Policy paper

River basin management plans: use of strategic environmental assessment screening

Published 30 March 2021

Statutory strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was undertaken on the first and second cycle river basin management plans (RBMPs). The second cycle RBMPs are currently being reviewed and updated before the publication of the third cycle of RBMPs.

This report sets out the Environment Agency’s view on whether SEA is required for the third cycle of RBMPs. They have prepared this report to consult with the SEA statutory consultation bodies for England, Wales and Scotland on their proposed screening decision.

1. River basin management plans

The obligations of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) were transposed into domestic law in the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (known as the ‘WFD regulations’). This includes the requirement to publish a river basin management plan (RBMP) for each river basin district and review and update those plans every 6 years. A RBMP is a strategic plan for achieving sustainable use of water and to protect and improve surface waters, groundwater and coastal waters within a river basin district (RBD).

Each RBMP sets out the:

• current state of the water environment
• pressures affecting the water environment
• environmental objectives for protecting and improving the waters
• measures or actions needed to achieve the objectives
• progress since the previous plan

It also informs decisions on land-use planning because water and land resources are closely linked.

The Environment Agency is responsible for reviewing and updating RBMPs for 7 RBDs in England:

• Anglian RBD
• Humber RBD
• Northumbria RBD
• North West RBD
• South East RBD
• South West RBD
• Thames RBD

The Environment Agency also leads on the RBMP for the Severn RBD which crosses the border with Wales.

The Environment Agency contributes RBMP measures for the English part of the Dee and Solway Tweed RBDs which cross the border with Wales and Scotland, respectively.

The first cycle of RBMPs were published in 2009 and set the framework for protecting and enhancing the water environment from 2009 to 2015. The second cycle of river basin planning, which reviewed and significantly updated the RBMPs, were published in 2016. The Environment Agency has now started the review and update of the third cycle of river basin management plans. The third cycle RBMPs will outline the changes that have taken place since 2016 and what is proposed from 2021 onwards. They will undergo formal 6 month consultation to be launched in 2021. The plans will then be finalised before being approved by the Secretary of State.

2. Strategic environmental assessment screening considerations

The SEA process ensures that environmental issues are considered during the development of plans and programmes. It influences the plan as it progresses by ensuring that environmental and cultural effects are considered at an early stage. Undertaking an SEA ensures that there is a clear and transparent process for engaging wider consultees within the plan development process. It ensures wider considerations are included and ultimately aims to ensure more sustainable decisions and outcomes.

SEA is derived from European directive 2001/42/EC ‘on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment’ (known as the SEA directive). This has been transposed into English law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (England) 2004 (SI 2004 1633) (known as the SEA regulations). Screening determinations for SEA are undertaken by the Environment Agency as a ‘responsible authority’ under the SEA regulations, which set out the tests for determining whether SEA is required.

The SEA regulations require plans within certain sectors (including the water sector) that provide a framework for future development consent to be subject to a strategic environmental assessment to ensure that the environment is considered from the outset. For example:

• projects for water management for agriculture (irrigation and drainage)
• flood relief works and coastal work
• dams or installations to hold water
• transfer of water resources
• waste water treatment plants
• groundwater abstraction

Under the SEA regulations, SEA is required if the plan meets one of the following criteria.

1. The plan is prepared for certain purposes, including “water management” and “sets the framework for future development consent of projects” that require an environmental impact assessment under directive 2011/92/EU.
2. The plan has been determined to require an assessment pursuant to article 6 or 7 of the habitats directive (92/43/EEC) in view of the likely effect on European protected habitats.

SEA is not required for minor modifications to a plan which has previously had SEA, unless the modification is likely to have significant environmental effects, or there is a ministerial screening direction requiring an SEA.

The Environment Agency’s National Environmental Assessment and Sustainability team screens the need for strategic or project level environmental assessment for all types of plans, programmes, strategies or development projects. The Environment Agency consults with legal services where necessary. As a responsible authority they must make sure that the SEA regulations are appropriately applied. An SEA may be voluntary, taking into account reputational issues or the views of their stakeholders.

The SEA regulations apply to the RBMPs because they are being prepared and adopted by a national authority, as required under legislative provision (in this case the WFD regulations), and they potentially set the framework for future development consent of projects to manage the water environment.

SEA was carried out for both the first and second cycle of RBMPs. If the modifications to the RBMPs for the third cycle are minor and are unlikely to have significant environmental effects, then SEA may not be required, unless an appropriate assessment is required under the habitats regulations.

3. Habitats regulations assessment

The habitats directive has been transposed into English law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the habitats regulations). The Environment Agency will carry out a screening of the RBMPs for likely significant effects on European sites under the habitats regulations to determine the need for an appropriate assessment. Where there are likely to be significant effects on European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment, this would trigger the need for a statutory SEA.

4. Review of significant environmental effects from the second cycle RBMPs

No unforeseen significant environmental effects have been observed as a result of measures delivered through the second cycle RBMPs.

Positive environmental effects of measures on the water environment have been less significant than predicted due to the complexity of the environment and the time it takes for the ecology to respond.

Cultural heritage impacts predicted by the SEA for the second cycle RBMPs have been avoided or mitigated in almost all cases.

4.1 Updates to the RBMPs

The water body objectives in the second cycle RBMPs are legally binding and will not be subject to change.

The objectives in the RBMP are legally binding and reviewed and, where required, updated as part of each cycle review. Individual elements or water body status objective may change; however, there will not be a significant difference in the overall picture of objectives at an RBD scale or for England.

For the third cycle of RBMPs, there will be changes to the measures designed to move towards these objectives.

90% of measures in each RBMP are to prevent deterioration in water body status and these will not change in the third cycle RBMP.

4.2 Changes to measures in the water company investment programme

The most significant change to the measures in the third cycle RBMPs will result from the price review 2019 (PR19) and the development of the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP). Schemes in the WINEP will be implemented between 2020 and 2024. The review has provided RBMP drivers for greater action by the water industry to improve the environment. As a result of the review there will be an 8% increase in investment being made by the water companies in the environment. Better information available on costs and more certainty about benefits has enabled us to ensure funding is used to achieve the best environmental outcomes. The increased investment will lead to 22 more operational catchments aiming to achieve ‘good’ status objectives instead of less stringent ‘alternative’ objectives.

Water industry funded measures form around 80% of the expected investment in realising RBMP objectives. However, they make up only 20% of measures in the RBMPs.

For PR19, 170 out of 335 catchment economic appraisals were reviewed. The review resulted in 11% of appraisals being updated to achieve a different outcome to that identified in the second cycle RBMP. 8% of catchment appraisal outcomes were changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’. This was due to new evidence that the measures to achieve ‘good’ status were now cost beneficial. 3% of catchment appraisal outcomes were changed from ‘good’ to ‘alternative’. This was due to new evidence that the measures to achieve ‘good’ status were now disproportionately expensive and a new cost beneficial ‘alternative’ was identified.

At RBD level:

• Severn RBD had 50% of appraisal outcomes changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’
• Anglian RBD had 9% of appraisal outcomes changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’ and 9% changed from ‘good’ to ‘alternative’
• Humber RBDs had 8% of appraisal outcomes changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’ and 1% changed from ‘good’ to ‘alternative’
• North West had 3% of appraisal outcomes changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’ and 10% changed from ‘good’ to ‘alternative’
• South West had 8% of appraisal outcomes changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’
• Northumbria had 6% of appraisal outcomes changed from ‘alternative’ to ‘good’
• South East, Thames, Dee and Solway Tweed RBDs had no changes to appraisal outcomes

For the purposes of screening for SEA, the Environment Agency has made the assumption that there is a direct correlation between the proportion of economic appraisals updated between PR14 and PR19 and the proportion of new or changed measures between the second cycle and third cycle RBMPs. This assumption is supported by colleagues in the Environment Agency’s Water, Land and Biodiversity teams.

Improvements to water body outcomes are generally due to additional measures being considered within the cost beneficial bundle. These are mostly water industry schemes that were not previously included in the bundles of measures in 2015. These are mixed in nature, from water treatment works schemes through to catchment level environmental restoration works. In a few cases, measures or schemes that no longer appear to contribute to cost-beneficial good status objectives have been removed from the bundles of measures. Where measures are new or changing for less than 10% of water bodies, they will be considered minor modifications to the RBMPs. On this basis, the water industry funded measures would only result in minor modifications to all RBMPs, except for the Severn RBD.

The Environment Agency has analysed the new WINEP measures to determine if there is a significant change from the previous cycle both in scale and likely significant impact. The results of this analysis follows.

4.3 Assumptions used in the analysis

Investigations have been screened out because the purpose of the investigation is to gain an understanding of the cause and effect of the issue, rather than have an impact on the environment. The Environment Agency can therefore assume that investigations are not likely to result in a significant environmental effect in isolation, or in combination with other proposals, it is not possible to determine what their impact will be at this stage.

Monitoring has been screened out as it is unlikely to lead to significant effects, although it is likely to inform the Environment Agency’s analysis.

Measures associated with avoiding deterioration have been screened out as they are supporting the objectives of previous cycles of river basin planning and therefore have already been assessed as part of the SEA undertaken for the last cycle of plans.

Table 1 – SEA screening analysis and results for PR19 WINEP measures

RBD	Total WFD related measures	Number improvement measures	Number – phosphorus (STW and WWTW)	Percentage – phosphorus (STW and WWTW)
Severn	400	119	87	73%
Anglian	636	210	151	71%
Humber	758	337	168	50%
North West	183	117	62	52%
Northumbria	90	40	26	65%
Solway Tweed	3	3	3	100%
South East	254	75	69	92%
South West	173	73	62	84%
Thames	351	109	73	67%

STW: sewage treatment works, WWTW: waste water treatment works

4.4 Discussion

From the results presented in Table 1, it is apparent that the vast majority of WINEP measures are concerned with water quality improvements associated with phosphorus discharge limits. Phosphorus has been identified and assessed in previous rounds of river basin management planning with measures determined to be environmentally beneficial. Although the new improvement measures will lead to a water quality improvement within the RBD they do not constitute a significant change that requires further assessment from previous cycles of RBMPs.

The WINEP in cycle 2 included investigations and improvements to deliver good ecological status or phosphorus standards. Although the scale of the measure has been modified, the strategic nature of the SEA means that the assessments from cycle 2 remain valid. This conclusion concurs with Natural Resources Wales assessment for the Dee RBMP.

The notable exceptions are the Humber and North West RBMPs which have only approximately 50% of these measures associated with phosphorus limits.

Humber RBD key contributors

Sustainability change (47 measures) – These measures relate to asset management plan (AMP) 7 improvements based on AMP 6 options appraisal. Permit changes would have been subject to an options appraisal which would have assessed the environmental implications leading to an increased ecology score. As the environmental impacts have already been assessed at a lower level, SEA is not required.

Intermittent discharge (74 measures) – This is associated with flow monitoring equipment improvements or a permit level change based on previous monitoring to better understand the impacts and deliver an outcome associated with previous RBMP appraisal outcomes. This is not considered to be a significant deviation from cycle 2.

North West RBD key contributors

Continuous discharge (24 measures) – The majority of which relate to permit limit changes which will be subject to options appraisal. There are 8 new measures from cycle 2. However, the scale of the changes would not trigger SEA and can be assessed as minor modifications.

Intermittent discharge (26 measures) – These measures appear to be permit level changes based on previous monitoring to better understand the impacts and deliver an outcome associated with previous RBMP appraisal outcomes. There are some new measures from cycle 2. However, this is not considered to be a significant enough to trigger SEA.

4.5 Conclusion

New WINEP measures alone do not trigger the need for SEA and will be screened out as minor modifications.

4.6 Changes to measures in the flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) programme

The flood risk management plans (FRMPs) for each RBD are currently in the process of being updated. SEA is being undertaken for the FRMPs and will include the cumulative effects of other plans, including the RBMPs. Any likely significant environmental effects of the FCERM measures will be assessed by the SEAs for the FRMPs.

Natural flood management measures will be incorporated into the FCERM programme and will no longer be a stand-alone delivery programme.

4.7 Changes to measures in the Countryside Stewardship and Environmental Land Management programme

The Farming Rules for Water, introduced in April 2018, may lead to new measures relating to soil and erosion regulation, soil carbon storage, nutrient cycling and raw water quality.

There may be changes in the agricultural sector and land management as a result of EU Exit and the new Agriculture Bill (new Environmental Land Management scheme). Although these changes are not yet fully known, from an agricultural perspective the measures are unlikely to change significantly from cycle 2 and any environmental impacts are considered to be beneficial.

4.8 Changes to measures in the Highways England environment programme

These changes are not yet known.

4.9 Changes to measures in the catchment level government funded improvements programme

Measures for government funded improvements will be updated in line with developing Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Local Integrated Delivery and Nature Recovery Network. These changes are not yet known.

4.10 Changes to measures in the abandoned metal mines programme

These changes are not yet known.

4.11 Changes to measures in the water resources sustainability programme

The development of the new chemicals strategy may lead to new measures in some water bodies. Measures will be updated in line with abstraction reform, including the catchment based approach and developing inter-regional transfers. These changes are not yet known.

5. Likely environmental effects of the changes

Currently, the Environment Agency knows there will be changes to measures for the water industry and FCERM programmes. SEA of the FCERM measures will be covered by the SEAs for the Flood Risk Management Plans. The Environment Agency has little indication of whether there will be changes to other programmes covered by the RBMPs.

The new and changed water industry measures are likely to lead to positive environmental effects overall in the third cycle RBMPs. However, in most RBDs these are not likely to be significant when compared to the likely environmental effects of the second cycle RBMPs.

There is potential for some negative effects on cultural heritage, but these are not expected to be any more significant than those identified in the SEA for the second cycle RBMPs.

There may be some negative environmental effects from increased carbon emission during construction work (for example, construction of new treatment works), but these are likely to be offset by improved performance during operation. At this stage it is not thought that these are likely to be significant.

It is not anticipated that there will be any other significant changes to the measures in the RBMPs.

6. Proposed SEA screening decision

The RBMPs are for the benefit of the environment and the SEA for the first and second cycle RBMPs concluded mainly positive environmental effects. The modifications to the RBMPs will result in more water bodies reaching ‘good’ status and the likely environmental effects are positive.

The Environment Agency’s current view is that the third cycle updates to the RBMPs are unlikely to have significant environmental effects in the following RBDs and could be considered as a minor modification to the second cycle RBMPs published in 2016:

• Anglian RBMP
• Humber RBMP
• Northumbria RBMP
• North West RBMP
• South East RBMP
• South West RBMP
• Thames RBMP

Therefore, the Environment Agency does not propose to undertake a SEA for these RBDs.

The cross border RBMP for the Severn RBD will be led by the Environment Agency. The changes to measures for the water bodies within the area of the RBD which lie in England are considered as a minor modification to the second cycle RBMP published in 2016. As such, the Environment Agency does not propose to undertake a SEA for the Severn RBMP.

The cross border RBMP for the Dee RBD will be led by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) who will screen this plan for SEA. The changes to measures for the water bodies within the area of the RBD which lies in England are considered minor modifications that would not result in significant environmental effects. However, the screening decision will be made by NRW based on the extent of change to the plan across the whole of the Dee RBD.

The cross border RBMP for the Solway Tweed RBD will be led by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) who will screen this plan for SEA. The changes to measures for the water bodies within the area of the RBD which lies in England are considered minor modifications that would not result in significant environmental effects. However, the screening decision will be made by SEPA based on the extent of change to the plan across the whole of the Solway Tweed RBD.

7. Reviewing the screening decision

The Environment Agency will review their screening decision once changes to policies, plans and programmes resulting from EU Exit and new legislation and the influence these changes will have on measures within the RBMPs becomes clear.

They will review their SEA screening decision for each RBMP following their initial assessment under the habitats regulations. If a RBMP is likely to result in significant effects on a European site requiring an appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations, then a statutory SEA will be required.

They will monitor the development of measures for the RBMPs. Where measures for a water body change in the third cycle, they will screen them for significant environmental effects against the criteria set out in schedule 1 to the SEA regulations. If they identify that changes to measures for a water body are likely to have significant environmental effects for the RBD, then they will review their screening decision for that RBMP.

8. Consultation

The Environment Agency is consulting with the following statutory consultees on their proposed screening decision:

• Natural England
• Historic England
• Natural Resources Wales
• CADW
• Scottish Government
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency
• Scottish Natural Heritage
• Historic Environment Scotland

Other organisations and members of the public can also give their views.

9. Send your comments

If you have any comments on this decision, please email RBMPconsultation@environment-agency.gov.uk by 14 May 2021.