Water Framework Directive and EIA: our experience. Jo Murphy, MIEMA CEnv MCIM National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS) 31 May 2012

Transcription

1 Water Framework Directive and EIA: our experience Jo Murphy, MIEMA CEnv MCIM National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS) 31 May 2012

2 The plan Me: Aims & objectives of the Water Framework Directive What/why/how/when approach to WFD assessment Integration into environmental assessment Compliance and contribution Based on NEAS experience Steve: Application to case studies and different sectors Based on White Young & Green s experience

3 What

4 The philosophy The Directive: water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such The Regulations: a new strategic planning process for the purposes of managing, protecting and improving the quality of water resources

5 WFD objectives Promote sustainable water use Aim to achieve at least good status for all waters by Where this is not possible, good status should be achieved by 2010 or Prevent deterioration and enhance status of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands Reduce pollution from priority substances Prevent deterioration / reduce pollution of groundwater Contributing to mitigating effects of floods and droughts

6 River Basin Planning Identifies significant water management issues and water body specific problems Determines the cause of problems, many of which are the result of complex or cumulative interactions Defines current status allowing objectives for improvements to be established in each water body

7 Why..should we.. should you? In all instances, flood and coastal risk management should avoid damaging the environment and wherever possible work with natural processes and always seek to provide environmental benefit, as required by the Habitats, Birds and Water Framework Directives. National Flood Risk Management Strategy

8 Internal works and activities WFD requires waterbodies to reach good ecological status (GES) or potential (GEP) if heavily modified There is a no deterioration obligation New modifications affect hydromorphology & have the potential to cause deterioration or prevent achievement of GES/GEP New modifications can alter physical characteristics - or hydromorphology hydrologic and geomorphological processes and attributes of rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters. encompasses: form, function and connectivity which supports ecological status

9 Externally facing work Consents and compliance Applicants for flood defence consent must prepare a WFD compliance assessment. It is the Environment Agency s responsibility to take enforcement action if required. Planning applications local authorities consult us Generally - contribution A hook to challenge your teams to make better decisions e.g. how can we improve the design to work more with the environment?

10 Exemptions and Article 4.7 WFD gives a number of exemptions if we can t avoid deterioration Defences to use if fail to meet objectives or cause deterioration Article 4.7 is such an exemption which deals with new modifications Need to meet these tests in order to avoid infraction All practicable mitigation incorporated No significantly better environmental options test The scheme is of overriding public interest and/or the benefits of the scheme outweigh the benefits of WFD Reasons for the modifications reported in the River Basin Management Plan

11 skip Article 4.7 applies when Failure to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status or, where relevant, good ecological potential or to prevent deterioration in the status of a body of surface water or groundwater is the result of new modifications to the physical characteristics of a surface water body or alterations to the level of bodies of groundwater, or Failure to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surface water is the result of new sustainable human development activities.

12 And there s more: 4.8 and 4.9 skip In other water bodies, projects cannot permanently: Cause deterioration; or Exclude or compromise the achievement of WFD objectives (Article 4.8) Schemes have to be consistent with the impelmentation of other European environmental legislation (Article 4.9) Steps must be taken to ensure the same level of protection

13 Why integrate with EIA? European & UK government advice Common sense it is impact assessment Applies whether statutory EIA being undertaken or not even the smallest of projects could lead to cumulative effects

14 How

15 Strategic (and generic) considerations To maximise the contribution of FCRM to delivering the requirements of the RBMPs, Programmes of Measures and Implementation Plans. To include alternatives that would not result in significant adverse impacts on the water environment and avoid narrowing down alternatives to a selection that would compromise any article 4.7 consideration at a project level. To include wherever possible mitigation, opportunities or enhancements that could contribute to the achievement of good status or potential. To clarify the reasons for the modification and whether they are of overriding public interest or benefit to the environment, human health, human safety or sustainable development.

16 Screening and scoping An important factor in screening, but need to consider earlier (client s perspective) e.g. setting a budget and procuring suppliers. Include relevant water body in scoping request: Planning Authority will seek views of consultation bodies. Consider all river water bodies and their tributaries; not just blue line in the RBMP. Likely impacts on characteristics or levels, links between scheme, hydromorphology and biodiversity? Impact on achievement of objectives / compromise any other legislation? We have plenty of data available in GIS format (tool under development for external use) also RBMP annexes.

17 Baseline Surface water bodies: rivers, lakes, transitional or coastal (incl. Artificial Water Bodies (AWB) or Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB)) Quality elements biological elements and their supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical elements (incl pollutants) Groundwater quantity and chemical elements (incl pollutants) status defined by condition of lowest quality element

18 Alternatives What mitigation measures are in the RBMP Environmental Reports? What measures are in the RBMPs themselves? The beneficial objectives served by the modifications or alterations of the water body cannot for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

19 What are elements? Quality element status - helps determine overall ecological/ chemical status/ potential. Effect of options upon each scoped in element needs to be assessed. Water Body Type River/ Coastal water bodies River water bodies only Coastal water bodies only Quality Elements Biological Physio-chemical Hydromorphological Phytoplankton Benthic invertebrates Macrophytes and phytobenthos Fish fauna Other aquatic flora (e.g. macroalgae, angiosperms, sea grass, sea weed salt marsh) Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity Nutrient conditions Acidification status Transparency Depth variation Quantity, structure & substrate of bed Flow (quantity & dynamics) Connection to groundwater body Structure of the riparian zone Structure of the intertidal zone Direction of dominant currents Freshwater flow Wave exposure

20 Assessment: preliminary before detail Review relevant strategy s compliance assessment Which water bodies are relevant? Which elements are relevant? Follow guidance to get an initial understanding Determine need for / scope of further work No likelihood of non-compliance: document Uncertain: scope further work proportionately Possible or probable: detailed assessment required

21 Detailed assessment Based on preliminary scope four key areas: Deterioration Ability to achieve good status Impacts on other water bodies Other European legislation

22 Mitigation As per normal EIA: inherent (design modification) or including additional measures Improvement of the water body: restoration, new habitat, sustainable drainage systems, fish passes etc: comprehensive technical guidance plus proposals within RBMPs Example advice on website: Fluvial design guide Estuary edges guide Marine dredging WFD guidance Hydromorphology guide (1-6) Mitigation measures manual Lots on Defra (eg TAG)

23 Contributing to mitigation measures Yes Has a morphology investigation been undertaken? No Identify the refined mitigation measures that could be delivered as part of this activity Identify the mitigation measures that could be delivered as part of this activity Will the measures: be technically infeasible; or disproportionately costly? Will the measures: be of no ecological benefit; negatively impact on the modification itself; negatively impact on the wider environment; be technically infeasible; or disproportionately costly? No Yes Yes No Don t deliver the measure Deliver the measure

24 Reporting Integrated within ES (Reg 22 request possible) Description of site, extent of works, relationship to water bodies Baseline water body and quality elements, physical modifications, characteristics, biological effects etc Significant effects e.g. Direct effects changes to channel, new structures etc Cumulative other developments in the same water body Pollutants disturbed sediments or anticipated discharges Effects on protected areas nutrients, bacteria, water levels, wetland condition, physical changes etc

25 Reporting ctd Alternatives considered Inter-relationships (between topics) is important Document justification against 4.7 tests (if req.) All practicable mitigation included in the scheme Statement of public interest How benefits to human safety, health or sustainable development outweigh the environmental benefits of improving the water body Technical feasibility or disproportionate cost Reporting obligation (via RBMP)

26 When

27 When to do this work When affecting ground / surface / coastal water bodies Some consideration required by client to build into brief and budget Consultation and engagement: brings together different disciplines CRITICAL to consider from the outset Must be done before approvals environmental permits, consents, planning etc for us might mean accelerating ahead of EIA as links to internal business case funding

28 Summary What New strategic planning process Requires protection of water resources as a natural heritage Surface and groundwater, coastal and inland How Integrate with EIA steps Use stakeholder engagement to assist Inter-relationships and cumulative important Procure specialist resources if likely to be an issue Why To meet the legal compliance for no deterioration To not prevent the achievement of GES / GEP To contribute to RBMP delivery When All stages (SEA & EIA) Projects affecting water bodies All steps of EIA Full paper contributing authors: Claire Vetori, Bruce Munro, Richard Woodward and Amy Cocker

29 Sources of information WFD 2000/60/EC or Regs SI 2003 No 3242 European Guidance - Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive: Guidance document No 20 Guidance Document on Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives (WFD Mitigation Measures Manual) Website what s in my backyard or RBMP link for data Profiles of individual water bodies available on request - Customer Services Our short & full paper are online, plus another in the Environmentalist in June

30 skip Our approach to strategies for reference, not to present

31 skip Consultation Are there any useful notes in the River Basin Management Plan / SEA engagement records that are applicable? Are there any established consultation mechanisms, frameworks and contacts that can be used here (in addition to the Liaison Panels)? Other internal prompts to identify relevant contacts.

32 skip Baseline What information has already been gathered / mapped and is this easily adaptable for the purposes of SEA baseline information? Include information on water body status and objectives within relevant sections, ensuring consideration of interrelationships including any recommended mitigation measures which can help in developing enhancement proposals. Are any of the pressures likely to be affected by the plan? What are the key reasons for failure to achieve good / potential status? Are there any inter-related issues, for example invasive species? Should anything be classed as an environmental problem?

33 skip Plan and Policy Review What PPPs have been reviewed in the RBMP SEA and could those tables be used and adapted for FRM purposes? Is it up to date? Are there additional plans that should be assessed for FRM purposes that have been omitted from the WFD PPP review? Are the any actions or partnerships identified that would benefit the plan or project?

34 skip Appraisal criteria What were the SEA appraisal criteria for the RBMP and do they set the framework for this SEA? Have any been cascaded or tiered? Ensure appraisal criteria for the SEA include consideration of WFD.

35 skip Scoping Detailed guidance on how to scope hydromorphology in or out of an assessment is provided at a project level but adapted and applied strategically at the SEA level. It is likely that for all strategies you will scope in the need to consider hydromorphology and ecology but further consideration will need to be given to determine what about these topics will be included.

36 skip Alternatives You must consider the WFD when developing both the long and short list of alternatives, to ensure better environmental options, including those that work with natural processes or land management solutions for example, have been incorporated. Could, through delivering multiple benefits, the proposals potentially help to address any of the issues / problems identified above? What mitigation / enhancement / monitoring measures were identified in the SEA and could they be incorporated into options? Refer to Annex C of the Plan and the individual environmental reports. Were there any actions to improve status which could be included in the list of potential alternatives? Have you included strategic alternatives which would satisfy the significantly best environmental option requirement (see below)? Have you included options which are capable of meeting the tests for overriding public interest/benefits comparison test (see below)?

37 skip Impact assessment The actions you undertake here will depend on whether hydromorphology and WFD assessment was scoped into the study. As this is likely, the following prompts should be considered: Do the options result in hydromorphological change and what is the resultant ecological effect? Is this likely to lead to a change in status? How do different options compare in their contribution to good status? Do any of the options fail to prevent deterioration or compromise the achievement of WFD objectives (or implementation of measures)? Have you considered wider effects, cumulative and interrelationships, including up and down stream ie on other water bodies (Article 4.8)? Do any of the options compromise existing environmental protection (Article 4.9)? Can any more be done to help the water body meet its objectives? Consider whether, by modifying the activity, a meaningful contribution might be made to improving those elements for which the water body is currently failing. Any such modifications must be technically feasible and not disproportionately costly.

38 skip Mitigation As with other impacts, you will need to consider what can be mitigated strategically and what will apply at a project scale. It is more likely that impacts can be avoided at the strategic level by the choice of preferred option. The critical role of mitigation in determining whether 4.7 compliance assessment is required, and in meeting the criteria for approval, is detailed further in the OI