WISE electronic reports Table 2.3Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in the United Kingdom between the first and second cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Body Lake Water Body River Water Body Coastal Water Body Transitional Water Body Aggregation 2 189 3 2 Aggregation and splitting 57 4 Splitting 9 158 2 4 Change 4 20 804 16 3 Change in code 3 Extended aea 7 3 1 Reduced area 10 7 Creation 433 3 82 3 4 Deletion 370 70 2071 21 12 No change 353 1034 6227 542 177 Total water bodies before deletion 1158 1136 9577 582 202 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 788 1066 7506 561 190 Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.2Designation of heavily modified water bodies There was a 15 % decrease in the number of delineated surface water bodies between the two cycles. In the second cycle, 70.5 % of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom were natural, 24 % heavily modified and 5.5 % artificial. Overall in the United Kingdom, there was a decrease in the number and proportion of heavily modified water bodies between the two cycles ( Figure 2 .1), particularly in terms of heavily modified river water bodies where there was a decrease in numbers and proportion in 14 of the 15 RBDs. The exception was for Scotland where there was an increase of 18 % in heavily modified water bodies from the first to the second cycle. Generally fewer artificial water bodies are identified than heavily modified water bodies. 13 UK RBDs identified artificial water bodies, in 10 of these there was a decrease in numbers between the two cycles, in two others (Scotland and Neagh Bann) the number was the same, and in the South West RBD numbers increased in the second cycle. Of the 11 heavily modified lake water bodies in Northern Ireland, eight are reservoirs where the water body was originally a natural lake, and three were reservoirs where the water body was originally a river. This information on reservoirs was not reported for most of the other UK RBDs. Heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. Figure 2.1Proportion of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.3Delineation of groundwater bodies Overall in the United Kingdom there was a 20 % increase in numbers of groundwater bodies from the first cycle ( Table 2.4 ). The biggest increase (75 %) occurred in the North Eastern RBD (Northern Ireland). There was a 20 % increase in numbers of groundwater bodies in Scotland and a 5 % decrease in the South West RBD. In three RBDs, the numbers remained the same, in three these decreased and in nine, the number of groundwater bodies increased as compared to the first cycle. Overall the changes in groundwater body delineation were due to a better understanding of groundwater since the first cycle and an improved risk/status assessment leading to identification of more groundwater bodies. A UK Technical Advisory Group methodology on groundwater delineation and characterisation was identified for the second cycle, which superseded the methodology set out in UK Technical Advisory Group paper 6(a). All RBDs have used this new methodology and all have updated groundwater bodies delineation. Since the first cycle, groundwater bodies have been delineated using the characteristics of the superficial deposits and soils and the calculation of the long term annual average rate of overall recharge. Effort was also put into distinguishing between different layers, a shallow layer of superficial groundwater bodies, and a deep layer of bedrock groundwater bodies. Superficial groundwater bodies are defined as permeable superficial deposit aquifers with a minimum area of one km2, which are subdivided by large surface water catchments, and bedrock groundwater bodies are defined primarily by bedrock aquifer type. The Neagh Bann RBMP highlighted that there is now better mapping data and information on superficial deposits and information on land use pressures. There are nine superficial groundwater bodies in Northern Ireland (two in Neagh Bann RBD) that were delineated for the first time in the second RBMP. In the Scotland RBMP (Scotland RBD) individual aquifers were subdivided further to reflect differences in pressures on, or vulnerability of, different parts of the aquifers. The South West RBD used improved mapping to update the boundaries of groundwater bodies but full details of how this was done are not given in the RBMP. Not much information was provided in the RBMPs on the consequences of the changes of water body delineation to groundwater body status and to comparability with the first cycle. However, in the Severn RBMP, a comparison was made of water body status in 2009 and 2015. Groundwater quantitative status has improved, with 91 % of groundwater bodies at good status in 2015 compared to 84 % in 2009, but groundwater chemical status has deteriorated, from 64 % at good status in 2009 to 51 % in 2015. No analysis of how the re-delineation may have influenced this was provided. Table 2.3 summarises how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles which shows a significant number of deletions and creation of water bodies for groundwater.



Table 2.4 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 UK01 344 1.69 9,383.87 206.6 2016 UK02 64 8.71 2,453.50 252.25 2016 UK03 10 269.18 1,824.08 855.51 2016 UK04 51 9.06 1,968.22 479.61 2016 UK05 31 37.11 3,074.49 539.36 2016 UK06 47 7.57 990.95 217.81 2016 UK07 33 10.62 970.35 195.86 2016 UK08 42 2.07 1,817.62 390.88 2016 UK09 42 10.28 2,691.04 480.09 2016 UK10 25 7.42 1,947.81 489.47 2016 UK11 5 96.36 962.61 423.48 2016 UK12 18 22.92 1,514.79 630.17 2016 UKGBNIIENB 16 2.47 916.22 382.21 2016 UKGBNIIENW 46 0.06 887.83 106.06 2016 UKGBNINE 14 7.46 1,250.56 213.3 2016 Total 788 0.06 9,383.87 264.5 2010 UK01 284 2.11 2,742.90 234.39 2010 UK02 73 3.65 1,781.70 214.85 2010 UK03 9 293.01 1,822.74 949.88 2010 UK04 50 9.05 1,967.33 488.14 2010 UK05 31 37.1 3,118.16 539.36 2010 UK06 46 7.57 1,080.29 222.71 2010 UK07 30 10.61 969.67 211.77 2010 UK08 44 1.88 1,817.42 366.65 2010 UK09 40 10.28 4,064.46 507.54 2010 UK10 25 2.57 1,947.43 487.57 2010 UK11 6 30.81 962.13 350.18 2010 UK12 18 22.9 1,396.90 602.52 2010 UKGBNIIENB 14 2010 UKGBNIIENW 45 2010 UKGBNINE 8 2010 Total 723 1.88 4,064.46 283.64 Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.4Identification of transboundary water bodies The only two RBDs in the United Kingdom that are part of international RBDs are in Northern Ireland: both have reported transboundary coastal, transitional and river water bodies, and also lakes in one RBD (North Western). In the Neagh Bann RBD 16 transboundary groundwater bodies were reported and 46 in the North Western RBD. 2.1.5Typology of surface water bodies There has been an increase in the number of reported river types, from 45 in the first RBMPs to 57 in the second RBMPs ( Table 2.5 ). In the second RBMPs, there were 36 lake and 10 transitional water types compared to 43 and 11, respectively, in the first RBMPs. For both cycles 19 coastal water types were reported. The biggest decrease in numbers of surface water types between the two cycles was for the Solway Tweed RBD. This RBD had the most types in the first RBMP. Solway Tweed is shared between the English and Scottish Competent Authorities, it is likely that typology codes have been harmonised in this shared RBD for the second cycle resulting in fewer type codes overall . Type codes have been reported for all surface water bodies in the United Kingdom, including artificial and heavily modified water bodies. It should be noted that more types were reported for each category in the WISE methodological schema than in the WISE surface water body schema. The reasons for this are not known but could relate to different types being assigned to one water body. For example in the Severn RBMP, it was reported that the lakes typology was adjusted to include three depth categories rather than two. Member States were asked to report ‘Not applicable’ in WISE if there is no corresponding intercalibration type for national types . Overall in the United Kingdom, five of the 19 coastal water types did not have corresponding intercalibration types. In summary, 16 of the 36 reported lake types in the United Kingdom did not have corresponding intercalibration types, representing 67 % of lake water bodies. Similarly for rivers, 29 of the 57 river types did not have corresponding intercalibration types, representing 19 % of river water bodies and for transitional waters 3 of the 10 transitional water types did not have corresponding intercalibration types, representing 14 % of transitional water bodies. Around 76 % of artificial water bodies, 30 % of heavily modified water bodies and 21 % of natural water bodies in the United Kingdom were reported not to have corresponding intercalibration types . It should be noted that all except four of the 9325 surface water bodies in the United Kingdom had a reported ecological status or potential. In conclusion, there is some uncertainty on the comparability of the ecological status/potential for a significant proportion of lake water bodies and artificial water bodies in the United Kingdom. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level for the first and second cycles. Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs. RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd UK01 21 20 16 16 4 3 9 8 UK02 45 24 30 15 9 3 16 3 UK03 24 16 14 7 5 1 7 4 UK04 24 16 14 9 5 3 7 2 UK05 24 10 14 3 5 4 7 4 UK06 24 11 14 7 5 2 7 1 UK07 24 8 14 3 5 3 7 3 UK08 24 15 14 6 5 5 7 6 UK09 24 17 14 7 5 2 7 0 UK10 24 13 14 9 5 4 7 7 UK11 24 9 14 7 5 1 7 0 UK12 24 22 14 9 5 1 7 1 UKGBNIIENB 8 9 13 5 6 1 12 3 UKGBNIIENW 8 10 13 4 6 1 12 1 UKGBNINE 8 6 13 3 6 1 12 3 Total 45 57 43 36 11 10 19 19 Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.6Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in the United Kingdom for which reference conditions were established, for the first and second cycles. Reference conditions have not been established for all biological quality elements for all types in any of the four water categories in the United Kingdom. Over 82 % of types in each category have not had hydromorphological reference conditions established . The situation for physicochemical quality elements is in-between the biological quality elements and hydromorphological quality elements, where reference conditions have been established for some quality elements in most types. In terms of each water category, reference conditions have been established for all relevant biological quality elements in 40 % of transitional waters types, 26 % of coastal waters types, 17 % of lake water types and 16 % of river water types. In terms of hydromorphological quality elements, there are no types in any category where reference conditions have been established for all relevant quality elements, and for 100 % of transitional waters, 96 % of coastal waters, 83 % of lake waters and 82 % of river waters types, reference conditions have not been established for any relevant quality element. In terms of physicochemical quality elements, there are no types in any category where reference conditions have been established for all relevant quality elements. However, there are some reference conditions for some of the relevant physicochemical quality elements for all types in lake, river and transitional water bodies, and for 96 % of coastal water types. In conclusion, the lack of comprehensive reference conditions for a significant proportion of types in each water category, casts doubt on the validity of ecological assessment methods in the United Kingdom .

Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in the United Kingdom with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes All 17 % Some 78 % 17 % 100 % None 5 % 83 Rivers All 16 % Some 60 % 18 % 100 % None 24 % 82 % Transitional All 40 % Some 40 % 100 % None 20 % 100 % Coastal All 26 % Some 70 % 4 % 96 % None 4 % 96 % 4 % Source: WISE electronic reports 2.1.7Characteristics of groundwater bodies The reported information included the geological formation of the aquifer types in which groundwater bodies reside and details of whether groundwater bodies are layered. Linkage of water bodies to surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems has been reported for all RBDs. In the first RBMPs, information on whether a groundwater body was layered or not, and links to surface water bodies, had only been reported for the 11 England and Wales RBDs but not for the RBDs in Scotland and Northern Ireland. No information on links to terrestrial ecosystems and on the geological formation of aquifers was reported for any UK RBDs in the first cycle. Overall there seems to have been progress in further characterisation of groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom between the two cycles. 2.1.8Significant pressures on water bodies It is difficult to compare the number and proportion of water bodies affected by significant pressures because of the changes introduced to the types of pressures reported for the second cycle and because the United Kingdom only reported pressures at the aggregated level in the first RBMPs, while disaggregated pressures were reported in the second RBMPs. In addition, the United Kingdom re-delineated its surface and groundwater bodies for the second cycle meaning that there were often fewer water bodies in the second RBMPs. Figure 2.3 shows that there is an apparent decrease in diffuse, point and hydromorphological pressure types. Figure 2.4 shows that the most significant pressures on surface waters in the United Kingdom were reported to be anthropogenic unknown (28 %), followed by diffuse agricultural (20 %) and physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – other (20 %). These pressures vary across regions in the UK. In the first RBMP, the Scotland RBD reported significant proportions of its surface water bodies to be affected by point source, diffuse source, water abstraction and water flow regulations and morphological alteration pressures. In the second RBMP for the Scotland RBD, most of the surface water reported to be affected by pressures were by unknown anthropogenic pressures (42 % of surface water bodies). In other RBDs, there are some striking differences between the two cycles irrespective of the changes in water body delineation and definition of pressure types for reporting. For example, in the Anglian RBD in the first RBMP, 715 river water bodies (94 %) were affected by point source pressures and in the second RBMP, 302 river water bodies (57 %). Similarly, in the South West RBD in the first RBMP, 722 (80 %) river water bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures, and in the second RBMP, 325 (55 %). Twenty one different pressure types are reported to affect groundwater bodies, although one type (Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Agriculture) may be a reporting error. Diffuse agricultural pressures were the most significant pressure in terms of the proportion of affected groundwater bodies in seven of the 12 UK RBDs reporting this pressure. Mining pressures are also significant in nine RBDs and abstraction or flow diversion pressures were reported in seven RBDs. A range of pressures have not been assessed in surface water, for example 19 pressure types in Solway Tweed RBD and South West RBD (e.g. physical alteration, dams, barriers and lock, hydrological alteration, hydromorphological alteration, exploitation or removal of animal/plants, litter, anthropogenic pressures), and 34 in the Neagh Bann RBD (e.g. abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture and dams, barriers and locks for irrigation). However, no specific reasons could be identified in the RBMPs for the exclusion of these pressures from the assessment. Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note there were 9325 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 10961 for the first cycle. Source: WISE electronic reports



Figure 2.4 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reports

2.1.9Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater The definition of significance of pressures on surface water was reported to be linked to the potential failure of objectives in all 15 RBDs, whereas significance was defined in terms of thresholds in 12 of the 15 RBDs: the three exceptions were the three RBDs in Northern Ireland . For example the Scotland RBMP describes that pressures are identified as significant where they have contributed to a breach of an environmental standard for good status or are contributing to a risk that an environmental standard will be breached (e.g. contributing to an upward trend in the concentration of pollutants). For surface water, a combination of both expert judgment and numerical tools have been used in all 15 UK RBDs to assess significance of both point source, diffuse source and water flow regulation and morphological alteration pressures. For groundwater, a combination of both expert judgment and numerical tools were used in 12 RBDs for point source pressures: these pressures were reported not to be assessed in three Northern Ireland RBDs . Artificial recharge to groundwater pressures was not assessed in three RBDs (Scotland, two in Northern Ireland) . The definition of significance of pressures on groundwater was determined based on thresholds and was linked to the potential failure of objectives in 12 of the 15 RBDs. In the three Northern Irish RBDs, the significance of pressures on groundwater was not determined on the basis of thresholds nor linked to the potential failure of objectives. Since the first RBMPs there has been further data gathered, but no specific changes in the methodology for the second RBMPs were identified. Information from the South West RBMP shows that more than 1,900 investigations have been carried out to identify the reasons (pressures and sources of pressures) why good status and protected area objectives have not been achieved, but the methodology documents behind these investigations and other risk assessments are not accessible. For Scotland, it is stated that ‘Over the period 2009 to 2015, we have improved our understanding of pressures and their impacts on bodies of surface waters. Among the reasons for this was the availability of a further six years of targeted environmental monitoring and developments in scientific knowledge of the environmental standards needed to protect aquatic plant and animals.’ However, a detailed description of the methodology used and changes since 2009 is not given in the RBMP . 2.1.10Significant impacts on water bodies Nutrient pollution (34 % of surface water bodies), altered habitats due to morphological change (32 % of surface water bodies) and organic pollution (13 % of surface water bodies) were the three most common impacts reported by the United Kingdom in the second RBMPs ( Figure 2.5 ). The UK reported six impact types on groundwater ( Figure 2.5 ). The most significant in terms of the proportion of affected water bodies was chemical pollution (16 % of groundwater bodies) followed by damage to groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems for chemical / quantitative reasons (13 %) and diminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical / quantitative reasons (11 %). The other impacts were relatively minor. Figure 2.5 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports As for comparing significant pressures between the two cycles, it is also difficult to compare significant impacts because of changes in delineation of water bodies and in the definition of impact types between the cycles. Overall in the United Kingdom, there has been a 15 % decrease in the numbers of surface water bodies between cycles. However, a number of impact types have stayed the same between the two cycles: nutrient enrichment; organic enrichment, acidification and saline intrusion. In addition, for the first cycle an impact was "Contamination by Priority Substances or other specific pollutants". For the second cycle "chemical pollution" was the relevant impact type, which would also include River Basin Specific Pollutants thereby making the two types not strictly comparable. For most of the United Kingdom RBDs, there was a reported decrease in the percentage of surface water bodies impacted by nutrient enrichment and organic enrichment with the biggest decrease of 45 % in the Western Wales RBD for nutrient enrichment. A striking observation is that in the first cycle 3067 (28 %) surface water bodies in UK were reported to be impacted by "Contamination by Priority Substances". Using the broader definition of chemical pollution for the second cycle, only 314 (3 % surface water bodies) were affected. Irrespective of the changes in the delineation of water bodies and impact definitions between the two cycles, this seems to be a very significant change. 2.1.11Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status Overall in the United Kingdom, 38.5 % of groundwater bodies were at risk of failing to be in good chemical status, with the greatest proportion in the North West RBD (100 %) and the smallest in Scotland (1.7 %). This information was not reported in the first RBMPs. 53 pollutants were identified as causing a risk of failure in groundwater bodies in the United Kingdom as a whole. 18 pollutants were causing a risk in groundwater bodies in 10 or more of the 15 RBDs, with nitrate being reported in all 15 RBDs (this suggests that nitrate was included as chemical pollution rather than nutrient enrichment in the reporting of impacts). Cadmium and its compounds and Nickel and its compounds were causing a risk in groundwater bodies in 11 RBDs, fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene in 10 RBDs. At the United Kingdom level, nitrate was causing a risk in the most groundwater bodies (32 %), followed by lead (22 % of groundwater bodies) and copper (18 % of groundwater bodies). Overall in the United Kingdom, 36 % of groundwater bodies were at risk of failing good quantitative status. All water bodies in the North West RBD were at quantitative risk with the fewest groundwater bodies at risk in Scotland (2.6 %). The reasons for the risk on quantitative status in the United Kingdom were significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration in 27 % of groundwater bodies; significant diminution of the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions in 16 % of groundwater bodies; exceedance of available groundwater resource by long-term annual average rate of abstraction that may result in a decrease of groundwater levels in 14 % of groundwater bodies; and saline or other intrusions in 8 % of groundwater bodies. 2.1.12Quantification and apportionment of pressures Member States report, for each significant pressure type, the quantitative indicators of the scale of the pressures in terms of the gap required to be filled for the achievement of the Environmental Objectives and the Key Types of Measure to address the reported gap: these are hereafter called "pressures for which measures are reported".

For the United Kingdom as a whole 35 different surface water pressure types were reported. Diffuse agricultural pressures were reported for 14 out of the 15 UK RBDs, the next most reported was ‘unknown anthropogenic pressures’ in 13 RBDs and the least common was ‘abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture’ in one RBD. The activities/sectors that are contributing significantly to the different impacts that are causing failure of good ecological status/potential and good chemical status are only reported for some RBDs. For example, the South West RBD identified that agriculture was the sector affecting most water bodies, followed by the water industry. Almost a third of the sectors could not be categorised and were classified as unknown. A comparison of the surface water pressures for which measures have been reported against those reported at the water body level (WISE surface water bodies schema) indicates that there are a number for which measures have not reported in some RBDs . These include, for example Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Unknown or obsolete in Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs and Point - Aquaculture in the Neagh Bann and North Eastern RBDs. Conversely, abstraction or flow diversion pressures in general were reported to be tackled by Key Types of Measure in the Scotland and Solway Tweed RBDs even though these pressures had not been reported at the surface water body level. Measures were reported for 21 different pressures on groundwater in the United Kingdom as a whole, though two (Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Other and Hydromorphological alteration - Other) may have been reported for groundwater in error. As for surface water, diffuse agricultural pressures were reported by the most RBDs (14), followed by Groundwater - Alteration of water level or volume pressures in 10 RBDs. The least common pressure reported was diffuse transport pressures in one RBD. At the United Kingdom level, measures were reported for groundwater for a number of pressures for which the pressure was not reported at the groundwater body level. These were: Point - Other, Diffuse - Transport, Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore - Other, Hydromorphological alteration - Other, Introduced species and diseases and Anthropogenic pressure – Unknown. Conversely, a number of pressures were reported at the groundwater body level but not in terms of planned measures. These are: Abstraction or flow diversion – Agriculture; Abstraction or flow diversion - Public water supply; Abstraction or flow diversion – Industry and Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – Agriculture. As described previously the hydromorphological pressure types and pressures arising from introduced species and diseases may be a reporting error as these pressure types would not be expected to be relevant for groundwater. No information was found in the RBMPs about which activities/sectors are contributing significantly to the different impacts that are causing poor status in groundwater bodies. 2.1.13Quantification of gap to be filled for pressures causing failure of status objectives In groundwater, 30 individual chemical substances and six ‘other’ chemical substances, including metaldehyde, were reported (in terms of measures to be taken) to be causing failure of good chemical status in groundwater. Measures are also planned to tackle nitrate in 10 of the 15 UK RBDs, ammonia in six and chemicals arising from mining in six. In surface waters 23 chemical substances, including some Priority Substances such as mercury and benzo(a)pyrene, and River Basin Specific Pollutants, such as dichlorvos and copper, were reported to have measures planned. The chemicals in surface waters for which measures are planned in the most RBDs in the UK were lead, zinc (nine RBDs each), nickel and copper (in seven RBDs each). There are a number of Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status in surface waters for which specific measures are not reported. These are: endosulfan; di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), tributyltin, DDT, hexachlorocyclohexane, trichloroethylene, cyclodiene pesticides, Total benzo(b)fluor-anthene +benzo(k)fluor-anthene, total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene. 2.1.14Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive ) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances. All 15 RBDs have reported an inventory of emissions, but not all substances were included in these inventories. The RBMPs stated that substances are only included in the inventories if they are assessed as being relevant, the relevance criteria are discussed in Chapter 4. 11 substances appeared consistently in all inventories for all 15 RBDs. For 14 of the 15 RBDs, total point and total diffuse sources are included in the inventories, while for the North Western RBD only total diffuse sources are included. The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances included in the inventories in 13 of the 15 RBDs. Different combinations of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the methodology were implemented. The data quality was assessed as good, uncertain or very uncertain, or not reported. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle Overall in the United Kingdom there has been a 15 % decrease in the numbers of delineated surface water bodies compared to the first cycle, with the biggest decrease occurring for river water bodies (17 %). There are big differences among the four regions and the RBDs. For example, there was a 37 % decrease in river water bodies in the South West RBD (England) and the Western Wales RBD (Wales), around 20 % decrease in numbers of river water bodies in Northern Ireland and a small increase (1 %) in Scotland. In the second RBMPs, 70.5 % of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom were natural, 24 % heavily modified and 5.5 % artificial. Overall in the United Kingdom, there was a decrease in the number and proportion of heavily modified water bodies between the two cycles, particularly in terms of heavily modified river water bodies where there was a decrease in numbers and proportion in 14 of the 15 RBDs. The exception was for Scotland where there was an increase of 18 % in heavily modified water bodies from the first to the second cycle. There has been an increase in the number of reported river types, from 45 in the first RBMPs to 57 in the second RBMPs. In the second RBMPs, there were 36 lake and 10 transitional water types compared to 43 and 11, respectively, in the first RBMPs. For both cycles 19 coastal water types were reported. In the first RBMP, Scotland reported significant proportions of its surface water bodies to be affected by point source, diffuse source, water abstraction and water flow regulations and morphological alteration pressures. In the second RBMP for the Scotland RBD, most of the surface water reported to be affected by pressures were by unknown anthropogenic pressures (42 % of surface water bodies). In other RBDs, there are some striking differences between the two cycles irrespective of the changes in water body delineation and definition of pressure types for reporting. For example in the Anglian RBD in the first RBMP, 715 river water bodies (94 %) were affected by point source pressures and in the second RBMP, 302 river water bodies (57 %). Similarly, in the South West RBD in the first RBMP, 722 (80 %) river water bodies were affected by diffuse source pressures, and in the second RBMP 325 (55 %).

For most of the United Kingdom RBDs, there was a reported decrease in the percentage of surface water bodies impacted by nutrient enrichment and organic enrichment with the biggest decrease of 45 % in the Western Wales RBD for nutrient enrichment. In the first cycle, only an inventory performed under the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) existed. For the second RBMPs much more detailed information has been reported to fulfil the requirements of the EQS Directive. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations ·Recommendation: Provide a more transparent approach where there is a quantitative apportionment of pressures between all the contributory sources with the respective contributions they are expected to make to the achievement of WFD objectives. Assessment: In the United Kingdom, for the first RBMPs a quantitative source apportionment was undertaken for some impacts and their main pressures.For other pressures a more qualitative apportionment was performed, where sources were identified but their relative contribution to impacts and pressures on water bodies were not assessed or quantified. There were also differences between the four regions in the United Kingdom. In the second RBMPs, the United Kingdom reported indicators of the gaps to be filled for a number of significant pressures (e.g. for diffuse agricultural pressures). For all pressures these are in terms of numbers of water bodies, and length and areas of water bodies failing WFD objectives, and no indicators on loads of pollutants needing to be reduced or barriers that require action to achieve objectives have been reported. From this information it is not clear what progress has been made. The recommendation has not been fulfilled, and more information on source apportionment is needed. ·Recommendation: Address the large uncertainties reported in the first RBMPs in relation to the assessment of the status, the pressures and the effect of potential measures. Assessment: In terms of the assessment of pressures, there is no evidence of progress in the information reported to WISE: 28 % of surface water bodies in the United Kingdom were reported to be affected by unknown anthropogenic pressures and no further information was found in the RBMPs. The recommendation has not been fulfilled. ·Recommendation: More information needs to be included in the RBMPs on the methodology used to identify significant pressures and how this analysis feeds into the development of monitoring programmes and how the measures defined address the significant pressures. Assessment: In terms of characterisation, the United Kingdom reported to WISE on the tools used to assess significant pressures indicating some progress. As recorded above, the United Kingdom reported many different significant pressures (including unknown anthropogenic pressures, which requires further investigation) and has reported Key Types of Measures for some but not for all pressures. Since the first RBMPs there has been further data gathered but no specific changes in the methodology for the second cycle of RBMP were identified. There is therefore no evidence that this recommendation has been fulfilled.



Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Monitoring programmes are reported for all 15 RBDs and include all the expected water categories and purposes (surveillance and operational). Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Figure 3.1 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance and operational monitoring. In 12 of the 15 RBDs in the United Kingdom, there has been a reduction in the number of monitoring sites in all applicable water categories from the first to the second RBMPs. The largest decreases were generally in transitional waters and coastal waters; for example, there was an 88 % reduction in transitional water sites in the Anglian RBD and in coastal water sites in the South East RBD. In contrast, in the three RBDs in Northern Ireland, there was an increase in numbers of sites in coastal waters, lakes and rivers, while the number of sites in transitional waters decreased. In general, in the second RBMPs more sites are used for operational monitoring than for surveillance monitoring: for example, 21316 and 2634 sites in rivers, respectively, in the United Kingdom. Overall, there was a reduction in the numbers of sites used in rivers for surveillance for the second RBMPs (2634) compared to the first RBMPs (5584) and the same is true for operational monitoring (29702 for the first plans and 21316 for the second).

Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in the United Kingdom for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP UK_01 365 1 104 68 113 62 83 179 69 UK_02 167 736 16 25 14 15 17 7 UK_03 190 1 062 14 25 11 14 11 21 UK_04 215 3 388 11 32 22 24 2 8 UK_05 158 2 715 10 33 16 33 14 20 UK_06 131 2 153 6 39 17 27 0 0 UK_07 119 1 197 4 9 18 41 16 19 UK_08 316 2 654 11 29 52 46 27 31 UK_09 222 2 403 14 30 18 29 0 0 UK_10 410 1 225 21 21 70 99 59 70 UK_11 59 176 5 9 15 0 0 0 UK_12 162 1 826 48 83 19 35 11 21 UK_GBNIIENB 39 299 92 0 68 7 43 12 UK_GBNIIENW 56 246 119 0 86 5 28 3 UK_GBNINE 25 132 24 0 25 4 270 44 Total by type of site 2 634 21 316 463 448 513 462 677 325 Total number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring 22 474 844 811 813 first RBMP UK_01 669 1 335 73 133 48 146 206 342 UK_02 364 980 10 42 33 45 24 37 UK_03 445 1 621 3 95 120 129 84 111 UK_04 484 4 293 2 155 131 137 12 13 UK_05 613 3 469 3 57 229 329 84 110 UK_06 291 2 332 1 94 194 248 1 UK_07 346 1 628 1 30 141 197 137 176 UK_08 919 3 794 3 95 277 309 99 178 UK_09 311 3 871 3 83 159 173 UK_10 559 2 547 14 66 191 208 352 429 UK_11 83 421 2 22 51 51 UK_12 385 2 780 15 182 161 165 34 84 UK_GBNIIENB 36 281 15 14 69 12 UK_GBNIIENW 55 229 26 10 123 16 UK_GBNINE 24 121 3 3 44 73 Total by type of site 5 584 29 702 174 1 081 1 971 2 137 1 133 1 481 Total number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring 29 986 1 155 2 386 1 694 Source: Member States electronic reports to WISE Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in the United Kingdom Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal CHE - Chemical status 139 532 25 63 ECO - Ecological status 394 2 007 287 546 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 201 526 15 92 OPE - Operational monitoring 448 21 316 462 325 SEA - International network of a sea convention 11 1 8 SHE - Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii 27 SOE - EIONET State of Environment monitoring 221 104 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 463 2 634 513 677 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 201 637 15 94 Total sites irrespective of purpose 845 22 484 811 813 Source: WISE electronic reports

Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in the United Kingdom for the first RBMPs (2010) and second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reports In all except one RBD (Scotland), there was an increase in the numbers of sites used for the surveillance monitoring of lakes. In the North Eastern RBD there was an eight-fold increase (3 to 24 sites) and in the Thames RBD a six-fold increase (one to six sites). There was also an increase in the numbers of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring of rivers, and surveillance sites in coastal waters in the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. Otherwise there were significant decreases in the numbers of sites used to monitor rivers, transitional waters and coastal waters in the 12 RBDs in Scotland, England and Wales for surveillance purposes (except transitional waters in the Scotland RBD) and for operational purposes. For example, for surveillance monitoring in rivers in the Anglian RBD, there was a reduction from 613 sites for the first RBMP to 158 sites for the second, while for operational monitoring the reduction was from 3469 sites for the first RBMP to 2715 for the second. Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies subject to surveillance monitoring in each ecological status/class.

Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in the United Kingdom. Note: Standard colours and class descriptors for ecological status based on WFD Annex V, Article 1(4)2(I) used for illustration purposes. Source: WISE electronic reports A differentiated presentation between ecological status and potential and including all types of quality element can be viewed here - https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_QualityElement_Status_Compare/SWB_QualityElement_Group?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showAppBanner=false&:showVizHome=no Transboundary surface water body monitoring

Of the 15 RBDs in the United Kingdom only the three located in Northern Ireland reported that some of their monitoring sites were part of international networks. Some of the sites in coastal, transitional and river water bodies were part of a sea convention network. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of all relevant water categories for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. No general physicochemical quality elements have been reported to be monitored in any water category in the RBDs entirely within England or the English parts of the RBDs shared with Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom has clarified that this is due to a reporting error. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in the United Kingdom (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: WISE electronic reports. The United Kingdom subsequently indicated that in England hydrological regime is monitored in rivers and that the freshwater flow into most transitional waters is monitored and modelled and results are subsequently reported. Fish are not monitored in any lake in all RBDs in Scotland, England and Wales, but are monitored in lakes in Northern Ireland. Fish were also not reported for some RBDs with transitional waters in England, where they had been monitored for the first plan. River continuity is reported not to be monitored in the United Kingdom. Hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored in coastal waters in the United Kingdom nor in transitional waters in most RBDs. The hydrological/tidal regime is not monitored in any water category or RBD in the United Kingdom, except for lakes in two of the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. In terms of the quality elements monitored for surveillance purposes, only six of the RBDs in the United Kingdom (Scotland, Solway-Tweed, Western Wales and the three RBDs in Northern Ireland) had any coastal water bodies where all required biological quality elements were monitored. For lakes, all of the 15 RBDs had no water bodies where all required biological quality elements were monitored. In contrast, 14 of the 15 RBDs had a number of river water bodies where all required biological quality elements were monitored with the fewest being in the Anglian RBD (6 %) and the most in the North Western RBD (95 %). Only the Scotland RBD had none. 12 RBDs had no transitional water bodies where all required biological quality elements were monitored. All required biological quality elements were monitored in at least some transitional water bodies in the Scotland RBD (15 %), in the Western Wales RBD (80 %) and in the Dee RBD (100 %). Only six of the 15 RBDs (Severn, Western Wales, Dee and the three RBDs in Northern Ireland) reported any hydromorphological quality elements to be included in surveillance monitoring. All the required hydromorphological quality elements were not monitored in any water body in the United Kingdom. Morphological conditions were monitored for surveillance in some water bodies in those six RBDs but hydrological or tidal regime were only monitored in two of the three RBDs in Northern Ireland. River continuity was not reported to be monitored in any river water body in the United Kingdom for any purpose. Only one river water body included in surveillance monitoring in the United Kingdom is monitored for all expected physiochemical quality elements. Seven of the 15 RBDs did not report any physicochemical quality elements to be monitored; these are all solely in England. The United Kingdom clarified that this was due to a reporting error and that physicochemical quality elements were monitored in those RBDs. All river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in the remaining eight RBDs included oxygenation and nutrient conditions (phosphorus) and almost all thermal conditions (98 %). The WFD states that "Operational monitoring shall be carried out for all those bodies of water which, on the basis of either the impact assessment carried out in accordance with Annex II or surveillance monitoring, are identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives under Article 4". A comparison of the number of water bodies at less than good ecological status/potential and the number of these that are included in operational monitoring indicates that for a number of RBDs and water categories over 90 % of water bodies at less than good status/potential are included in operational monitoring: coastal waters in five RBDs, transitional waters in four and rivers in ten. For these RBDs and water categories, this is consistent with the reported basis of classification, which for rivers is overwhelmingly based on monitoring. However, for lakes, in general less than 50 % of water bodies at less that good status/potential are included in operational monitoring. For some RBDs in England and Northern Ireland this is not consistent with the reported means of classification which is largely based on monitoring. This raises a question as to how the lakes at less than good status/potential have been classified. Grouping has been reported to be used in Scotland for some water bodies in all categories. Annex V of the Water Framework provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the 6-year period covered by a RBMP. For phytoplankton, this should be done twice during the monitoring year and for the other biological quality elements once during the year. Operational monitoring should take place at intervals not exceeding once every six months for phytoplankton and once every three years during the 6-year cycle for the other biological quality elements. Greater intervals may be justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. 89 % of sites used to monitor phytoplankton for surveillance purposes in the United Kingdom were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency. All other biological quality elements used for surveillance monitoring were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all of the sites at which they were monitored. Of the seven biological quality elements used for operational monitoring only angiosperms were sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency at all sites where it was monitored, which was only 13 sites. Of the other biological quality elements, the next largest proportion of sites sampled at least at the minimum recommended frequency was macroalgae (99 % of 79 sites), followed by phytobenthos (88 % of 4209 sites), benthic invertebrates (87 % of 6997 sites), macrophytes (80 % of 3886 sites), phytoplankton (71 % of 259 sites) and fish (31 % of 4149 sites).

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Table 3.4 shows the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants in the UK as reported in the first and second RBMPs. The three RBDs in Northern Ireland reported monitoring sites at the aggregated quality element level (QE3-3 - River Basin Specific Pollutants). No other River Basin District did so at this aggregated level. The monitored chemical substances including River Basin Specific Pollutants were also reported at the individual substance level for 15 RBDs in the UK. Reported chemical substances that are not Priority Substances or Certain Other Pollutants are assumed to be River Basin Specific Pollutants, as the explicit reporting of monitored individual River Basin Specific Pollutants was not requested for the reporting of the second RBMPs. On this basis 101 different chemical substances are monitored in the United Kingdom. 60RBSPs are monitored in water in coastal waters, 36 in lakes