Assessing new modifications for compliance with WFD:
detailed supplementary guidance
Supplementary guidance 488_10_SD01
What’s this
document
about?
Issued 09/11/10
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) introduces new
environmental requirements. As the competent authority for
WFD, we need to ensure that the activities and duties we
undertake are fully compliant.
At the Environment Agency we:

install new structures, instigate new activities and
undertake ongoing maintenance activities which affect
the water environment;

assess applications for consents and permits, in the
water environment;
Document
details

Related
documents
This document provides detailed supplementary guidance
on how to assess the impacts of new modifications in the
water environment to ensure compliance with the WFD in
line with 488_10. If we fail to undertake such assessment
there will be infraction and reputation risks for the UK
government.
Feedback
provide advice to other regulatory bodies on applications
that affect the water environment.
All of these activities have the potential to impact on WFD
objectives.
Contact for
queries
Lucy Taylor
721 2054
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 1 of 46
Who does this
apply to?
This document is for functional leads in:

Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM);

Water Resources;

Recreation & Navigation;

Fisheries;

National Environmental Assessment Service (NEAS);

Conservation & Ecology;
 Environmental Planning.
It is not intended that this document is issued directly to
operational teams, rather used to WFD-proof existing
processes or produce further guidance documentation to
ensure WFD compliance.
This document provides over-arching guidance so that
functional specific documentation takes a consistent
approach.
Contents
Assessing WFD compliance of new modifications
Process overview
3
3
Step 1: Collect water body baseline data
6
Step 2: Collect proposed scheme data
7
Step 3: Preliminary assessment
8
Step 4: Design and Options appraisal and selection of
preferred option
14
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Step 5: Detailed Impact assessment
15
Step 6: Application of Article 4.7
24
Step 7: Reporting
40
Step 8: Follow up Post project appraisal work
41
Glossary
43
Related documents
44
Appendix 1
45
Appendix 2
46
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 2 of 46
Assessing WFD compliance of new modifications
Process overview
Overview of 8
step process
This document provides supplementary guidance on the 8 step process to
assess the compliance of new modifications with the Water Framework
Directive 488_10:
Step 1. Collect Water body baseline data
Step 2. Collect proposed scheme baseline data
Step 3. Preliminary assessment
Could the project cause deterioration or failure to meet
GES/GEP
No
No further assessment
required - check if scheme
can deliver improvement
measures and report results
Yes
Yes
Step 4 : Design and Options appraisal
WFD considerations when choosing preferred option and
building mitigation into design
Mitigation measures informed by impact
assessment can feed into design of
scheme and reduce/remove impacts
Step 5: Detailed Impact assessment
Will the scheme cause deterioration or failure to meet
GES/GEP?
No defence
available – scheme
is not compliant
with WFD
If no residual
impact - No further
assessment
required
No further assessment
No required - check if scheme
can deliver improvement
measures and report results
Yes
Step 6 . Application of Article 4.7 tests
Step 6.1 – Can the Article 4.7 defence be used?
No
Yes
6.2 All
practicable
mitigation
6.3 Significantly
better
environmental
options
6.4 Overriding
public interest
and/or benefits
comparison
6.5 Reasons
for the
modifications
or alterations
6.6 Consideration of
impacts on other water
bodies and ensuring
compliance with other
legislation
Step 6.7 Article 4.7 support group
Step 7 .Reporting
Step 8 .Follow-up post project appraisal work
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 3 of 46
The 8-step
process
Below are links to each of the 8 steps of the process:
Step 1: Collect water body baseline data
Step 2: Collect proposed scheme baseline data
Step 3: Preliminary assessment
Step 4: Design, options appraisal and selection of preferred option
Step 5: Detailed Impact assessment
Step 6: Application of Article 4.7
6.1 Can the Article 4.7 defence be used?
6.2 All practicable mitigation
6.3 Significantly better environmental options
6.4 Overriding public interest and benefits comparison
6.5 Reasons for the modification
6.6 Consideration of impacts on other water bodies and ensuring compliance
with other legislation
6.7 Article 4.7 support group
Step 7: Reporting
Step 8: Follow-up post-project appraisal work
Who collects
the
information
for this
assessment?
Internal schemes
For internal schemes and activities undertaken by the Environment Agency
we will need to collect the relevant data and evidence to apply the steps as
necessary.
External schemes that we permit
The applicant should provide the appropriate information to allow the
assessment to be made.
External schemes where we act as consultee
We must advise the other body on what needs to be done to ensure WFD
compliance. This should include advice given in our EIA consultation role
during scoping and often screening. However the assessment itself is not
done by the Environment Agency.
! Important For external schemes that are not consented by us, we are still
responsible for reporting any use of the Article 4.7 defence to Europe in the
next river basin management plan. We therefore have to collect evidence
and information on schemes and input this to the iRBM data solution. The
reporting process is described in detail in Step 7.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 4 of 46
Links with EIA The EIA directive (85/337/EEC) makes it a statutory requirement to
undertake EIA on certain schemes. Assessing schemes for WFD
compliance is best aligned with steps of an EIA and the links between the
two processes are highlighted throughout.
Internal Environment Agency schemes that do not require statutory EIA may
still undergo an Environmental Assessment that can also be used as a
vehicle to collect the relevant information for the WFD compliance
assessment.
Local Authority schemes may undergo a sustainability appraisal which can
be used to collect the information for the WFD compliance assessment.
Where an EIA, or other forms of environmental or sustainability appraisal are
not required then the principles of this document should still be followed and
a WFD compliance assessment report produced. WFD compliance can also
be reported as part of the existing permitting processes.
Interpreting
EIA results in
light of WFD
Whilst Environmental Assessment is an efficient mechanism to gather the
relevant information for WFD compliance assessment, it still needs to be
interpreted in relation to WFD. Impacts of biology, chemistry and
hydromorphology need to be considered in relation to WFD status classes
and reported under a specific WFD section in any environmental statement
or report produced or in a separate WFD compliance report..
Schemes not
requiring
WFD
compliance
assessment
There are certain activities that we consider not to be at risk of causing
deterioration or failing to achieve WFD status/potential objectives. These are
as follows:
Types of modification not requiring WFD assessment
Re-pointing (block work structures)
Void filling ('solid' structures)
Re-positioning (rock or rubble or block
work structures)
Replacing elements (not whole
structure)
Maintenance activities
Re-facing
Skimming/covering
Blockage removal
Removal or management of in-stream
debris/rubbish from culverts and trash
screens (Not woody debris)
Vermin control
Linear flood defences
Temporary flood defences
If the activity falls into the categories listed in this table then WFD
assessment is not required.
This list is not exhaustive and there may be other types of activity that can be
screened out and this will be picked up in functional specific guidance.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 5 of 46
Step 1: Collect water body baseline data
Step 1
This first step of the process is to collect WFD data on the current status of the
water body in which the development is proposed. For further information
about where data to support this process can be found refer to 488_10 on
‘Assessing new modifications for compliance with WFD’.
Use
To
iRBM data solution
identify:
 the water body ID number(s) (for
example, GB107041006480
 current status – overall and
individual quality elements;
 water body objective and date to
achieve objective;
 hydromorphological designation and
designation use (if designated);
 where designated - information on
ecological potential classification
and mitigation measures in place
and missing;
 reasons for failure (if failing);
 length / area of water body (km/km²)
 river basin characterisation risk
assessment information on
morphological pressures within the
water body – extent of
morphological alteration as
produced by RBC project in 2006.
Easimap for National Permitting
If there is an internationally protected
site (for example,
SAC/SPA/Ramsar/Drinking Water
protected areas) up/downstream that
could be impacted.
river basin management plans
identify planned water body measures.
(Annex B & C), or regional databases
(EasiWFD/AEP)
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 6 of 46
Step 2: Collect proposed scheme data
Step 2
Step 2 involves collecting information on the proposed development.
For internal schemes, this may require redefining the information provided by
the project manager to ensure that WFD assessment can be undertaken
For external schemes we permit and licence this might involve rewriting
guidance to third party applicants on the information needed to assess their
licence/permit application.
! Important: Not all of this information may be available at this time.
When considering external schemes the applicant must assemble as much
necessary information and evidence as is available. Our role is to assess or
advise on compliance with WFD and with Article 4.7 and where appropriate
to provide guidance on how to improve their schemes.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Step
Likely information required:
2.1
Precise geographical location – 10-figure National grid reference of
scheme, or start and end point
2.2
Size (for example, dimension and capacity of a dam, length of river
modified)
2.3
Exact nature of the engineering works or activity/materials it is likely
to be constructed from
2.4
Likely footprint/extent of impact – how much of the water body will
the scheme impact? For example a new weir may only take up a
short amount of channel length, BUT the impounding effects of the
weir may be a much larger extent of the water body.
2.5
Timing of the works – start and end date;
2.6
Working method statement
2.7
Any mitigation/compensation built into the scheme design
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 7 of 46
Step 3: Preliminary assessment
Step 3
This step aims to screen out projects from further assessment that are
unlikely to have an impact on WFD objectives. This preliminary assessment
should be done alongside EIA screening and scoping to assess which WFD
quality elements need to be scoped into the EIA.
If it is envisaged that there will be no deterioration across any of the WFD
quality elements and the scheme will not prevent the water body from
meeting its status or potential objectives then no further WFD compliance
assessment is needed. This decision and the basis for it should be
documented and recorded in the ‘scoping’ section of the Environmental
Statement.
For our own internal schemes Step 3 should be undertaken in-house and not
contracted out. Step 3 should be a fairly quick screening step to undertake
and should not take up a lot of time.
Not all the relevant information may be available at this time and there may
be a need to progress through the process without all of the information
The preliminary assessment is described in Steps 3.1 – 3.5 below:
Potential impacts
No deterioration
will occur
3.3 Sensitive critical habitats check
Potential impacts
No deterioration
will occur
No further
assessment required
(Scope into EIA)
3.2 Assess cumulative impacts
Proceed to step 4
No deterioration
will occur
Detailed impact assessment required
Potential impacts
3.1 Preliminary assessment of deterioration: Use
of morphology screening tables
Is the water body at GES/GEP
No
Yes
3.4 Impacts on proposed water body
measures
Potential impacts
No failure to
achieve GES/P
3.5 Can scheme deliver GES/P improvement
measures
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 8 of 46
Step 3.1
Preliminary assessment of deterioration
Consider if the scheme will cause deterioration to any of the WFD quality
elements.
Look across the biological, chemical, hydromorphological and physicochemical elements within the relevant water body category (river, lake,
estuary or coastal water). See ‘Look-up table A’ for the full list of elements
that could be affected.
If…
Then…
a quality element will not be affected
by the scheme
it can be scoped out of any further
assessment
a quality element is likely to be
negatively impacted by the scheme
it should be scoped in for more
detailed impact assessment
there are no impacts likely across
any of the quality elements
move to step 3.2 to consider
cumulative impacts
High status
elements
Where quality elements are at high status then these will be need to be
closely scrutinised as these will be most sensitive to deterioration. Where a
quality element is at high status it is defined as having biological, chemical
and morphological conditions associated with no or very low human
pressure. Any development within a water body with high status elements is
therefore at risk of causing deterioration. Any developments or activities that
could affect them will be subject to significant scrutiny and will have to
demonstrate a great deal of certainty if the activity is deemed to not result in
deterioration.
Morphological
impacts of
schemes
The Environment Agency has established technical expertise in assessing
biological, chemical and hydrological impacts of schemes. This existing skill
base will make it easier to decide if these quality elements need more
detailed assessment. Morphology is not so routinely considered.
In terms of EIA, standard areas such as ecology or biodiversity, water quality
and hydrology are likely to already be part of the EIA assessment where
significant impacts are expected. However, geomorphological assessment is
not undertaken as standard.
We have therefore provided morphology screening thresholds to help
determine if a more detailed morphological impact assessment is needed.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 9 of 46
Morphology
screening
tables
Look-up table B has been compiled to indicate whether a detailed
morphological impact assessment will be required.
! Important To use the tables you will need the river water body length. This
data is pre-calculated in the River Basin Characterisation data set in the iRBM
data solution in the ‘RIV LENGTH’ column.
Important! These screening thresholds have been developed for rivers
and should not be applied to other water body categories such as
transitional, coastal or lake waters.
! Important Where quality elements are at high status then these will be
need to be closely scrutinised as these will be most sensitive to
deterioration.
The screening tables also give guidance on which schemes need to be
recorded in iRBM, even where detailed assessment is not required.
The water body per cent thresholds of concern have been compiled using
expert judgement. The scientific evidence base linking morphological alteration
and biological response is currently weak and work is needed to confirm these
thresholds. If evidence can be provided that these thresholds should be raised
or lowered then please contact the hydromorphology team.
At the current time the thresholds of concern only cover river water bodies. We
are working to develop similar screening tables for lakes, transitional and
coastal waters, canals and restoration activities. These will be issued in due
course. So in the meantime this will have to rely solely on expert judgement.
! Important When using the screening tables and you must consider the
scheme impacts in their entirety. Consider the extent of impact from
construction, operation and maintenance phases of the activity as well as
impacts caused by gaining access and egress to the site to undertake works.
When using the morphology screening tables:
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
A scheme falls below the
screening thresholds
Proceed to Step 3.2 to consider cumulative
impact
A scheme exceeds the
screening threshold
Morphology needs to be scoped into detailed
assessment - Proceed to step 3.4 to consider
impacts to GES/GEP
! Important: Expert opinion
suggests morphology is at
risk even though the scheme
is below screening thresholds
Proceed to Step 3.4 to consider impacts to
GES/GEP
Evidence exists to show that
morphology is not at risk,
even though the scheme
exceeds screening thresholds
Morphology can be scoped out from detailed
assessment. Proceed to step 3.2 to consider
cumulative impacts. Record evidence in the
audit trail.
! Important: Water body is
over 30km (c10 per cent of
waters)
The screening thresholds should not be
used. In large water bodies screening
thresholds will allow a large amount of
modification. The thresholds will not be robust
and an expert judgement needs to be applied.
Where a scheme spans a
water body boundary
If a new scheme spans the boundary between
water body A and water body B, then calculate
whether the screening thresholds would be
exceeded in whichever is the smaller water
body. If thresholds are exceeded in the
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 10 of 46
smaller water body then detailed assessment
is needed - Proceed to step 3.4 to consider
impacts to GES/GEP
Step 3.2
Cumulative impacts
Consideration is also needed to the cumulative impacts within a water body.
Although individually a scheme may have an insignificant impact on the WFD
quality elements within a reach, the combined effect of several small-scale
schemes within a water body may cause deterioration. It is important to
consider the cumulative effects of existing pressures of a similar nature in a
water body and the combined impacts of the proposed scheme.
What needs to be considered
How
Existing pressures
The river basin characterisation data
(RBC) in the iRBM data solution
shows the extent of morphological
pressures within a water body (as of
2006).
Recent schemes
Consult the Article 4.7 compliance
register on the iRBM data solution for
other schemes that have recently
been through the WFD compliance
assessment process.
Local knowledge
For example local knowledge on
existing dredging activities and their
frequency, timing, volume and the
dredging technique could all be used
to consider if a new activity could
cumulatively lead to deterioration.
Other planned schemes
Other ‘new;’ schemes, introducing
similar pressures to the scheme in
question, may be planned for the
water body.
Where other schemes are in fairly
advanced stages of planning these
should be factored into consideration
of cumulative impacts. Schemes that
appear in plans, programmes and
strategies that are funded and so will
take place, for example on the
Medium Term Plan, should also
factor into consideration. Consider
the extent of impact these new
schemes may have
Expert judgement is needed to judge whether cumulative impacts will occur.
This consideration should only include other pressures that affect the same
quality elements as those affected by the proposal
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
Cumulatively the new scheme could
cause deterioration
Detailed investigation is needed.
Proceed to step 3.4 to consider
impacts to GES/GEP.
Cumulative impacts are not likely to
cause deterioration
Proceed to step 3.3
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 11 of 46
Step 3.3
Critical / Sensitive habitats
Although the extent of a scheme may be minimal it may fall on critical or
sensitive habitats or species in the water body. If the proposed scheme is on
habitats that are critical to the individual biological quality elements or on a
particularly sensitive habitat then further investigation is required.
Critical habitats could be those of unique importance or offering a rare
combination of features that are critical to the ecological health of the water
body. Sensitive habitats are those which are sensitive to change. For
example where sediment is removed from a chalk stream which has minimal
energy to replenish the sediment, this would create a long term impact.
Transitional/coastal waters (TRaC)
If the proposed scheme is predicted to impact any salt marsh or seagrass
habitat then it is suggested that further assessment is required, unless
evidence exists that the scheme will not have a negative impact.
Data are available for both saltmarsh (nationally) and seagrass (partially)
from the National Marine Monitoring team.
For transitional and coastal waters only a small proportion of sensitive
habitats are represented in ecological status classification (saltmarsh and
seagrass extent). Critical TraC habitats that have not been mapped will not
be registered in terms of ecological status classification for a water body.
However these are fundamental to the actual ecological function of a water
body, for example, mudflats, biogenic reefs, maerl beds and kelp beds.
Work is currently underway to map these habitats and build them into
ecological classification tools. Consult with internal experts (National Marine
Monitoring Team or local marine teams) to see if critical or sensitive habitats
will be impacted.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
Critical or sensitive habitats or
species will be negatively impacted
and could lead to deterioration
Detailed investigation is needed.
Proceed to step 3.4 to consider
impacts to GES/GEP.
Impacts on critical or sensitive
habitats or species are not
anticipated to lead to deterioration
Proceed to step 3.4
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 12 of 46
Step 3.4
Impacts on proposed WFD improvement / mitigation measures
Where a water body is at less than good status or potential, there will be a
series of proposed improvement and/or mitigation measures planned to bring
the water body up to GES/GEP.
Any new scheme or activity could potentially compromise or render proposed
improvement/mitigation measures ineffective. This could prevent the water
body meeting its ecological objective.
For example, a new bank reinforcement scheme might be proposed in a
water body where existing bank reinforcement needs to be removed to
achieve GES/GEP. Under WFD, activities cannot prevent a water body from
meeting the GES/GEP by the objective deadline, by invalidating
improvement measures.
Step 3.4 should consider if the water body is currently at less than good
status/potential. If so, look at the list of planned measures for that water
body collected in step 1.
Consideration then needs to be made as to whether the new scheme will
compromise or render these measures ineffective. If so, then further
consideration to design is needed to see if this can be avoided or mitigated.
Step 3.5
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
The scheme could cause
deterioration OR failure to meet
water body objectives
Further consideration is needed.
Proceed to step 4
The scheme will not cause failure to
meet water body objectives
Proceed to step 3.5
Can the scheme include GES/GEP improvement or mitigation measures
If the water body is at less than good status then consult the RBMP or
discuss with the River Basin Programme Manager as to whether any of the
required measures could be built into the scheme design.
If…
Then…
the scheme can include improvement
or mitigation measures required to
meet GES/GEP.
Proceed to step 7 to record the result
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 13 of 46
Step 4: Design and Options appraisal and selection of
preferred option
Step 4
WFD objectives and where necessary, Article 4.7, should be considered
during the design and options appraisal stage.
If schemes are likely to cause deterioration then scheme redesign, inclusion
of suitable mitigation or alternative options should be considered in the first
instance. If changing the scheme design or adding mitigation measures or
changing the preferred option reduces the residual impact such that the
scheme does not cause deterioration or failure to achieve GES/P then Article
4.7 can be avoided (the scheme will be WFD compliant). Considering
mitigation for WFD impacts early may avoid needing to change design to
incorporate mitigation at a later stage.
! Important: Avoiding impact to WFD objectives through scheme redesign,
inclusion of mitigation or alternative options MUST first be considered before
we invoke Article 4.7. Only proceed to Article 4.7 is the WFD impacts are
unavoidable.
If the impacts are unavoidable that the scheme is going to cause
deterioration or prevent the water body from meeting WFD objectives then it
should only be given approval if the conditions in WFD Articles 4.7, 4.8 and
4.9 are met.
If the scheme fails any one of the 4.7, 4.8 or 4.9 conditions then it is
non-compliant with the WFD
The Article 4.7 tests are not run formally until it has been determined via an
impact assessment whether deterioration or failure to meet WFD objectives
is likely to occur. However, Article 4.7 conditions need to be considered at a
high level throughout the design and options appraisal stage as they are
fundamentally tied to mitigation measures, consideration of options and
comparison of benefits analyses.
It is particularly important to consider the following:
At…
Consider…
the options appraisal
stage
if alternative options can avoid anticipated
deterioration or failure to achieve GES/GEP
if deterioration is unavoidable, the Article 4.7
condition that asks whether there are significantly
better environmental options. Alternative options
that are a significantly better environmentally can
only be discounted if they are technically infeasible
or disproportionately costly.
the design stage
If design options or mitigation measures can avoid
anticipated deterioration or failure to achieve
GES/GEP
if deterioration is unavoidable, the Article 4.7
condition that requires that ‘all practicable steps are
taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of
the body of water’
if the scheme can include any water body
improvement measures required to meet GES/GEP.
Consult the RBMP or discuss with the River Basin
Programme Manager to establish the required
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 14 of 46
measures for that water body
Step 5: Detailed Impact assessment
Step 5
Schemes reaching step 5 will have been identified as potentially:

causing a deterioration in WFD status/potential
or

preventing a water body from meeting its ecological objectives.
Detailed assessment to establish WFD compliance is therefore needed.
Step 5.1
If…
Then…
the scheme is at risk of causing
deterioration
proceed to Step 5.1.
the scheme is at risk of preventing
the achievement of GES/GEP
proceed to Step 5.2.
If both are at risk then
both Step 5.1 and Step 5.2 will need
to be considered.
Assessing for deterioration
WFD compliance should be incorporated in to the relevant ecological,
hydrological, water quality or hydrological assessments of the EIA where the
risk of non-compliance has been identified. If no EIA is being undertaken the
relevant WFD quality elements should be assessed as is necessary.
WFD assessment and status classes should be explicitly referenced in these
assessments and all at risk biological, chemical, hydrological and physicochemical elements considered (Look-up table A).
Morphological impacts are not so routinely considered by the Environment
Agency or within EIA. We have therefore focused guidance on the detailed
assessment of the impact of new schemes on morphological quality
elements.
‘Hydrology’
and
‘Morphology’
Doc No 488_10_SD01
It is worth noting that hydromorphology is made up of both ‘hydrology’ and
‘geomorphology’ Where a scheme involves the management of flows,
creates a depleted reach or affects the diversity of flows then these
hydrological impacts will need to be considered. Where a scheme changes
the physical form or alters the process of sediment erosion, deposition or
transfer then these morphological impacts need to be considered. There are
obvious synergies between the two and so impact assessment should be
considered in tandem. As hydrological impact assessment is more
established (Water resources use Environmental Flow Indicators (EFI) for
assessing if deterioration will occur) the remainder of this document has
mainly focussed on morphological impacts.
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 15 of 46
High status
elements
Where quality elements are at high status then these will be need to be
closely scrutinised as these will be most sensitive to deterioration. Where a
quality element is at high status it is defined as having biological, chemical
and morphological conditions associated with no or very low human
pressure. Any development within a water body with high status elements is
therefore at risk of causing deterioration. Any developments or activities that
could affect them will be subject to significant scrutiny and will have to
demonstrate a great deal of certainty if the activity is deemed to not result in
deterioration.
Step 5.1.1
Scoping the morphological impact assessment – the likely
morphological impacts
Where it has been identified that there are potential impacts on the
morphology of the watercourse then more detailed impact assessment is
needed. Not all aspects of morphology need to be scoped in, just those that
are considered to be at risk of deterioration.
Look-up table C has been compiled from the Defra Expert Assessment
Framework tool. This acts as a Look-up table of the different types of
modification and their potential hydromorphological impacts. This can be
used to focus the impact assessment on the areas that are most likely to be
at risk of deterioration from a new activity.
Look-up table C currently only covers the potential morphological impacts in
rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. Work will be undertaken to produce
similar tables for lake water bodies.
When using the likely morphological impacts table:
Stage
1
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Description
Breakdown the components of the scheme or activity into the types
of modification that will occur. For example a Flood Alleviation
Scheme may include:

Hard bank reinforcement;

A flood storage area;

A new stretch of flood wall;

A flow control structure.
2
Use Look-up table C to consider each of these individual
component modifications and the potential morphological impacts.
3
Use the table together with expert judgement to define a list of
morphological impacts that need assessing (what impacts need to
be looked for).
4
Include impacts on other water bodies too. Remember to scope
into the assessment any water body that will be impacted by the
new activity to investigate the consequences. This may include
water bodies from other categories (rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters or canals).
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 16 of 46
Step 5.1.2
Choosing a morphological assessment technique
Once it has been identified what morphological impacts need to be
considered, morphological data should be collected to get a detailed
understanding of the nature of the water body in question.
It is likely that a consultant or third party will undertake the survey and data
interpretation work as part of their role in producing the Environmental
Statement or WFD compliance report, but our staff may be involved in setting
the brief or advising on the type and intensity of survey required.
It is important that the individual undertaking the morphological assessment
is appropriately qualified and experienced to ensure robust assessments and
conclusions are drawn. Geomorphology is a specialised subject and it is
important to recognise the different levels of expertise required to perform
the various types of geomorphological study and match the qualifications and
experience of the staff member to the task in hand. The ‘Guidebook of
Applied Fluvial Geomorphology’ (Tables 1.1 and 4.8 in particular) gives
guidance on the expected level of qualification or experience for different
assessments.
Stage
1
Description
Check to see if any morphological assessment data already exists
for the site. For example, River Habitat Survey data or fluvial audit
data. If baseline data has already been collected at the site, this
might negate the need for specific morphological assessment.
It will be important to check the date of assessment (RHS dates
back to 1994) and the reason for it being collected as this may
affect how useful it is for your purposes. Use the iRBM data
solution to identify any data for the site in question.
2
If no data exists, choose an appropriate hydromorphological
assessment method. Look-up table D lists the type of
morphological assessment methods available together with a
matrix to aid selection
The Hydromorphology foundation training1 course gives further
guidance on choosing appropriate techniques.
The assessment methods are split into ‘level 1’ and ‘level 2’
assessments. Level 1 assessment techniques tend to be less
intense, cheaper and more qualitative methods for assessing
morphological conditions. One or a combination of ‘level 1’
techniques can provide adequate information to undertake WFD
compliance assessment for lower risk activities.
3
1
For more complex activities or more sensitive receiving water
courses a more intensive survey methodology may be needed.
Level 2 assessments offer more intensive, expensive and more
quantitative methods for assessing morphological conditions. An
initial ‘level 1’ survey may identify the need for a more intensive
‘level 2’ style survey in order to fully understand the water course.
However if further surveys are unlikely to improve certainty, then
further expenditure would not be justified. Level 2 surveys might
provide you with more certainty but may require several years of
monitoring; this may not be practical in the context of planning a
project.
Email hydromorphology@environment-agency.gov.uk for more details.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 17 of 46
Step 5.1.3
Reviewing the morphological assessment data in light of WFD
The morphological assessment will provide the assessor with baseline data
on the nature of the water body and its sensitivity to change. This data then
needs to be interpreted to make an overall assessment of how the proposed
scheme will impact water body morphology and the magnitude of this impact.
This will include a consideration of the sensitivity of the water body. There
may be both positive and negative impacts of the scheme.
Whilst interpreting the data from the assessment the surveyor should
consider:

linking morphological impacts to biological elements

impacts on other water bodies (If impacts on other water bodies are
predicted then consider Step 5.3 );

cumulative impacts;

impacts on other EU legislation (If impacts on other water EU legislation
are predicted then consider Step 5.4).
Remember the guidance presented here has covered morphological
impact assessment. For full WFD compliance then impacts across all
the WFD quality elements need to be considered
Linking
morphologica
l impact to
biology
Expert judgement will be required to assess whether, as a result of any likely
morphological change there will be any impact on the biological quality
elements and whether this will lead to deterioration in status. This will
require interpretation of the morphological impacts together with
understanding of the likely biological change. This will require expert
judgment of the physical habitat requirements of the biological quality
elements. The list of hydromorphological quality elements provided in Lookup table A provides a good indication of the types of processes and physical
form that are critical for water body biology. This offers a good opportunity to
link to other chapters of an EIA that have considered ecology and/or
hydrology.
Predicting whether a new scheme will cause deterioration requires
understanding of how the biological classification tools work. Analysis and
Reporting teams are in the process of being trained on how to run selected
WFD river biological classification tools and should be a first point of
reference in understanding how these tools work.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
deterioration will occur as a result of
the scheme
revisit the design stage to consider if
the impacts can be mitigated.
deterioration as a result of the
scheme is unavoidable
compliance with Article 4.7 is
required. Proceed to Step 6 for
guidance on how to apply the Article
4.7 tests
the scheme will not cause
deterioration
consider if the scheme will prevent
the achievement of GES/GEP
objectives by proceeding to step 5.2.
the scheme will cause no
deterioration and not prevent the
water body meeting GES/GEP
Article 4.7 is not required. Proceed
to Step 7 to report the outcome to
provide an audit trail
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 18 of 46
Design of
mitigation
Information from the morphological impact assessment can also be used to
assist in designing further mitigation measures which may remove the
likelihood of deterioration occurring. Mitigation should be tailored to offset
the range of predicted impacts. This feedback is important as if mitigation
measures can remove any likely deterioration then Article 4.7 assessment is
not needed. If you can mitigate against impacts to WFD objectives this must
always done. Article 4.7 should only be invoked where impacts to WFD
objectives are unavoidable.
Supporting
guidance
The ‘Sediment Matters’ handbook has been designed to give guidance on
identifying potential sediment related problems. This handbook will be useful
where a scheme is likely to impact on sediment dynamics. It should be used
to help define the problem and how the scheme will affect the sediment
regime and the biological quality elements. The Sediment Matters handbook
explains the links between sediments and biological quality elements and
identifies datasets, tools and contacts that may be helpful in diagnosing if
there will be an impact and if sediment is an issue with the scheme. For
more information contact the Research and Innovation team.
There are two e-learning packages that are also of relevance. The guide to
managing sediments in water courses and e-learning module for the
Guidebook of Applied Fluvial Geomorphology.
Step 5.2
Will the scheme prevent the achievement of GES / P
Where a water body is at less than good status or potential, there will be a
series of proposed improvement and/or mitigation measures planned to bring
the water body up to GES/GEP.
If the new scheme or activity renders these proposed improvement/mitigation
measures ineffective this could prevent the water body from meeting its
ecological objective.
Consider if additional mitigation measures can be built into the design to
ensure GES/GEP are still met.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
preventing the achievement of
GES/GEP is unavoidable
Then…
the scheme will not prevent the
achievement of GES/GEP and not
cause deterioration
Article 4.7 is not required. Proceed
to Step 7 to report the outcome to
provide an audit trail for the
assessment
Version 1
compliance with Article 4.7 is
required. Proceed to Step 6 for
guidance on how to apply the Article
4.7 tests.
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 19 of 46
Step 5.3
Impacts on other water bodies
The impact assessment should consider impacts of the new scheme on
other water bodies. These are water bodies other than those in which the
scheme is situated.
Analysing the likely impact on other water bodies may be more difficult than
analysing the impact on the local water body, as it requires a good
understanding of how the whole system functions and the relationships
between water bodies. For example, it may require understanding of how
installing a dam to supply water to an urban area in the upstream part of a
river will impact on the status of the river’s estuary 50 kilometres
downstream.
WFD Article
4.8
Where a scheme permanently excludes or compromises the achievement of
WFD objectives in other water bodies then it is not compliant with Article 4.8
and should not be authorised.
This is even if the scheme meets the conditions of Article 4.7. Article
4.7 only provides a defence against deterioration or preventing to meet
GES/GEP in the particular water body where the modification or
alteration is made.
The wording of Article 4.8 specifies that it covers impacts to water bodies
within the same river basin district. However, if the scheme impacts on water
bodies in other river basin districts these should also be assessed and the
same principles applied.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 20 of 46
What is
permanent?
If a water body is excluded from meeting its objectives beyond 2027, this will
be considered as permanent exclusion and the scheme will be in breach of
Article 4.8.
Some schemes may cause an impact in other water bodies but not cause
permanent exclusion of achieving objectives. Where a scheme does impact
other water bodies, then there needs to be assurance in place that the water
bodies are not permanently excluded from meeting their WFD objectives.
To ensure any impacts in other water bodies do not lead to a permanent
exclusion of objectives then consider the following principles:

The scheme must meet Article 4.7 conditions;

A plan must be in place and agreed with the Environment Agency for the
water body to be restored to at least the status from which it deteriorated,
and/or to remove the impact that limits the achievement of GES/GEP;

This plan should be costed and committed to, and must be a realistic and
feasible programme of measures to address water body impacts;

Monitoring should have a key role in establishing the extent of the
deterioration or failure to meet GES/GEP and the recovery;

If a water body is excluded from meeting its objectives beyond 2027, this
will be considered as permanent exclusion and the scheme will be in
breach of Article 4.8;

Less stringent objectives (Article 4.5) cannot be justified as a result of
impacts caused by a new scheme in another water body. However, a
less stringent objective can be justified under Article 4.5 for reasons other
than the new scheme.
The mitigation measures used to address the scheme in the originating water
body should address issues in all water bodies affected as far as is possible.
Step 5.4
Other European legislation
WFD Article 4.8 further requires any new scheme to be consistent with other
European environmental legislation.
WFD Article 4.9 states that steps must be taken to ensure that we guarantee
at least the same level of protection as the existing European Community
legislation.
Of particular relevance will be the Habitats and Birds Directives: An
exemption cannot be given under WFD if it would mean, for example, the
failure to achieve the conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site. WFD
does not override the need to remain compliant with any other environmental
legislation.
It is worthwhile linking with the existing mechanisms for ensuring compliance
with other EC directives, for example:

Habitats Directive;

Birds Directive;
 Freshwater Fish Directive.
There may be efficiencies that can be made from aligning assessment
required for these other pieces of European legislation with WFD compliance
assessment. There are also obvious links here with the WFD Protected
Areas obligations.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 21 of 46
Worked
example
using River
Habitat
Survey
Using RHS to assess morphological impacts of a new modification
RHS does not require a detailed knowledge of hydromorphology, and can be
used as part of the evidence base for decision-making where smaller,
relatively low impact schemes are proposed. It can be used to provide an
inventory to act as a baseline against which future changes can be set.
The ecology of a reach which has a high diversity of riparian habitats and instream features is likely to be more heavily affected by extensive new
modifications such as channel resectioning, whilst a reach with a more
limited habitat quality may be less sensitive. Similarly, the ecology of a
length of river which is already impacted by in-channel structures such as
weirs will be less sensitive to the addition of further structures of a similar
type than one that currently has no barriers to in-channel movement.
However consideration as to whether a new structure would prevent the
achievement of GES or GEP is also required.
The example below considers a 500m reach with a number of natural
features and habitats along the riparian zone.
The RHS Habitat Quality Assessment (HQA)2 scoring system can be used to
provide a breakdown of features considered to be of value to wildlife. The
example below gives sub-scores for an unmodified reach with extensive
bankside vegetation cover and trees, and numerous natural bank and
channel features.
Habitat Quality Assessment
Bank Vegetation
12
Channel Features
6
Channel Substrates
6
Flow Types
8
In-stream Channel Vegetation
8
Land Use
3
Special Features
4
Trees & Associated Features
10
Bank Features
10
Total HQA score
67
Any modifications affecting the riparian zone, as well as those which directly
interfere with the bank or channel, would clearly impact the habitat quality of
this reach, with a corresponding effect on the overall ecology.
2
Please email rhs@environment-agency.gov.uk for guidance on the HQA scoring system
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 22 of 46
An example of a more modified reach is shown below. This reach has very few
natural features (as suggested by the low HQA score), so further modifications
may be less likely to cause changes in the ecology
Habitat Quality Assessment
Bank Vegetation
0
Channel Features
1
Channel Substrates
3
Flow Types
3
In-stream Channel Vegetation
5
Land Use
0
Special Features
0
Trees & Associated Features
0
Bank Features
1
Total HQA score
17
In addition, studying the Habitat Modification scores3 (below) tells us that the
reach is already embanked and resectioned with weirs. This part of the river
is therefore already disconnected from its floodplain to some degree, as well
as having barriers to in-stream movement. New modifications which
increase this discontinuity might have relatively little impact on the overall
ecology which exists in this reach. Consideration as to whether a new
structure would prevent achievement of GES/GEP is also required.
Habitat Modification
3
Outfalls
0
Berms and embankments
200
Bridges
300
Culverts
0
Fords
0
Poaching
0
Reinforced Bank and Bed
130
Resectioned Bank and Bed
1120
Weirs
600
Habitat Modification Class
5
Contact rhs@environment-agency.gov.uk for a copy of the Habitat Modification Scoring system
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 23 of 46
Habitat Modification score
2355
Step 6: Application of Article 4.7
Step 6
Schemes reaching step 6 will either cause deterioration in water body status
or prevent the water body from meeting its ecological objectives.
The scheme must meet all of the conditions laid out in Article 4.7 of the
Directive. If any of the conditions are not met then the scheme will not
be compliant with WFD and MUST NOT proceed. If the conditions are
not met this will put the UK government at risk of infraction from the
European Union.
The assessments required to meet the Article 4.7 conditions are outlined in
steps 6.1 – 6.7.
Article 4.7
support group
! Important
External
schemes
For external schemes the applicant or third party must gather and provide
the necessary information and evidence as to whether the Article 4.7
conditions can be met. The Environment Agency’s role is to either assess
(for schemes we permit) or advise on Article 4.7 compliance, not collect the
evidence
Step 6.1
Does the scheme qualify for Article 4.7?
To qualify for use of this defence, Article 4.7 sets out two routes. A project
must meet the qualifying criteria detailed in one of these routes. If the
scheme does not meet the qualifying criteria detailed in either route then the
scheme is non-compliant and should not be approved.
Step 6.1.1
Article 4.7
route 1:
Is the deterioration or prevention of meeting GES/GEP the result of new
modifications to the physical characteristics of the water body or
alteration to the levels of bodies of groundwater?
Any scheme requiring Article 4.7 defence should seek assistance from the
Article 4.7 support group. This is a national group that will offer assistance to
schemes using the Article 4.7 defence and make recommendations on the
appropriateness of the WFD and Article 4.7 assessment. To register a
project for advice from the national Article 4.7 support group please send
details of the scheme to hydromorphology@environment-agency.gov.uk
A modification to the physical characteristics of a water body means
modification to the hydromorphological characteristics. The impacts may
result directly from the modification or may result from changes in the quality
of water brought about by the modification. Look-up table A lists the
hydromorphological quality elements.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
the new modification changes one
or more of these
hydromorphological quality
elements
then it can be assessed under Article
4.7.
it does not change one of the
hydromorphological quality
proceed to step 6.1.2 to consider the
second route offered by Article 4.7
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 24 of 46
elements
Step 6.1.2
Article 4.7
route 2
Is the project a new sustainable human development activity resulting
in failure to prevent deterioration from high to good status?
For a project to qualify for this route of Article 4.7 there must only be
deterioration of water body quality elements from high to good status.
What
constitutes a
new
sustainable
human
development
activity?
Stage
Description
1
Refer to the water body data collected in step 1 to check if any
quality elements are at high. If not then this route cannot be used
2
Consider if the deterioration is ONLY a drop from high to good
status. If not then this route cannot be used
3
If deterioration is from high to good then consider if the scheme
constitutes ‘a new sustainable human development activity’.
A scheme will need to provide evidence that it is a new sustainable human
development activity to qualify for assessment under route 2.
The Defra sustainable development website gives a great deal of information
regarding the principles of sustainable development and guidance
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/). The website describes 5
principles of sustainability. For a scheme to be sustainable, it must respect
all five principles which are that – it is within environmental limits, is part of a
just society, contributes to a sustainable economy, has been approved
through good governance, and is supported by sound science.
The Environment Agency’s Objectives and Contributions to Sustainable
Development: Statutory Guidance (Defra December 2002) and The
Environment Agency’s Objectives and Contribution to Sustainable
Development in Wales: Statutory Guidance from the National Assembly for
Wales also gives guidance on our role in relation to sustainable
development.
Further guidance on what constitutes a new human sustainable development
activity will be developed in due course. More guidance for FCRM will be
available in the near future.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 25 of 46
Sustainability
appraisals
A duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development is
already a requirement for certain schemes under existing planning
mechanisms.
For example,
1. Schemes proposed in plans and programmes that have come through the
planning system and will have been through sustainability appraisal (SA)
include:

development under the Town & Country Planning Acts that is part of a
development plan (Local Development Framework);

nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008
proposed in accordance with National Policy Statements scrutinised by
Parliament;
Developers may already have consulted the Environment Agency when
carrying out sustainability appraisals or environmental assessments.
Opportunities to work in partnership with Local Authorities or other
organisations to help shape and define plans and programmes through
sustainability appraisals should be taken to enable any schemes they
propose to meet Article 4.7 requirements if needed.
Existing sustainability appraisal should be verified to confirm the
scheme does represent a new sustainable human and evidence
extracted for the audit trail.
2. Schemes that are subject to EIA will collect relevant social, economic and
environmental impact information which can be used to inform a decision on
sustainability.
EIA evidence for the scheme can be reviewed to assess if the scheme
represents a new sustainable human. If so, and evidence should be
extracted for the audit trail
For schemes and activities that do not come forward through the planning
system and do not have SA (incorporating SEA) or EIA then a sustainability
assessment will be needed.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
Then…
a scheme meets the criteria for
either Article 4.7 route 1 (step 6.1.1)
or route 2 (step 6.1.2)
a scheme does not qualify for Article
4.7 route 1 or 2
proceed to Step 6.2.
Version 1
the scheme cannot use Article 4.7 as
a defence. The new scheme is not
WFD compliant and should not be
approved.
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 26 of 46
Step 6.2
All practicable mitigation
The first condition of Article 4.7 is to ensure that:
All practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the
status of the body of water
Practicable steps are those which are:

technically feasible;

not disproportionately costly;

compatible with the new modification or sustainable human development
activity.
Step 4 of this process should have addressed building mitigation into the
scheme. The step formally collects the evidence that ALL practicable
mitigation has been built in,
The use of the word "steps" in this Article 4.7 condition means that there are
potentially a wide range of measures in all phases of development, including
design of scheme, construction, maintenance and operation and also
restoration and creation of habitats.
Mitigation and
Compensatio
n
As Article 4.7 requires only mitigation, it is important to make a clear
distinction between:

Mitigation measures: which aim to minimise or even cancel the adverse
impact on the status of the body of water, and

Compensatory measures: which aim to compensate in another body of
water for the "net negative effects" of a project and its associated
mitigation measures.
Article 4.7 does not require compensatory measures.
Common Implementation Strategy guidance4 states that when the use of
appropriate technical solutions and mitigation measures are not sufficient to
avoid status deterioration, the “no net loss” principle could be applied as a
supplementary measure. This refers to ‘no net loss’ within the water body.
4
CIS
Policy
Paper
on
WFD
and
Hydro-morphological
pressures
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_documents/hy
dromorphology&vm=detailed&sb=Title
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 27 of 46
Good practice
guidance
There are various existing sources of good practise guidance on designing
mitigation into new modifications:

The Mitigation measures manual is a good tool to assist in the design of
new FCRM schemes to build in mitigation. This is a web-based manual
that provides guidance on identifying and designing appropriate
measures that will mitigate against ecological impacts from new and
ongoing flood and coastal risk management (FCRM) activities and
infrastructure;

The Fluvial Design Guide is aimed at professional staff involved in the
design process from the early stages of looking at alternative solutions
through to the outputs of design for the construction, maintenance,
refurbishment or alteration of flood defence or land drainage assets. The
guide is intended to be used by both designers and asset managers;

Estuary Edges: Ecological Design Guidance shows how to make a
positive contribution to estuaries;

Marine dredging framework: When planning or regulating any marine
dredging or disposal activities, this guide will aid understanding and help
a scheme comply with the Water Framework Directive (WFD);

The Managed Realignment Electronic Platform aims to provide an easy
to use, portable source of reference for Environment Agency staff. It
introduces the relevance of this coastal and estuarine management
approach and presents the policies and decisions the Environment
Agency have already implemented;

Environmental Options for Flood Defence Maintenance Works (2003);

FCRM Asset Management: Maintenance Standards Version 2 March
2010;

Good Practice Guidance For the assessment of Flood Defence
Maintenance Operations under the Habitats Regulations (1994)5;

Culvert Design and Operation Guide;

Rock Manual;

Beach Management Manual;

Guide to managing sediments in water courses;

Recurring asset maintenance: determining what method to use and how
often to do it.
There are many other good practice guides available.
5
Contact hydromorphology@environment-agency.gov.uk for a copy.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 28 of 46
Hydromorpho
logical
mitigation
measures
toolkit
The hydromorphological mitigation measures toolkit is a useful tool for
identifying mitigation measures for morphological pressures. This toolkit
contains a worksheet called ‘pressures’ which groups mitigation measures by
the type of scheme / pressure. For example a new channel deepening
activity would fall under the ‘channel alteration’ category. Clicking on the
name of the measure gives more detail about what is involves.
The toolkit was designed for considering existing pressures within water
bodies and retro-fitting mitigation measures to alleviate impacts on ecology.
The measure description assumes that the pressure is already there, for
example, ‘Removal of hard engineering structures’. When using the toolkit
consider the measure in light of a new modification. The hard engineering
example above would therefore cover avoiding or minimising any new hard
engineering in the scheme or where possible removing existing hard
engineering. This list will be refined to improve its relevance to new
modifications in due course.
The hydromorphological mitigation measures toolkit offers a comprehensive
list of measures to alleviate impacts. However, it is not exhaustive. There
may be other options available that should be incorporated where
appropriate.
! Important: The hydromorphology mitigation measures toolkit only covers
morphological impacts, but remember that where other WFD quality
elements will deteriorate, these will also need to be addressed via
appropriate mitigation.
Step 6.2.1
How to define ‘all practicable steps to mitigate’
 Use the hydromorphological mitigation measures toolkit to define a list of
practicable mitigation measures for the scheme:
Consider…
1. Is the mitigation
measure applicable
to the type of
activity?
2. Is it technical
feasible?
How
Select only measures that do not significantly affect the
objectives of the scheme
Only issues of a technical nature should be taken into
account here, not cost issues.
Measures listed in the toolkit have been compiled from
existing schemes and good practice, so are all
considered to be technically feasible. However the
measures should be reviewed giving regard to local
conditions to ensure that the particular measure is
technically feasible at the given location
Doc No 488_10_SD01
3. Would the
measure be
disproportionately
costly?
Individual measures do not have to be pursued if they
are disproportionately costly. Further guidance on
disproportionate cost can be found here.
4. What are the
likely impacts of
these mitigation
measures?
Some mitigation measures can have impacts themselves
that need thorough consideration. For example weir
removal can significantly alter a water body’s sediment
regime and impacts should be fully considered. Some
measures may have impacts outside of the WFD arena.
For example the removal of some structures can conflict
with cultural heritage interests.
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 29 of 46
Disproportion
ate cost
Some guiding pointers on disproportionate cost:

Disproportionality should not begin at the point where measured costs
simply exceed quantifiable benefits;

The assessment of costs and benefits will have to include qualitative
costs and benefits as well as quantitative;

The margin by which costs exceed benefits should be appreciable and
have a high level of confidence;

Disproportionate cost should also take into consideration the ability to
pay of those incurring the cost of the measures.
Consideration should be made as to whether:


the costs of the mitigation measure clearly outweigh the benefits;
when considering benefits then think both of benefits in terms of meeting
WFD objectives but also any other wider social, economic and
landscape benefits (for example would the mitigation measure lead to
increased house prices, human health or recreational benefit?).


the costs of the mitigation measure lead to any distributional concern:
would the costs incurred have unacceptable impacts on vulnerable
groups or sectors of society?
would the costs be affordable for the economic sectors incurring them?

Disproportionate cost means more than a negligible amount as assessed
against either total cost or turnover over to the project developer. This issue
is highlighted in a Habitats Directive case study on Barksore Marshes, Kent
Even where one or more measures are deemed disproportionately costly, all
measures which are not disproportionately costly should still be taken to
reach the best status possible.
Further work to develop tools to assess disproportionate cost specifically in
relation to Article 4.7 conditions will occur in due course.
Your list of
measures
In Step 6.2.1 you defined a list of practicable mitigation measures for the
scheme. These measures must be included as part of scheme design.
The mitigation measures identified thus become a legal requirement for
the scheme to remain compliant with Article 4.7. They cannot be
removed from scheme design.
If…
the scheme includes all of the
practicable mitigation measures
defined in the list
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Then…
it can be deemed compliant with this
Article 4.7 condition. Evidence will
need to be recorded to illustrate
compliance. Proceed to step 6.3
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 30 of 46
Step 6.3
Significantly better environmental options
To be compliant with WFD Article 4.7 the following condition must be met:
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.
To meet this condition, consideration is needed of the full range of alternative
options which could achieve the beneficial objectives of the scheme.
! Important: Where an SEA has been undertaken alternatives will already
have been considered. It is important to check that WFD was taken into
account in the SEA when other options were discounted. If this Article 4.7
condition was accounted for at the SEA stage then discounted options do not
need to be revisited.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Step
Description
6.3.1
Compile a list of alternative options that provide the same beneficial
objectives as the scheme
6.3.2
Identify which alternative options are technically feasible
6.3.3
Identify which alternative options are not disproportionately costly
6.3.4
Compare the environmental impact of the technically feasible nondisproportionately costly alternatives:
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 31 of 46
Step 6.3.1
Alternative
options
Compile a list of alternative options that provide the same beneficial
objectives as the scheme.
Alternative options may include:

local alternatives (for example, pumping groundwater from an adjacent
aquifer instead of building a dam on a river for supplying water to an
urban area),

regional alternatives

national alternatives
A wide range of options should be considered, and not limited to alternative
infrastructure development that may be easier to conceptualise.
The alternative options could involve:

alternative locations;

different scales of development;

different designs of development;

alternative processes;

alternative operating regimes;

different technologies.
Alternatives considered should be realistic and viable.
Alternatives should be assessed in the early stages of development and at
the appropriate geographical scale (EU, National, and RBD) against a clear
view of the beneficial objectives provided by the modification.
We can draw parallels and experience from the EC Habitats Directive where
the consideration of alternatives is also a requirement. Existing guidance on
considering alternatives for the Habitats Directive and recent European Court
of Justice opinion and Secretary of State decision all given indication as to
what is required when considering alternative solutions.
Further guidance on considering alternatives specific to the Water
Framework Directive will be developed in due course.
Step 6.3.2
Technically
feasible
Section 6.2 discussed technical feasibility in relation to selecting mitigation
measures and similar principles should be followed here.
Further guidance can be provided by the principles of ‘best available
techniques (BAT)’ which is defined in the IPPC directive (2008/1/EC).
Only retain options on the list of alternatives that are technically feasible.
Provide evidence regarding the technical infeasibility of any discounted
alternatives.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 32 of 46
Step 6.3.3
Disproportion
ate cost
Section 6.2 discussed disproportionate cost in relation to selecting mitigation
measures and similar principles and guidance should be followed here.
Further guidance can be found in: Economics and the Environment – The
Implementation Challenge of the Water Framework Directive Produced by
Working Group 2.6 – WATECO.
Further work to develop tools to assess disproportionate cost specifically in
relation to Article 4.7 conditions will occur in due course.
Retain options on the list of alternatives that are not disproportionately costly.
Provide justification as to the disproportionate cost of any discounted
alternatives.
Step 6.3.4
Better
environmental
options
An appraisal of the main environmental impacts of the remaining alternative
options should be undertaken.
A simple table could be prepared comparing the new modification and the
proposed alternatives from the point of view of their environmental impact on
water, air, soils, biodiversity, and landscape.
Remember to consider the environmental impacts to the whole water body
(and any other water bodies) and not just the locality of the scheme. The
best environmental option that achieves the beneficial objectives can then be
identified.
! Important
To be compliant with this condition, justification needs to be provided
that there are no significantly better environmental options.
Significantly better environmental options can only be discounted if
they are technically infeasible or disproportionately costly.
Justification must be provided on any discounted alternative options.
If…
there are no significantly better
environmental options that are
technically feasible or not
disproportionately costly
Step 6.4
Then…
it can be deemed compliant with this
Article 4.7 condition. Evidence will
need to be recorded to illustrate
compliance. Proceed to step 6.4.
Overriding public interest and benefits comparison
The scheme will only be complaint with Article 4.7 when:
The reasons for the modifications or alterations are of overriding public
interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of
achieving the WFD objectives are outweighed by the benefits of the
new modifications or alterations to human health, to the maintenance
of human safety or to sustainable development
This condition has two components:

overriding public interest;
 a benefits comparison test.
If the new modification is not justified by overriding public interest (a), then
the scheme is only compliant with Article 4.7 if the benefits of achieving the
Directive’s objectives are outweighed by the benefits of the new
modification/activity to human health, human safety or sustainable
development (b).
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 33 of 46
Step 6.4.1
Overriding public interest (a)

Parallels with
the Habitats
Directive
If route (a) is chosen then evidence needs to be provided that the
scheme is of overriding public interest (OPI).
The concept of overriding public interest is also used in the Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC) and other EC law. Further work will be done to develop specific
guidance on overriding public interest in relation to WFD. Until this WFD
specific guidance is developed then some guiding principles from Habitats
Directive experience can be followed.
An important distinction to make is that Habitats Directive considers
‘Imperative reasons of Overriding Public Interest’, whereas in WFD is it just
‘Overriding Public Interest’. Whilst the criteria used in Habitats Directive
assessments will still be valid, this distinction should be made.
We have internal guidance on the Habitats Directive and overriding public
interest. The European Commission's "Methodological guidance on the
provisions of Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC:
Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites"
and “Guidance document on Article 6(4) of Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC”
(January 2007) may also bring some clarification. The Outline Government
position paper on the Birds and Habitats Directives (May 1998) which states
“the Government expects there to be few cases where it is judged that
imperative reasons of overriding public interest will allow a development to
proceed which will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the
internationally important SPA, SAC or Ramsar designations” is also of
interest. This gives some insight into how frequently overriding public
interest condition can be met.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 34 of 46
What is
overriding
public
interest?
For a scheme to qualify as being of overriding public interest:

The interest must be overriding; not every kind of public interest would be
sufficient;

'Overriding' means overriding the objectives of the WFD - in other words,
it has to be more important than an EU level public interest in improving
water bodies status;

Consider if the new modification/activity is in society’s long-term interest;

Consider if the new activity is to protect people‘s lives for example human
health, safety or the environment;

Consider if the new activity contributes to fundamental policies for the
state and society;

Consider if the new activity relates to meeting specific socio-economic
requirements of public services;

Ensure that the new modification/activity is primarily to fulfil public
interests, not solely in the interest of private companies or individuals.
The following may, in certain circumstances, be considered as overriding
public interest so long as they are supported with evidence:

A need to address a serious risk to human health and public safety;

The interests of national security and defence;

The provision of a clear and demonstrable direct environmental benefit
on a national or international scale;

A vital contribution to strategic economic development or regeneration;

Where failure to proceed would have unacceptable social and/or
economic consequences.
Consulting with partners and public participation will play a critical role in
applying the overriding public interest test. Existing networks for consulting
should be used to highlight the main concerns and issues surrounding the
proposed development. Liaison panels, internal morphology and water
resources pressure leads could all be used along with any known local
partners or interest groups.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
If…
the scheme is found to be of
overriding public interest
Then…
Where the scheme is not of
overriding interest
proceed to step 6.4.2 for the benefits
comparison test
Version 1
it can be deemed compliant with this
Article 4.7 condition. Evidence will
need to be recorded to illustrate
compliance. Proceed to step 6.5.
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 35 of 46
Step 6.4.2
Benefits comparison (b)
Even if the new modification/activity is not of overriding public interest, the
project could still be consented under Article 4.7 if the benefits of the new
modification/activity in terms of human health, human safety or sustainable
development outweigh the benefits of achieving the WFD objectives.
To undertake this benefits comparison assessment follow these 3 stages:
Stage
Description
Step 6.4.2.1
Foregone
benefits
6.4.2.1
Summarise the foregone benefits resulting from failing to achieve
the environmental objectives of the Directive
6.4.2.2
Summarise the benefits of the scheme in terms of human health,
human safety and sustainable development.
6.4.2.3
Use a weight of evidence approach to weigh up the benefits
Summarise the foregone benefits resulting from the failure to achieve
the environmental objectives of the Directive
Evaluate the environmental, economic and social water-related benefits of
achieving WFD objectives. Factors to be taken into consideration should
include:

economic factors;

social factors (health, safety, recreation, visual amenity, nuisance,
vulnerable/disadvantaged groups);

environmental factors (water environment, biodiversity, landscape,
climate change, built heritage, earth heritage).
! Important
In the case of deterioration of status think of benefits and opportunities
foregone as a result of the deterioration of status (for example, loss of
biodiversity)
In the case of failing to reach good status then think of benefits that
would be provided with the achievement of good status
When summarising the foregone benefits from failure to achieve GES/GEP
or from causing deterioration, consideration needs to be made as to the
scale or importance of each lost benefit (how significant is the lost benefit?
how many people does it affect?).
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 36 of 46
Step 6.4.2.2
Benefits of
the scheme
Summarise the benefits of the scheme
A summary is needed of the benefits of the scheme to one or more of the
following:

Human health;

Maintenance of human safety;

Sustainable development.
If it is possible to conclude that this condition is passed against one of the
above criteria, an assessment of the proposal against the other criteria is
unnecessary.
Summarise
benefits to…
Human
health
Human
safety
Sustainable
development
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Examples of types of proposals...
Record scale
and importance
How big is the
increase to health
benefits?

abstractions necessary to provide
water fit for human consumption;

engineering works needed to
protect the quality of Bathing
Waters (for example,
repairing/installing pipes conveying
pollutants under watercourses);

improving relevant aspects of water
quality in recreational waters;

providing facilities designed to
encourage exercise.

Engineering works necessary to
reduce flood risk or the impacts of
floods;
How big is the
increase to safety
benefits?

Engineering works necessary to
improve road/rail safety;
How many people
does it affect?

Engineering works necessary to
reduce the risk of catastrophic
subsidence;

Works to reduce the risk of injury or
death by reducing the risk of
accidents.
How many people
does it affect?
Guidance on what constitutes
sustainable development is covered in
Step 6.1.2. An assessment of
sustainability will be needed. This
assessment should highlight the
benefits of the new scheme to
sustainable development. These
benefits should be summarised ready
for the benefits comparison.
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 37 of 46
Step 6.4.2.3
Benefits
comparison
A comparison needs to be made between the ‘forgone benefits (step
6.4.2.1)’ to the water environment and the ‘potential benefits of the new
scheme (step 6.4.2.2). This will allow a judgement to be made as to whether
the benefits to the environment and society of preventing deterioration of
status or restoring a water body to good status are outweighed by the
benefits of the new modifications to human health, to the maintenance of
human safety or to sustainable development.
Different benefits will have different levels of significance. Use a weight of
evidence approach to make the judgement. This assessment should be
balanced and impartial rather than attempting to make a case.
In some cases it may be possible to quantify and express benefits or
foregone benefits in monetary terms, to make both parts of the analysis
comparable. In many cases, however, it will be difficult to express all
benefits or foregone benefits in monetary terms. The appropriate mix of
qualitative, quantitative and, in some cases, monetised information should
depend on what is necessary to reach a judgement and what is proportional
and feasible to collect.
Step 6.5
If…
Then…
the benefits of the scheme outweigh
the benefits of achieving WFD
objectives
the scheme can be deemed
compliant with this Article 4.7
condition. Evidence will need to be
recorded to illustrate compliance.
Proceed to step 6.5.
Reasons for the modification
A final condition of Article 4.7 is that:
the reasons for the modifications or alterations are specifically set out
and explained in the river basin management plan and the objectives
are reviewed every six years.
We will use the information reported in the iRBM data solution to populate
the next river basin management plan. Step 7 outlines iRBM reporting
requirements
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 38 of 46
Step 6.6
Article 4.8 and
4.9
Consideration of impacts on other water bodies and ensuring
compliance with other legislation
Impacts on other water bodies
Under step 5.3, it will already have been considered as to whether the
scheme impacts on other waters. This step simply formally gathers this
evidence to report onto iRBM.
Evidence needs to be collected to show that the scheme is compliant
with this Article 4.8 requirement.
Other EU legislation
Under step 5.4 it will already have been considered as to whether the
scheme is compatible with other EU legislation.
Evidence needs to be collected to show the scheme is consistent with
and offers the same level of protection as other EU legislation
Proceed to Step 6.7 to gain advice and/or recommendation from the
Article 4.7 support group on the evidence collated or if confident in the
assessment proceed to Step 7 to report results
Step 6.7
Article 4.7
support group
The Article 4.7 support group is a national group that will offer assistance to
schemes using the Article 4.7 defence and can give recommendation on the
adequacy of the WFD assessment. To register the project for support from
the national Article 4.7 support group please send details of the scheme to
hydromorphology@environment-agency.gov.uk.
The support group consists of national experts involved in Article 4.7 and
should be involved as early as possible to give guidance on applying the
Article 4.7 tests. The group will meet at certain intervals, but advice can be
given in between group meetings. Remember to factor this time in when
managing the consenting, permitting, licensing or PAB/NRG timeframes.
The Article 4.7 support group can make recommendation to Project
Approval Board (PAB) / National Review Group (NRG) as to the
adequacy of the WFD assessment. Permits, licences and consents
should also seek support from this group.
The Article 4.7 support group will undertake a quality check of the evidence
collected.
If…
Then…
additional information is required
this will be requested by the group
then the group will make
recommendation that the scheme
has followed the process correctly
and appears compliant with Article
4.7.
the evidence is deemed adequate
Proceed to Step 7 to report the
results.
the evidence is deemed inadequate
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
then the group will make
recommendation that the scheme
appears non-compliant with Article
4.7 and should not be approved.
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 39 of 46
Step 7: Reporting
Reporting
We need to keep a full audit trail of the WFD assessment of new schemes
and where the Article 4.7 defence is required. We need to report this
information to Europe in the next River Basin Management Plan.
The results of any WFD assessment are likely to be captured in the
Environmental Statement or Report. Or, in cases where an EIA was not
undertaken, a separate WFD compliance report or permitting documentation.
However an audit trail of the WFD assessment and Article 4.7 assessment
also needs to recorded in the iRBM data solution.
In order to provide a full audit trail, WFD assessment information will be
captured on the iRBM data solution even where Article 4.7 was not
invoked.
When to
record
information in
iRBM
Schemes should be recorded on the iRBM data solution where:

The Article 4.7 defence was used;

The scheme underwent a detailed assessment (it reached step 5);

The scheme was screened out at the preliminary assessment and was
listed in Look-up table B as needing to be reported in the iRBM data
solution.
Recording schemes even if they do not require Article 4.7 will help with
assessing the cumulative impacts of modifications in the future.
As the competent authority for WFD we are required to report schemes that
have used the Article 4.7 defence to Europe, even in cases where we do not
consent or authorise the activity. We must set up mechanisms to collect and
report information in the iRBM data solution on all schemes that invoke
Article 4.7, even if we have not authorised or consented the scheme
How to record
WFD
assessment
outcome on
iRBM
All iRBM data solution super and advanced users will have access to the
Article 4.7 compliance register in the iRBM data solution flat file storage area
at: O:\IRBM\Article 4.7 compliance register.
There is an Article 4.7 compliance register for each RBD. The register is
password protected. Please contact hydromorphology@environmentagency.gov.uk for password access for the relevant RBD. Select the
relevant RBD proforma where the scheme is to be built and complete all the
required WFD and Article 4.7 assessment information.
A completed proforma example, together with an explanation of all the fields
can be found in Look-up table E. Please note this is an example of how to
complete the proforma. The scheme details in this example have been
fabricated and are not intended to act as an exemplar of the type of
scheme that would meet Article 4.7 conditions.
The information in the iRBM data solution flat file storage area will be
migrated into the iRBM data solution pre-published area at regular intervals
by the hydromorphology team. This information can then be viewed by all
super and advanced iRBM data solution users. This will help inform future
cumulative impact assessments.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 40 of 46
Step 8: Follow up Post project appraisal work
Step 8.1
Site specific post-project monitoring
Once a scheme has been built it is beneficial to undertake post-project
monitoring to validate if the predicted deterioration / no deterioration or failure
to achieve GES/GEP has occurred.
Post-project monitoring and appraisal is important to:

Determine the actual hydromorphological and biological response to the
new modification;

Ensure the mitigation measures identified were implemented effectively
and functioning as designed for environmental protection;

Improve our impact assessment skills when predicting
hydromorphological changes and biological response to future schemes;

Improve our understanding of the links between hydromorphology and
biology;

Improve our understanding of the ecological outcome of mitigation
measures.
This will inform future assessments of new modifications and allow improved
predictions of where deterioration or failure to achieve GES/GEP will or will
not occur. In the long term, with improved abilities to predict deterioration,
this will lead to efficiencies and cost savings. Where possible, the need for
post-scheme monitoring should be factored into the project planning and
budget.
Post-project monitoring can be undertaken both where deterioration or failure
to achieve GES/GEP was predicted AND where it was not. This is to ensure
our predictions for likely deterioration and failure to achieve GES/GEP are
validated.
Monitoring
techniques
Standard ecological monitoring protocols should be used for post-project
monitoring, (see National monitoring procedures manual6) and data should
be stored on standard Environment Agency ecological databases.
For morphological monitoring techniques refer back to the Look-up table D
for a comprehensive list of morphological appraisal techniques. Submit any
data to hydromorphology@environment-agency.gov.uk for inclusion on the
iRBM data solution to allow this data to be viewed nationally.
Monitoring
frequencies
Monitoring frequencies will differ depending on the scale and uncertainty
surrounding impact predictions.
In some cases monitoring should be carried out for several years post project
to allow for the development and maturation of the biological and
hydromorphological response, and be able to factor in the variation caused
by extreme events such as drought or flood.
6
http://intranet.ea.gov/policies/environmentalwork/41826.aspx
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 41 of 46
Step 8.2
EA routine monitoring
The national WFD monitoring programme is also in place to identify where
deterioration is occurring. There will be annual re-runs of biological water
body classifications which will indicate water bodies which have deteriorated.
Where deterioration is identified this will be investigated further. Area
Analysis and Reporting teams are also being trained in how to run the
classification tools and these can be run at any time.
In many cases it will be difficult to isolate the signals of the new modification
from data taken from the national monitoring network. The monitoring
network will pick up deterioration caused from any source (for example,
natural variation, temporary change, climate change, water quality changes).
For deterioration picked up by the national network it may be difficult to say
with any certainty that it was caused by the new modification.
Step 8.3
Unanticipated impacts identified with monitoring
If monitoring identifies unforeseen deterioration or failure to achieve
GES/GEP caused by the new scheme that was not justified under Article 4.7
then this will need to be addressed with retrospective mitigation.
Step 8.4
Designation as an artificial or heavily modified water body
After the proposed scheme is complete and the alterations to the
hydromorphology of the water body have been made, it might be that the
water body now qualifies for designation as artificial or heavily modified in the
next planning cycle. This can only occur once Article 4.7 compliance has
been illustrated and approved.
There is no requirement that the designation has to wait until the publication
of the next River Basin Management Plan, but water bodies cannot be
designated before the new modification has taken place.
The process to designate a water body as artificial or heavily modified is
overseen by the hydromorphology team.
Where a water body has been through the Article 4.7 tests then please
notify the hydromorphology team (hydromorphology@environmentagency.gov.uk) for consideration as a heavily modified water body.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 42 of 46
Glossary
Acronym
A&R
Description
A_HMWB
Artificial or Heavily Modified Water Body
BAT
Best Available Technique
CIS
Common Implementation Strategy
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EU
European Union
FCRM
Flood and Coastal Risk Management
FRB
Fisheries, Recreation and Biodiversity
GEP
Good Ecological Potential
GES
Good Ecological Status
GIS
Geographical Information Systems
HMS
Habitat Modification Score
HQA
Habitat Quality Assessment
iRBM
Integrated River Basin Management data solution
NCPMS
National Capital Project Management Service
NEAS
National Environmental Assessment Service
NPS
National Permitting Service
NRG
National Review Group
OPI
Overriding public interest
PAB
Project Appraisal Boards
RBC
River Basin Characterisation
RBD
River Basin District
RBMP
River Basin Management Plan
RHS
River Habitat Survey
SA
Sustainability appraisal
SAC
Special Area of Conservation
SEA
Strategic Environmental Assessment
SPA
Special Protection Areas
TRaC
Transitional and Coastal Waters
UK
United Kingdom
WFD
Water Framework Directive
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Analysis and Reporting
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 43 of 46
Related documents
Links
Doc No 488_10_SD01

Common Implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC) Technical Report - 2009 – 027 - Guidance Document No.
20 Guidance Document on exemptions to the environmental objectives

Guidebook of Applied Fluvial Geomorphology Technical Report FD1914
Defra (2001)

WFD Expert Assessment of Flood Management Impacts - Joint Defra/EA
Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme - (2009)

CIS Policy Paper on WFD and Hydro-morphological pressures (2006)

Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive Guidance Document No 1. Economics and the Environment – The
Implementation Challenge of the Water Framework Directive Produced
by Working Group 2.6 – WATECO.

183_01Habitats Directive: taking a new permission, plan or project
through the regulations

Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC: Assessment of plans and projects
significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites

Guidance document on Article 6(4) of Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

Outline Government position paper on the Birds and Habitats Directives
(May 1998)

Barksore marshes, Kent 277_05 Habitats Directive – Appendix 16 Case
studies illustrating application of the Habitats Directive and Habitats
Regulations. This document is now archived. Please contact
consecohelp@environment-agency.gov.uk

Mitigation measures manual (2010)

Fluvial Design Guide

Estuary Edges: Ecological Design Guidance

Marine dredging framework;

Managed Realignment Electronic Platform

FCRM Asset Management: Maintenance Standards Version 2 March
2010;

Culvert Design and Operation Guide;

Rock Manual;

Guide to managing sediments in water courses;
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 44 of 46
Appendix 1
Brief summary of ECJ Case C-239/04 against the Portuguese Republic
concerning the questions of alternative solutions and imperatives
reasons of overriding pubic interest in the context of Article 6(4) of the
Habitats Directive
The Judgment
1. The Judge ruled against Portugal finding that they had failed to demonstrate that there were no
alternative solutions to the route of a new motorway which, at the time, could not be concluded
would not have an adverse affect on an SPA.
2. The judges noted the Commission’s argument that alternative routes could have been selected
that did not present significant technical difficulties or unreasonable additional financial costs
that would have a lesser impact on the SPA (paragraph 29). However, the judges concluded
that due to a lack of information, it was not possible to establish whether such options were
alternative solutions within the meaning of Article 6(4) (paragraph 38).
The Advocate General’s Opinion
3. As is the norm, the ruling is very limited to the legal question raised. However, the Advocate
General’s Opinion (AGO) to which the Judges will have regard when arriving at the judgement
is usually more wide ranging. This case is no exception. Whilst the Opinion is not a legal ruling,
it often gives a useful indication of how a Judge might view questions should they come before
the Court. However, the following observations from the Opinion are not part of the legal ruling
and should not be relied on as such.
4. The Portuguese Government tried to argue that it was for the Commission (presumably the
Competent Authority) to propose alternative solutions, to define them, and to demonstrate that
less harmful solutions existed which the Portuguese Government had not envisaged (see
paragraph 30 of the Judgment, also of relevance to observations made in the EA legal
opinion regarding Mostyn Docks). However, the AG argued that this is not the case and that all
the Commission need do is to raise reasonable doubts that the Directive has not been
complied with (i.e. that alternatives may exist) (paragraph 41 AGO).
5. The AG defined alternatives as ways of achieving the aims of a project in ways that would
adversely affect the site less, or not at all (paragraph 42 AGO).
6. The AG stated that “the absence of alternative solutions corresponds in that respect to a stage
in the test of proportionality, according to which, when there is a choice between several
appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous” (paragraph 42 AGO). It
would be useful for EA to consider further what this means in practice.
7. Interestingly, the AG said that you cannot conclude that there are no alternative solutions on
the basis of assessing just a few alternatives. This can only be concluded once all the
alternatives have been assessed (paragraph 43 AGO). Furthermore, the short-listing of those
alternatives for examination is not determined by which have a lesser impact of the site.
Instead, the choice requires striking a balance between the adverse effect and the relevant
reasons of overriding public interest (paragraph 44 AGO).
8. The AG goes on to say that IROPI can override the protection of a site only when greater
importance attaches to them. This too is subject to the test of proportionality, since under this
principle the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued
(paragraph 45 AGO).
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 45 of 46
9. The AG sums up stating “The decisive factor is therefore whether imperative reasons of
overriding public interest require the implementation of specifically that alternative or whether
they can also be satisfied by another alternative with less of an adverse effect on the SPA.
That comparison presupposes that the various alternatives have been examined on the basis
of comparable scientific criteria, both with regard to their effects on the site concerned and with
regard to the relevant reasons of public interest" (paragraph 46 AGO).
10. The AG does suggest that whilst the Portuguese Government had not demonstrated that there
were no alternative solutions, that the alternative solutions that had not been investigated could
possible be ruled out on grounds that they presented problems for which there were no
technical solutions (paragraph 51 AGO), on cost grounds or engineering disadvantages
(paragraph 52 AGO). However, insufficient information had been made available to tell
whether this was the case.
11. Indeed, the AG went on to say that without adequate information about the potential impact on
the SPA, and in the context of the N2K network, how the conservation status of the species
would be affected, it is not possible to weigh the impact of the proposal against any imperative
reasons of overriding public interest (paragraph 54 AGO).
Duncan Huggett & Huw Williams
3 November, 2006
Appendix 2
Exert from Dibden Bay - Decision letter
Consideration of alternatives
50. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's assessment of the alternatives to the project
in so far as they are required to be considered for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Harbours Act
1964, namely that it is legitimate to consider only those which would meet the needs of the port of
Southampton [36.41 - 36.42] and that no suitable alternative which would meet that need exists
within the locality [36.319 - 36.322].
51. The Secretary of State notes, however, that the consideration of alternatives for projects which
would have a significant impact upon a site designated in accordance with the Habitats
Regulations must necessarily range more widely. The Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector's conclusion that the Applicant's proposal would have a significant effect upon the
integrity of designated sites. It follows that consideration of alternatives must concern alternative
ways of avoiding impacts on the designated sites. The Secretary of State considers that such
alternatives would not be confined to alternative local sites for the project. He draws attention to
the European Commission's methodological guidance on the Assessment of Plans and Projects
significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites, which interprets article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive. The
guidance states that a competent authority should not limit consideration of alternative solutions to
those suggested by a project's proponents and that alternative solutions could be located even in
different regions or countries. On this point, the Secretary of State refers to the reasons set out in
paragraphs 43 - 49 above.
Doc No 488_10_SD01
Version 1
Last printed 06/02/16
Page 46 of 46